Blog Post 3
Emma Martin
One would think that using civilizing strategies and invitational rhetoric is the correct way to approach issues or conflict but according to Nina Lozano-Reich and Dana Cloud in their article, The Uncivil tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality, it’s not. I never really thought about how using civilizing strategies to solve conflicts is more problematic than beneficial. Lozano-Reich and Dana Cloud make a strong argument about how civil strategies and invitational rhetoric aren’t beneficial in specific situations, such as when one is being oppressed, and I strongly agree with their case. One particular statement that stood out to me was “Civility, in short, should not be advocated as a stance for feminists or others struggling for change” (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 224). Let’s say an individual felt hurt by another's actions, and no matter how they communicated why they were hurt that other person continued to dismiss and ignore them, that hurt individual is soon going to be at their limit and break with emotion because that is natural to humans, we share our emotions when they are stronger than others, and yet would you ask that hurt individual to stay civil? Personally, I wouldn’t, and neither would Lozano-Reich and Cloud. By definition civil means “adequate in courtesy and politeness”, and “Civilizing strategy is a “means to create ethical exchanged in difficult situations” (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 220). I just can’t even fathom how someone could act with politeness when they are constantly harassed and silenced, I think Lozano-Reich and Cloud stated this well when they argued that “it is irresponsible to displace more confrontational models for social change in favor of politics of civility that has been proven to leave those already disempowered in a continued state of conformity, punishment, and/or silence” (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 224). This expands on how much power authorities have over us as people, especially marginalized groups, which explains that those in power will continue to ignore or “enact civilizing strategies to effectively silence and punish” those who are oppressed if it doesn’t impact them personally (Lozano-Reich, Cloud, 224).
Relating to the concluding quote of my last paragraph, I think of examples I witnessed rather than experienced. This includes the 2020 protest after George Floyd was tragically killed. I remember the night it happened because I stayed up watching the cities burn on Twitter. I felt nothing but pain for those who have repeatedly been oppressed, decades have passed and it feels like very little has changed for them. That protest was super beneficial to change and according to history.com it “may have been the largest protest movement in U.S. history and a nationwide reckoning on race and policing”. The actions people took from their pain that night, in 2020, spread across the country, and “more than 2,000 cities and towns in all 50 states saw some form of demonstration in the weeks after Floyd’s death, as well as major cities across the globe. The protests set off a local and national dialogue about the role and budgets of American police departments, as well as intense discussions in schools and corporations about how to end racism and create inclusivity, equality, and equity”. This very real experience shows how civil strategies don’t work and honestly, actions really can speak louder than words. Would our society still be the same if they were to be civil over George Floyd’s death? Already hundreds of other black men have been killed by the police force and people took those civilly, yet nothing changed throughout our systems until people acted against the ethical, civil, and strategic manners, especially to draw attention to them, specifically from those in power.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Civil definition & meaning. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil
A&E Television Networks. (2021, May 24). George Floyd is killed by a police officer, igniting historic protests. History.com. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-floyd-killed-by-police-officer
Lozano-Reich, N. M., & Cloud, D. L. (2009). The uncivil tongue: Invitational rhetoric and the problem of inequality. Western Journal of Communication, 73(2), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856105
I completely agree; something I also struggled with when reading about invitational rhetoric was how invitational rhetoric (while ideal), is not realistic for those being oppressed/marginalized to engage in. It simply does not work, because it requires those in power to see those trying to have the conversation as equals. While the government claims that we need to be civil in events that you brought up (like Floyd's murder and the Black Lives Matter protests that happened as a result); it simply isn't enough to change our justice system to help those being oppressed. Even peaceful protests saw an immense amount of control from the police and even violence. In disregarding the desire to always spring to invitational rhetoric first, we can see actual results and attention from those in power by reminding them that we as the people have collective power through protests, boycotts, sit-ins...etc.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your blog post. I agree with the realities of invitational rhetoric. I think that your example of the George Floyd protests in 2020 was perfect when looking at how invitational rhetoric is not always realistic. I also watched the protests through Twitter and had the same emotional response. Civility has proven to not always be the best option, especially when it came to the protests in 2020. I don't think that any discussion about police reform would ever have happened if everyone were to choose to act civil during that time.
ReplyDelete