Blog Post 3: 10/4

     I feel that the piece by Nina et. al: The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality is effective in clearing up the aspects of invitational rhetoric and how rhetoric may be used for progressive ends within a culture of power and domination. One difficulty which I had grappled with during this week's readings is the claim that all non-invitational rhetoric within our present culture of domination is coercive or controlling. The excerpt in Foss & Griffin, which claims that telling a student "she ought to take a particular course" (3) is an attempt by the rhetor to gain a rush of momentary power and a feeling of self worth over another by influencing their will. Although I do agree that it is incumbent on those of us benefited by privilege to examine our statements critically, and not seek to gain power over others through rhetorical means, I feel that the specific example given ascribes more malice and active paternalism than would be present in all of its permutations. The issue I take is that the sentiment expressed seems to indicate that the statement is problematic simply because it seeks to influence the decision of another, ignoring, in this section the key issue of consent. The counter put forward by the authors, and expounded upon in Nina et. al, is invitational rhetoric, a kind of speech which does not ignore issues of power and oppression, while attempts to avoid coercion and exclusion. For the example above, if the student in question had precedingly asked "what class should I take" they are freely consenting to the influence of their action by others. The issue of rhetoric should not be discussed divorced from the issue of consent. The obtrusive statement forces the listener to absorb it without consent, while any change in their action is brought about in a coercive or manufactured manner. 

Nina et. al point out that persuasion, even uncivil or destructive persuasion is necessary, the importance is recognizing what dynamics of power and control already exist and respecting the autonomy of parties within a discussion, but also understanding that often words are not enough. Nina et. al criticizes the "common sense" connection between rationality and civility, deconstructing the idea that in order to participate in discussion, one must not break the existing rules and social constraints of society, and how this limits any but those already in power from being considered "rational." I believe that although the desire to rhetorically dominate exists, it is not the sole driving factor behind persuasion, and the assumption that all attempts to influence others are paternalistic in nature or attempts to dominate them, will prevent us from creating any real change.

Sonja K. Foss, Cindy L. Griffin. "Beyond Persuasion, A Proposal For Invitational Rhetoric" Communication Monographs Volume 62, 2-17

Nina M. Lozano-Reich, Dana L. Cloud. "The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality" Western Journal of Communication Vol. 73, No. 2, 220–226