You say Personal, I say Political…Let’s call the whole thing off

“The personal is political” mantra raises itself again in this week’s readings and Sally Miller Gearhart weighs in with another (and contrasting) perspective from both bell hooks and Sonia Johnson.

Whereas hooks believes that merely articulating one’s own socio-political experiences does not necessarily provide insight into the big picture, and Johnson cuts off all connection between her own experiences and her teaching and working, Gearhart finds a convincing middle ground that seems to be socially effective and self-empowering.

We see a transformation take place in Gearhart’s rhetorical options over the years. Once a militant public activist, an epiphany caused her to believe that the intention to change someone else does violence to that other person, and therefore is wrong. Yet even with that belief, she is not content to remove herself entirely from society.

Among her methods for social change is re-sourcement, “the transformation of the current system through a collective sharing of re-sourced or healing energy among feminist women. This option allows for the enactment of new values, new ways of understanding and new ways of viewing reality…” (FRT, 271).

She notes the connection between women – in fact among all of nature – and believes that the “presencing” of women with each other creates energy that can be shared by rhetors. From there, “the collective aspect of re-sourcement transforms the individual experience of cosmic energy into a political force” (FRT, 271).

Gearhart emphasizes the importance of renewing the self by being true to women’s ways of knowing and communicating, yet she also sees that such an effort can have strong ramifications out in the world.

All three cause us to reconsider our notions of rhetorical space, or where as rhetors we choose to make a difference or not to take action: within, without or both.

Language, power, work, sacrifice

Sonia Johnson gives us excellent insight into the use of language to create power – or rather, the perception of power it can create. (Maybe this is what Foucault is saying somewhere in there…) She explains, “when men name patriarchy powerful, women believe themselves to be powerless because they do not behave as men behave” (FRT, 302). She wants women to learn that their power comes from within (like Starhawk), and underscores the importance of making change in ourselves, today, to make things happen, to make the women’s world reality.

However, she is opposed to working or learning because, she claims, such acts are just doing things for the future, and we should be living in and for the present. “Individuals should do exactly what they want at every moment….We must figure out how everyone’s needs can be completely filled without any of us doing a single thing we don’t really want to do, without even the smallest sacrifice” (FRT, 318).

Instead, she advocates gift giving to fulfill needs of others in society. “In the process of gift giving, no one’s needs or desires are compromised, and no one is ‘working’ or striving to meet those needs” (FRT, 319).

Perhaps my definition of a gift is much different than hers, but I fail to understand how Johnson can be so sharply critical of self-sacrifice and work when they can be such an essential part of giving. One can maintain a profound respect for oneself, and still make a sacrifice in order to give to another. Why can’t self-sacrifice be a gift? And what gift doesn’t involve work – and if it doesn’t, is it really a gift or just something being discarded or handed on?

Johnson seems to see self-sacrifice and work as a relinquishing of her power to others. She finds great freedom in being able to just be herself, do exactly what she wants, and not have any responsibility for the feelings, beliefs or behaviors of others. (RFRT, 300). But with such a self-centered perspective, she has isolated herself from family, friends and children in order to remain free of hierarchical relationships and other power structures.

I can appreciate her desire to step away from situations that place her under the control of the patriarchy. But I fear she’s taken this to such an extreme – i.e. her decision never to listen to a man again, including refusing to take questions from men in audiences at her lectures. (which I imagine Booth would be quite disappointed at this blatant refusal to attempt LR). She won’t enter the traditional rhetorical realm because she believes that only legitimizes the patriarchy and therefore, her efforts would be fruitless. But I think by failing to establish a bond with others whereby they are helped or taught or benefit from her work is equally as fruitless.

Listening to our own rhetoric

The readings from Gloria Anzaldua and Kenneth Burke really made me consider the effect of our own rhetoric on ourselves. Traditional rhetoric is so focused on the audience, meaning others or outsiders. Yet these two rhetoricians instead look inward to see the power of persuasion – for good and for bad.

Anzaldua describes the nature of the world with her term of Borderlands, or a state within a person whenever cultural differences exist. With its “constant disorientation” and “psychic restlessness,” (FRT, 106) the Borderlands is an experience of life on the margins. One of the great difficulties for a Borderlands person is she might have many identities, which often cause conflict for those around her. Anzaldua believes the Borderlands can be transcended when “a new mestiza consciousness” is developed (FRT, 109). “It comes from a continual creative motion that keeps breaking down the unitary aspect of each paradigm of culture and identity” (FRT, 109). She recognizes that this is a difficult and painful process, but it is liberating and healing for the self and society. Anzaldua believes that words, specifically metaphors, have the power to make this transformation happen. Because we see ourselves through metaphors, we must cast away the old, dead metaphors and shift to these new perspectives of ourselves.

Burke points out that a key term in rhetoric is “identification,” as the rhetor typically wants the audience to identify with him and his values as he tries to persuade them. Unfortunately, he notes that identification cannot exist without division. “If men were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity. If men were wholly and truly of one substance, absolute communication would be of man’s very essence.” (B & H, 1326). This situation is personified by Anzaldua in her Borderlands persona, where divisions are causing conflict within herself and with others around her.

Burke goes on to discuss the dangers in rhetoric addressed to the individual soul. “A man can be his own audience, insofar as he, even in his secret thoughts, cultivates certain ideas or images for the effect he hopes they may have upon him… an ‘I’ addressing its ‘me’ ” (B & H, 1335). But he warns that there is a danger there, just as a danger always exists of a rhetor attempting some sort of manipulation of his public audience. In this rhetoric directed to the self, there are aspects of socialization, moralizing or trying to match what society is teaching. I think Anzaldua would caution us to be particularly critical and questioning of that which we tell ourselves, especially because it can create the painful situation of the Borderlands persona.

At times I am taken aback by Anzaldua’s writings because she is so harsh. I see now this might be her way of critically engaging in that discourse with the self. For her, allowing the opposite to occur would be the worst of crimes. Burke explains “this aspect of identification, whereby one can protect an interest merely by using terms not incisive enough to criticize it properly, often brings rhetoric to the edge of cunning” (B & H, 1334). Although Anzaldua doesn’t describe the situation in those terms, this is exactly the situation she is trying to transform.

I think Burke provides us with a thought-provoking definition of rhetoric when he writes: “Only those voices from without are effective which can speak in the language of a voice within” ( B & H, 1336).