Quote: Why, then, should we continue to write histories of rhetoric when both writing and history are suspect? when the past wasn't really "there"? or when we agree that there was a past but not what the past really was?
Question: How should we read rhetorical history to best understand it? Should we resist the Paternal Narrative as Bizzel states, or read it through the lens of a white upper middle class man, as Welsh suggests?
I believe rhetorical history should be read with the intent of resisting the Paternal Narrative. While our scope of rhetorical history may be limited by the small scope of higher social standing and restricted sexes and cultures, we can essentially try to fill in those gaps through comparison to applicable works. We can broaden the limits beyond just the category of upper middle class men into a more inclusive and whole level of understanding.
ReplyDeleteI questioned this thinking as well. History is known to be "written by the victors" but it always comes across as being written by the white upper middle class men as you put it. I would no go as far as Bizzel puts it but I would say that it is important to fine comb through our history. It's cliché but there are 2 sides to every story so being aware that we may not be getting a full story and trying to find a much as we can about the other side to get a better understanding of our history.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky issue to address. I personally believe we as readers, students and intellectuals need to find our own truths within what has been recorded about our pasts. Although the majority of our history is written by the elite matriarch, this still offers insight about that particular subset of people and how they interact with other branches of society. Nevertheless, these 'facts' that have been preposed throughout history should be taken with a 'grain of salt', if you will, and compared with a wide variety of outlooks to provide for a more well rounded personal understanding of what may actually be true.
ReplyDelete