The Power of the Personal

From many angles, bell hooks reminds us of the power of the personal in rhetoric. And then, just when she had me entranced with this concept, she suddenly kicked the legs out from under it.

Hooks describes the importance of the viewpoints of critical thinkers who have been marginalized by society based on their race/sex/class/etc. She validates their voices and believes they are most justified due to their “passion of experience” that gives us, the listeners or readers, “the most relevant way to apprehend reality.” (83).

Also, hooks lists one of the preferred rhetorical options as confession, or giving testimony. The power of the personal story connected to a political reality can be very effective, she states. [And we can easily see how the personal story, the attraction it has for the public, has been so successfully commercialized by TV talk shows. But those confessions – instead of being libratory or enlightening messages for others – are merely entertainment. “The confession is simply a narcissistic act that turns the voices and beings of rhetors into ‘commodity, spectacle.’ (87).]

Furthermore, she advises us to take what we hear and make it personal for ourselves. She encourages rhetors to choose the option of enactment, by which we act in non-oppressive and non-dominating ways in our lives.

All of these aspects of personal rhetoric work toward achieving hooks’ purpose for rhetoric “to facilitate the eradication of the ideology of domination that pervades Western culture” (93).

But then I also hear a conflicting message from her: that the personal story is not enough, or too superficial to be successful. At one point, she comments how the old slogan “the personal is political” was a way to get women to think that their own experiences of oppression “automatically corresponded with an understanding of the ideological and institutional apparatus shaping one’s social status” (52) And yet, merely articulating one’s own experiences does not necessarily provide insight into that big picture.

Hooks also states, “Personal experiences are important to feminist movement but they cannot take the place of theory” (56). She recalls that white women who led the feminist movement encouraged black women to provide their colorful stories of oppression, but not contribute to theory underlying the movement.

It seems to me that the power of the personal in rhetoric is a great lesson we’ve gained from the development of feminist perspectives in rhetoric. As Foss, Foss and Griffin describe, it was not until feminist rhetorical theory began to develop that anyone seriously took note of a feminine style in discursive modes. This feminine style is characterized, among other things, by “a personal tone, a heavy reliance on personal experience” (21). Other scholars have gone on to examine the growing legitimacy and use of this style by both women and men – perhaps because of its success?

But based on hooks’ comments, I am left with a sense that although she respects its efficacy in persuasion, the personal in rhetoric is not enough for the long haul in feminist movement.