Speaking near by

A lot of common ground can be found between Trihn T. Minh-ha’s rhetorical option of speaking near by and Wayne Booth’s listening rhetoric. Minh-ha’s work is grounded in a desire to open up perspectives and expand viewpoints, which is what Booth also believes could be accomplished with true rhetoric, especially in the realms of politics and the media.

Speaking near by involves listening and honoring the voice of another – “a speaking that does not objectify, does not point to an object as if it is distant from the speaking subject or absent from the speaking place. A speaking that reflects on itself and can come very close to a subject without, however, seizing or claiming it. She explains that it is not simply a rhetorical technique but ‘an attitude in life, a way of positioning oneself in relation to the world” (FRT, 247).

In his optimistic way, Booth would like to see political leaders adopt such a stance, especially while engaging in the current war rhetoric. However, in our American/global society, such a move ends up being seen as a weakness.

In her revolutionary way, Minh-ha points out that there is strength in openness to others and that differences do not threaten one’s own identity. “Interdependence cannot be reduced to a mere question of mutual enslavement. It also consists in creating a ground that belongs to no one… Otherness becomes empowerment” (RFRT, 218). I imagine Booth would like to see much of the current rhetrickery taken to that level of a ground that belongs to no one.

It’s likely that Booth operates a little too much “inside the system” for Minh-ha, but I think she would appreciate that Booth’s work can be based upon her theory.

Kramarae and Berthoff

Some of the feminist philosophy and theory of Cherise Kramarae led me back to statements I found in the writings of Ann Berthoff (my Name That Rhetorician for this week), despite the fact that Berthoff never labels herself as a feminist, and her academic work largely preceded the feminist movement in the U.S. (she started teaching around 1950).

Berthoff’s concepts of language and “the making of meaning” indicate a similar perspective to Kramarae. Kramarae’s definition of feminism includes the need for “a critical analysis of the ideas, practices and institutions of men, yesterday and today” (FRT, 53). Berthoff sees this idea of critical thinking – and our need to engage students in the practice – as vital to the writing process. She believes that writing or making meaning with language involves observing, listening, reading and re-reading, learning to interpret, etc.

The two rhetors also seem to share the perspective that a social connection is essential for language. Kramarae’s worldview includes the concept of interconnection (FRT, 48), which is “an understanding of the interdependency of all Earth’s lifeforms and that all is relationships.” Berthoff has been a major advocate of the idea that the meaning of language is socially constructed, and she even notes “meanings are relationships… Language is our readiest means of making meaning.”

I would like to question how this idea of relationships or interconnection fits with Kramarae’s focus on technology. Her work questions how women can access it/use it/control it to their benefit. Since her article was published in 1989, I would be interested to hear her comments on today’s techno-society dominated by the Internet, distance education classes and blogs like this. She notes that “the new technological devices may not be the best for our needs” (RFRT, 37), and she believes women need to have a voice in the creation and application of technology.

Here I wonder if technology and this true interconnection are always compatible. Kramarae states that “communities are created where psychological and physical ‘distance’ is reduced and where there is the potential for making real connections.” (FRT, 48). Yet it seems that much about technology is impersonal, and the chance to make that connection is lost. For instance, are students really satisfied with an class via the Internet, or would they gain much more by attending class in person? Making meaning, observing, listening and interpreting take on such different (maybe limited) definitions when they take place via technology. Both women write with such a passion for their work and personable-ness for others, and I can see how that could easily be diluted through technology.