"Those of us charting historical maps know that we cannot tell the 'truth,' that no one map can ever tell the truth, that our traditional foundations are
shaky, that maps are neither stable nor coherent, and that the notion of
capturing any 'reality' rings of empiricism, positivism, and naivete. Yet we
cannot completely separate ourselves from writing or from reading these
histories, these stories."
In your opinion, how effective is this "mapping" process for our understanding of rhetorical history? Is the risk of unintentionally bending history's story too great, or is it worth trying to piece together the fragments despite this possibility? Does the ancient, less mapped narrative of upper middle class white men serve as more of a tool or a hindrance to this process?
No comments:
Post a Comment