In recent years, we developed a new introductory class in my department that is supposed to ease our students into basic rhetorical and communication ideas and give them a foundation for a) analyzing texts, b) writing papers, and c) just kind of providing a basic background of history and oratory. All of that may sound relatively boring, but it really is a great class. My students really respond well to it. I think it’s because for the most part, we don’t do a lot of primary source work in school. So, when my students are presented with the actual words of these historical leaders, they are kind of blown away.
And it is all very new to them, as well. In k-12 we just don’t get a really great history. That’s not the teacher’s fault. It’s an institutional thing. For one thing, most of those teachers probably didn’t have a great history education, themselves. For another, schools are institutional and exist to preserve whiteness, male superiority, and capitalism. But you should still go and take your education seriously. And thirdly, when some enterprising teacher DOES try to challenge the establishment, parents freak out – because they are invested in whiteness, maleness, and capitalism.
This class is, in many ways, an attempt to counter some of that. And I don’t mean it’s a liberal indoctrination class. For the most part, I don’t preach politics, so much as I tell the story of the primary sources. And it just so happens when you are telling the story, and quoting people like MLK, Susan B. Anthory, Russel Means, and Laverne Cox, you’re going to challenge the status quo.
We are in the process of finishing up an exploration of gender and marriage equality. It’s not their favorite part of the semester, and I get why. The material is a bit drier than some other parts of the semester. But I spent some time explaining to them why I think that is important.
For the marriage equality discussions, we focused a lot on legal rhetoric.
To your average undergrad, legal rhetoric is real dull. Hell, to your average anyone legal rhetoric is real dull. It is exacting, logical, dry, and can be plodding and difficult to read. Not a lot of fun to listen to a lecture on.
But the point I was trying to make, is that this class, which is called Communication and Democracy, covers a NUMBER of ways in which democracy has expanded.
We have seen Malcolm X with his vitriolic and impassioned speech. We have read MLK with his soaring rhetoric. And many of the people we read up until now worked outside the law. The civil rights leaders in the US historically did a lot of extra-legal work to make progress. I mean, Letter from the Birmingham Jail was LITERALLY written from a jail cell. Martin Luther King Jr. was a criminal. We don’t do him any favors if we forget that.
But the Queer movement is interesting because while it ostensibly started as a riot, the last few decades have seen a lot of movement through the Courts. Much of the progress of the LGBTQIA+ movement has come through legal means.
That in and of itself is kind of wild. We started decades ago with Stonewall, which was in every way an anti-cop riot. I mean, the Queer movement in America has been anti-establishment from the beginning. So it is kind of fascinating how in the last few years the LGBTQIA+ movement has utilized the very structures of the establishment to advance its cause. This is a really important issue when we ask questions about how do we expand democracy, rights, equality or make change – is the best way to work outside of the law, or within it?
I set up this dichotomy for them because a) I think it is fascinating to see the various ways democracy has expanded and the creative means people have used to secure their rights, and b) because it illustrates that words are powerful almost regardless of their context.
When Edward Bulwer Lytton said “the pen is mightier than the sword” he made a pretty bold proclamation. And I wonder how many of us really believe that?
Was the speech “The Ballot or the Bullet” as powerful as the bullets themselves? It has had staying power. But was it as influential?
It’s an even more interesting question when you consider that “The Ballot or the Bullet,” by Malcolm X, was a direct allusion to Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death.” Most Americans, even if they don’t know Malcolm X’s speech about the ballot, have heard Henry’s cry of revolution. And they have rung throughout history as a powerful call to arms for liberty. When Malcolm X said the same thing the world called him a monster. That in and of itself is a powerful lesson. Our words are racialized. These are two powerful speeches, and for some similar reasons, but also for very different ones, if I can borrow a thesis from my freshman. So not only do the words make a difference, but who says them and when.
Put another way, what has had a more profound impact on the world: the Bible or gunpowder?
I actually think that’s a really interesting question and if you have an answer, I absolutely want to hear it. Leave a comment at kairoticast.com on this week’s transcript page.
It should come as no surprise to you that I think about words a lot. I am constantly writing, so the question of whether something is the right word or conveys the right meaning is a constant one for me. And I speak in front of an audience an average of nine times a week. I don’t think people really think about that part of my job too often. For a lot of people the most terrifying thing they can think of is standing in front of an audience and making a speech. Not only do I do those multiple times a week, it is not even a planned speech, but it is a largely extemporaneous, if not improvised speech, that involves leading a conversation. This is way more intimidating than a TedTalk. This is the Socratic method, baby.
So the right word means everything to me.
I’m reading Babel by R.F. Kuang right now, and it has me thinking even more about words than usual. It’s a great story, but even more than that it is a love letter to language. To languages from all parts of the world. And one of the things that drew me to the book was the claim on the back that all translation is a betrayal.
I Was. Gobsmacked.
But I am reading this at exactly the right time. Because words are on my mind. And Kuang’s argument is basically what I’m getting at: when a speaker or writer makes an effort to be heard, they choose specific words to make their meaning known. When I lead my students in a conversation, I am careful about what I say and how I say it. When I write, be it creatively or academically, I am choosy about what I say. If a translator tried to convey my meaning, how would they do it? It is nigh impossible to get the exact meaning from one person in their context to another.
Words and meaning are so specific. And yet we tend to be so careless with them.
