|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2007D1VidaliD.1: Speaking the Body: Marginalized Identities and Performative Rhetorics By Amy Vidali Amy.Vidali@cudenver.edu Overview In this panel, the speakers focused on how rhetoric is performed by (female) bodies; how (ritual) performative rhetorics invite discussion of bodily identities; and how bodies (with disabilities) are rhetorically animated by others. The diversity of contexts addressed – historical, pedagogical, political – led to exciting intersections of these seemingly different talks. “'We Must Not Say It in Words:' Embodied Rhetorical Silence in the Nineteenth-Century Delsarte Performance.” by Lisa Suter Lisa Suter focused on Delsarte performance, a system of oratory originally developed in the early 19th century to improve the speaking and performing abilities of actors, singers, preachers, and politicians. In her talk, Suter suggested that investigating Delsartism invites consideration of the paradox of women studying oratory while performing silently, and the degree to which this rhetorical act can be empowering. Originally created by Françoise Delsarte (a singer and later a teacher), Delsartism eventually diversified and came to refer to a variety of performing styles, academic interests, and popular beliefs. Suter noted that with the help of his student, MacKaye, Delsartean theory was translated and widely distributed in the U.S at the turn of the century, primarily to white, middle-class and upper-class women enrolled in women’s colleges and seminaries. Delsartism is characterized by a focus on physical delivery and self-improvement, and Suter noted that such performances included “living pictures” where performers did not move and “harmonic exercises” designed to improve control in oration. Suter argued that consideration of Delsartism encourages a rethinking of the rhetorical role of silence (citing Cheryl Glenn and others), including the possibility of female empowerment via silence and the multi-modal/rhetorical nature of silent delivery. While Suter focused on the history of Delsartism, her talk suggested that a return to these lost – and notably female – rhetors is crucial to understanding the current rhetorical status of silence. “Ritual Pedagogy: Using Performative Rhetoric in the Composition Classroom” by Helane Adams Androne Adams Androne began by orienting the audience to ritual pedagogy scholarship, including work by Catherine Bell and the work of Robert McCauley and Thomas Lawson. She then modeled the pedagogy that was the focus of her talk, moving about the room while the audience played the role of “students.” In the exercise, she had us close our eyes, and with a measured voice, asked us to remember a moment that shaped how we imagine our identities. She continued to ask questions, having us individually build and silently modify our experiences. When the short exercise was over (it was shorter than it would have been in a real classroom), Adams Androne explained that this is the beginning of a larger process she uses in her classroom where students reflect (as we did), write their experiences (anonymously), and then perform each other’s stories. Ritual pedagogy urges attention to events associated with birth, death, and transformation, and these themes arose in the examples Adams Androne provided from her open access campus. She noted that this sort of storytelling strengthened class dynamics, and her talk suggested that performance theory has much to lend to understandings of narrative and the composition classroom. Though not mentioned by Adams Androne, this talk lends a thoughtful twist to current pedagogical approaches focused on the ways printed narratives are interpreted into other media (such as movies), as her presentation suggested that students’ stories are a rich textual resource in studying and teaching textual interpretation. “Performative Rhetoric and Disabled Bodies: The Terri Schiavo Case” by Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson thoughtfully explored civic discourses surrounding the Terri Schiavo case, debated in the courts for two years and settled in 2005. After summarizing the “objective” facts of the case (on which there is little agreement), Lewiecki-Wilson suggested that Schiavo became the “object of a proxy war” between liberals and conservatives that elided the views of the disability community (who were themselves divided, though often along different lines). Lewiecki-Wilson specifically mentioned Not Dead Yet, which asserts that a life with a disability and assistance is a life well worth living, and she emphasized that those who do not speak and have significant cognitive impairments remain part of rhetorical communities. Lewiecki-Wilson claimed that in attempt to preserve/defend “choice,” many liberals sided with the initial Florida court decision regarding Schiavo (which ruled that her feeding tube be removed), though this rhetorical alignment ignored the ways that liberals typically align with federal, not states’, rights. Similarly, while conservatives claimed to protect the life of Schiavo, these groups have typically done little to support issues related to disability and other vulnerable subjects. Lewiecki-Wilson suggested that ableism is at work in the Schiavo case, as disability perspectives were excluded by both sides as each construed Schiavo within existing political and rhetorical frameworks which minimized or ignored disability. More provocatively, Lewiecki-Wilson suggested that ableism characterizes the rhetoric of liberal feminism, as while she noted that she supports abortion rights, she worries that over-emphasis on “choice” shifts discussions away from the fundamentally interdependent nature of humans. In the end, she suggested that the Schiavo case challenges our existing rhetorics, which often perceive silence as lack, or worse, silent subjects as impossible rhetors. Comments? |