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.