Cultural Rhetoric Synthesis

Within the field of rhetoric, many scholars have advocated for an expansion of the method of rhetoric to include stories (Royster 2023; Powell et al. 2016). Stories require narrative, and narrative requires perspective, but perspective is all relative. It is based on who is telling the story and who is receiving the story. Rhetoric is relative as well; it also requires stories. The expansion of rhetoric requires perspective; it requires a diverse narrative. As defined in Octalog III, “The field of rhetoric has historically been defined by competing visions of language and education”(Octalog 2011). How rhetoric is perceived is based on many factors: language, education level, culture, storytelling, narrative, and tradition, etc. In this paper, I plan to answer the question of how various scholars have addressed the method of story in rhetoric. And even further, asking, how might the field of rhetoric continue to be expanded to account for these stories? If we base rhetoric on narrative and storytelling, then we can define rhetoric as a theory that holds many different shapes. It's no longer single-dimension; with the power of stories, rhetoric becomes multi-dimensional. 

Rhetoric has no one true definition. Though the theory of rhetoric can be based on language, its basis has always been all forms of communication. As defined in How Many Rhetorics?, "Rhetoric is rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic and continually born anew: the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols"(Burke 1950). The author examines the role of both rhetoric and language. The study of language, the origin of language, and how we use it today in modern society. Language can also be seen as the basis of narrative, as well, how these stories have been and are being told over time. Without language, there would be no rhetorical analysis to study. Similarly, without language, there would be no stories to tell. These two factors ride in tandem; one cannot pedal without the other. 

The basis of stories comes from cultural identity. How the story is told might be perceived as influenced by various cultural identities. Bridging the gap between rhetoric and culture is the starting point to understanding where these stories come from and their importance. When examining a culture’s role in the expansion of rhetoric, the author of Interfacing Cultural Rhetorics: A History and A Call defines them as such, “The study of cultural rhetorics is often formulated as an interrogation of both culture and rhetoric; thus, this inquiry understands constructions of culture and rhetoric as interdependent rather than stable categories” (Cobos, et al., 2018). With this definition of culture, we can now expand to the narrative that cultural rhetoric brings to stories and vice versa. The power of rhetoric is quite similar to that of storytelling. The differences in voices and language are what make these methods of storytelling interchangeable. Without diversity, the cultural rhetorics that make up stories would be ‘stable,’ as described above. 

Unfortunately, in modern society, there are many barriers that influence “accepted” forms of communication, stories, and consequently keep “improper” language out. Male vs. Female language, Black English vs. White English language, Republican vs. Democrat language, American vs. Foreign language, and the list goes on and on. In the essay Disciplinary Landscaping, or Contemporary Challenges in the History of Rhetoric, the author expands on the idea of the expansion of language in terms of rhetoric: “What if I started a rhetorical interrogation consideration of more southern territories, with a focus on women, with the possibility that eliteness may or may not hold its viability variations in rhetorical performance?” (Royster 2003). Royster then ponders the question, what if we expanded the field of rhetoric to stories told by new voices? For example, there was a time when the female voice was never heard, same as the speech of foreigners. In her book, La Frontera, The New Mestiza, author Gloria Anzaldua talks about the importance of her language and how it directly impacts who she is as a person and a woman. She speaks on the struggles she faced regarding language barriers between her and the world around her, but she never shies away from them. Language is always expanding; these languages help us tell our stories and, therefore apply the rule of rhetoric to those stories. In her analysis, she brings her own stories into the conversation to talk about the importance of language when talking about rhetoric. She explains, “So if you want to really hurt me, talk badly about my language. Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity; I am my language. Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself”(Anzaldua, 1987). We all have our languages and our tongues; we all speak, and now we have created a field where we are able to analyze that communication and read those tongues in a deeper sense. Language showcases our culture, our similarities, and our differences. Anzaldua speaks on the importance of bringing one’s language into the field of rhetoric and the analysis of certain scholarly pieces. The expansion of different languages can be held as an example for the further expansion of rhetoric as a whole. An essay mentioned in Rhetoric and Narrative, The Problem of Speaking for Others, written by Linda Alcoff, states, “People speak from specific positions of class, race, gender, culture, and ability, and a person’s position cannot be assumed in advance. Additionally, people in privileged positions speaking for historically oppressed peoples often make matters worse, counterproductively perpetuating oppression”(Alcoff, 1991). The idea of where our stories come from can be found based on many factors she listed above. These issues can be seen as oppressive traits that contract the field, or they can be seen as progressive factors showcasing our differences. 

