When reading The Uncivil Tounge: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality, the authors brought up some pretty controversial points. They disagree with the idea of civility being the correct initial means for discourse on major issues. The authors wrote "Civility, in short, should not be advocated as a stance for feminists or others struggling for change. Although beyond the scope of this brief response to present a complete theorization of when and under what conditions invitational, civil discourse provides an ethically desirable stance, we have attempted here to posit equality as the necessary prerequisite (not outcome) for a productive invitational, civil discourse" (Lozano and Cloud, 224). Rightly so, it's a much more aggressive and demanding guide to approaching discourse over issues regarding difficult topics.
This stance reminds me a lot of the George Floyd riots and looting in 2020. While many people argued the people involved's incivility was not only unproductive, but a setback, they argued they were forced to result to violence to get the attention they needed for the cause. They said we've tried to be civil and peaceful and it wasn't working, so this is what we have to result to. And look- it got national recognition for weeks towards the Black Lives Matter movement. Civility would not suffice until equality was as Lozano and Cloud mentioned, the prerequisite to discussions surrounding race.
Lozano, Nina M and Cloud, Dana L "The Uncivil Tounge: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality" Routledge April-June 20092005)
No comments:
Post a Comment