This book also speaks to the very question I am asking about how to make change – within the system or without? Because one of Kuang’s question in the book is whether revolution requires violence. That is, admittedly, a more extreme question than the one I posed to my students. But it is kind of the natural progression. Does change happen because people ask nicely? Well, historically, no. In “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” MLK talked about how even a peaceful protest is designed to create so much tension it causes a crisis in a community, so those in power HAVE to do something. That’s a peaceful protest! It’s supposed to be a crisis! And then I think of MLK’s “On Vietnam” speech where he described his anguish over being asked how he could preach non-violence when America was using such extreme violence to solve its problems. And ultimately, he kind of decided he couldn’t.
The questions of how we make change is really important to me. Do the words we speak make a difference? Are actions required? What kind of actions? And if the words we speak matter, what specific words?
I was involved in a discussion the other day about using AI for grading. And I’ll be honest, the idea seemed preposterous to me. And a few of my English professor friends chimed in and said it could be useful for a first pass to comment on things like grammar and spelling. I didn’t say anything, but in my mind, I was thinking, well, that’s the difference.
When I am grading, I definitely grade for clarity. I need your paper to be readable. And if there are constant, consistent problems I will comment on them, because, you know, if you’re writing in a professional space someday conventions will matter.
But my approach to grammar has changed quite a bit over the years.
I don’t spend a lot of time correcting grammar anymore. Because I have come to learn that grammar is colonial. “Proper” grammar and spelling has been used for hundreds of years to make sure that only white men were allowed into the halls of leadership. And I’m not interested in being that kind of gatekeeper anymore.
But once again, it got me thinking about the power of the words we wield. We assume they convey meaning not just about what we are talking about, but about ourselves.
I know that’s all my colleagues are getting at. They want their students to be welcomed into all the spaces where things like spelling and grammar matter. And ultimately, they might be doing more of a service to their students than I am. But I just have this nagging voice in my head that says just because colonial Britain did something in a particular way, doesn’t mean I have to make my students do that. I’m already forcing a particularly western tradition down their throats by teaching them rhetoric. I need to show SOME grace.
Let me put it another way:
I have a very bright kid. They are as likely to say the ice “sublimated” as they are to say it “disappeared.” And they do that not to show off. They do that because they mean a very specific thing. The ice behaved in a specific way, and they want to describe that. So, they choose the most accurate word. The issue being, not everybody knows that word.
And because they have such a command over the language, you might assume certain things about them. You might assume things about their background, their education, their parents, or their socioeconomic status. Because the right word is telling. It not only describes a situation, but it describes you.
I remember once in one of my classes we were having a discussion on standardized tests. We all had strong opinions. One student went off on the SAT, which, you know, I’m fine with, but they started talking about how the vocabulary section on the SAT was the most pointless thing they had ever done. I mean, what is the point of taking a test on all those words that nobody knows? Many people agreed, and I interjected, “I’m going to disagree,” I said.
“I’m going to posit that the vocabulary section on the SAT is the MOST applicable and useful part of the test.”
They said that was ridiculous. I said, “Okay. You tell me. What are you most likely to need in your every day life? Advanced calculus, or the exact, precise word?”
Their eyes got big. Nobody answered.
Let me be clear about this – I am not saying people shouldn’t study calculus. For some people, it is absolutely essential to their everyday lives. I get that! But for most people, it’s not something that comes up on the daily. But everybody talks. Most people write. It’s not a matter of which skills are most valuable. It’s just a matter of what is most commonly practiced. So, please. Pay attention in calculus. Mathematical reasoning is really important. But, you know, acknowledge the other stuff, too.
When I taught my students the concepts of the 2nd and 3rd personas I used a professor as an example. I said, let’s say a professor walks into this class and says he is going to teach you about a particular rhetorical concept. He then proceeds to talk for 40 minutes about things which you absolutely do not understand using words you have never heard. He uses only examples from classical Greek and Roman times, which you are not familiar with, and talks way above your head the whole time. You get the distinct impression that he’d much rather be talking to other academics than freshman and sophomores.
What this professor has done is make specific rhetorical choices to denote audiences. This is indicative of the power of words and word choices to support or silence people.
What I mean by that, is this professor made it abundantly clear that he had an ideal audience in mind. In his presentation, he was constructing an audience that was the perfect group of listeners. You could tell from the way he talked that there were certain people he had in mind who he wanted to talk TO. That’s the 2nd persona.
There were also certain people he DIDN’T want to talk to. There were people he wanted to leave out of his audience, or even silence. There were people he just didn’t care to include, and it is clear from his rhetorical choices that he is uninterested in making efforts to expand his ideal audience for them. That’s the 3rd persona. The PROBLEM is, that in this scenario the “othered” audience, or the audience he is specifically leaving out, is ACTUALLY the audience he is talking to!
What I mean is this – he is making a presentation specifically geared for experts. That’s who he is aiming his words at. But he is talking to a room that is specifically NOT a room of experts. He walked in with a goal of leaving his audience out of the conversation. That is a) an example of how we rhetorically construct audiences, and b) an example of how powerful our rhetorical choices are.
This hypothetical professor let the audience know, using his words, that they didn’t mean a lot to him. He didn’t have to outright say it, but the message was clear. He was silencing the very people he was speaking to. And we know this because of the WAY he was speaking.
Words matter.
We’ve covered a lot of disparate ideas today, but the big question is, “what is the power of a word?” Can a single word make a difference? Can it empower someone? Can it silence someone? Can a word cause change in the world?
There’s an ongoing argument in my field as to whether rhetoric is material. Does rhetoric cause physical change in the world? I’ve been in this discipline for about two decades and I don’t know if I have a good answer. I want it to be that case the words change things.
So I guess I’ll just keep trying to make it so.
Music in this episode is “Fearless First” by Kevin MacLeod at https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3742-fearless-first.
Leave a Reply