The issue with expanding the field of rhetoric is based in the heart of society. Rhetoric is unable to grow and expand culturally because of people’s narratives on specific cultures and communities. Therefore, society's role in rhetoric is something that should be looked at more closely. In the chapter Rhetoric and Narrative, the author examines this interface of ideas further. “Some narratives originating from cultural contexts or time periods that are distinct from our own may give us the impression that there is something timelessly true about the values espoused, others may feel alien to us because the context is so starkly different from the one we inhabit”(Hallsby, 2022). Speaking in rhetorical terms, one must understand the context of the narrative, the who, the what, the when, etc, to understand the rhetoric of that narrative. If we can focus on just the starting point, just the story, one might define it as such: “...the values of a story must align with (or noticeably depart from) recognizable public morals. There should be a shared sense that the values captured by a narrative also resonate with or challenge the kinds of values that are shared by a wider group, or public, to which the reading/watching/listening audience belongs”(Hallsby, 2022). Noticing the author’s claim that to create a powerful story or narrative, the moral of said story must be aligned or misaligned with the audience’s morals. A narrative or a story impacts the audience differently, just as the narrative of a rhetorical piece can have different impacts on the audience. 

Royster (2003) argued that biases regarding the stories we tell about rhetorical history can be narrowed down to the origin of the story. Similarly, the origin stories of rhetoric can impact the overall view of the field of rhetoric. To understand an argumentative piece of rhetoric, the field has molded its origin to something that the audience has experienced, so they can relate to the piece better. But while doing this, society is subconsciously taking away from the true experience of the story, the true language of the story, and the overall narrative of its originality. Consequently, the rhetoric of the narrative is then stripped away, and biases are subconsciously placed on the stories themselves. As Cobos argued, this action can cause the field of rhetoric to remain stable, unable to expand from its origin. This origin can be defined as a persuasive tool to argue the politics of white European males. Because of this origin, the perception of the field itself has little room to grow and expand. Scholars quoted in this essay specifically have tried to shift the narrative and are still trying to apply their own stories to this expansion. But society tends to shut down stories if they are not from a white man’s point of view; this is not an opinion but simply a fact. This, therefore, limits minority languages in the field of rhetoric. 

In conclusion, stories play an integral role in the expansion of the field of rhetoric. Scholars have used the power of stories to expand their own knowledge of rhetoric and culture. The writing field has become much more diverse because academia can use cultural stories as a scholarly basis for teaching. Using language to further analyze how rhetoric affects all societies, not just the ones that we are a part of. Using perspective to expand our understanding of the cultures around us. And using culture itself to further our stories and theories regarding rhetoric in comparison to the world around us. In this essay, I have provided five different sources that prove so, but I could go even further and find many more sources that examine similar questions. Stories and rhetoric have begun their journey to mesh as one unit. Our stories impact our narrative, and our narrative impacts our rhetorical perspective. 

Bibliography

Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands La Frontera: The New Mestiza.

Booth, W. C. (n.d.). Chapter 1: How Many Rhetorics. In The Rhetoric of RHETORIC (pp. 3–22). essay.  

Burton, V. T., Dolmage, J., Enoch, J., Jackson II, R. L., Mao, L., Powell, M., Walzer, A. E., Cintron, R., & Vitanza, V. (2010). Octalog III: Politics of Historiography in 2010. 

Cobos, C., Rios, G. R., Sackey, D. J., Sano-Franchini, J., & Haas, A. M. (2018). Interfacing Cultural Rhetorics: A History and a Call. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07350198.2018.1424470

Royster, J. J. (2003). Disciplinary Landscaping, or Contemporary Challenges in the History of Rhetoric. 

Paup, E. B., Flores, C. A., Jones, S. E., Martínez, D. I., McGowan-Kirsch, A. M., Mejía, R., & Hallsby, A. (2022). Chapter 11: Rhetoric and narrative. Reading Rhetorical Theory. https://open.lib.umn.edu/rhetoricaltheory/chapter/rhetoric-and-narrative/