On Rhetoric and the ‘So what?’ Question

 The only conference table in the English Department sat in a cramped space that some administrator once went to great pains to make look professional. This effort, while valiant, was ultimately hopeless. One of the handful of “statesman” scholars in the field of rhetoric sat at the head of the table; a classical rhetoric and composition heavy who was also my committee chair. Flanking him were two hard-hitting up-and-comers, one an applied linguist and the other a visual rhetorician. Lots of brain power in the room, and varying (if I were braver, I’d even say conflicting) opinions were flying.

One might say I planned it perfectly. Since all involved loved talking rhetoric, but none could agree on what should make up the field, my committee debated throughout my MA defense. It wasn’t until the last ten or so minutes that any really tough questions were heaved in my direction. Instead, it was a conversation, as these things are meant to be, but the zeal and superior knowledge of my mentors made me the quietest participant.

The classicist was also a political economic. He saw language as playing a major role in (you guessed it) hegemony. The only problem (said the applied linguist) is that such a vast base must be built to understand the issues at hand, that really what he studies is a kind of cultural studies or political science. Indeed, it almost seems as if the study of language is secondary when you have to understand the economic.

There’s a webtext that does a great job of explaining Victor Villanueva’s views on political economy and rhetoric (http://www.meatjournal.com/2_2/villa1.html). He states in this piece that:

“The role of rhetoric, according to Burke, is the demystification of the ideological. The role of political economy is the demystification of relations tied to the economic. If we’re to understand where we are and what is happening to us—and maybe even to affect it—we need the tools provided by both. But we think of “economics” as a numbers game. And we humanities types tend to fear numbers.”

The idea that he posits above would seem to support what I see as a problem with political economy as a field of study for rhetoricians. How, after all, can we be language experts if we have to become economics experts? Why not just study politics and economy? Villanueva clearly saw me coming, as he posits that “we might fear a little less if we come to regard economics as yet another instance of the rhetorical.” Diedre McClosky, who Villanueva goes on to quote, tends to agree, and so do I.

Think about our context as Americans. Privilege normalized. Whiteness normalized. From our framework, it’s common to be lacking in the language skills required to accurately have a conversation about the third world. The fact that we even have a term like “Third World” is telling. There’s a big difference between the culture and experience of a woman in Jamaica, and a man from rural China, and an infant in Tanzania.

Sure there’s knowledge beyond language craft. And a lot of it, at that. But if we’re going to study language, we’d better do it right. So on rhetoric and the ‘so what?’ question: read about politics and economy, but don’t forget to loop back to language. As rhetoricians, if we think this is the root of understanding social issues, we can’t forget to devote necessary space to it.

What do you think?