DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 098 645 CS 500 893

AUTHOR Peat, Stephen D., Ed.; And OthersTITLE Conference in Rhetorical Criticism: Commended Papers

(6th, Hayward, California, May 1, 1971).INSTITUTION California State Coll., Hayward. Dept. of Speech and

Drama.PUB DATE 71NOTE 20p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Communication (Thought Transfer); Debate; *Feminism;

*Persuasive Discourse; Rhetoric; *RhetoricalCriticism; Sex Discrimination; Speech Education

ABSTRACTAt the sixth annual Cal-State Hayward Conference in

Rhetorical Criticism, upper division and graduate students from 11western colleges and universities presented papers on the theory,history, and criticism of rhetoric. Panels of faculty members fromthe same colleges and universities selected the three best papers forcommendation and publication. These papers were then revised and areincluded in this volume. The titles and authors are "Seeds in theGarden of Eloquence: Mr. Spectator on Delivery" by Barbara Gamba,"14th Century Peasant Power: A Contemporary Lesson" by Gwen Lundberg,and "The Rhetoric of Womenss Lib: Too Much Noise" by Deanna M.Spooner. The conference address by Dr. Barnet Baskerville,"Rhetorical Criticism 1971: Retrospect, Prospect, and Introspect," isalso included in this collection. (TO)

U S DE PAR TMENT OF NEAL TMEDUCATION WELFARENATiONIAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION". ..A. .4 .1 Pg.,.

: .k A wi w()Vt..,%, ...*** !-( N.,14.1

NV. %. A OW

A.* t), ***1 %II* 411'41,'** ***4' %At ..

I. I" .,*** 4 6.11

CONFERENCE IN

RHETORICAL CRITICISM

Commended Papers

Stephen D. Peat, Editor

John Hammerback, John E. Baird, Assistant Editors

California State College, HaywardI971

Foreword

Saturday, May 1st, 1971, students and professors from eleven differentcolleges and universities ranging from Wyoming to Washington gathered for thesixth annual Cal-State Hayward Conference in Rhetorical Criticism. Upperdivision and graduate students presented papers on the theory, history, andcriticism of Rhetoric. In the morning, while the Editor-Critic professors silentlyreviewed the papers, the students enjoyed a Readers' Theatre performance"Entertainment in Rhetoric" directed by Dr. Melvin R. White. In the afternoon,the students read their papers to panels, from which the three best papers of theconference were chosen for commendation ar, publication. These papers werethen revised at the suggestion of this volume's editors and are herein included.

The evening banauet held at the Doric Motor Hotel featured Professor BarnetBaskerville, University of Washington, speaking on "Rhetorical Criticism 1971:Retrospect, Prospect, and Introspect." Professor Baskerville's comments werewell received by a full banquet room; the text of Dr. Baskerville's address isincluded in this volume. We are especially grateful to Dr. Baskerville for hisscholarly contributions to the conference and his overall enthusiasm in thisendeavor.

ii

Student and Faculty Participants

STUDENT PARTICIPANTS_

Ellis, DonaldGamba, BarbaraGage. John T.Harvey, Robert C.Hudson, Andrew JacksonLundberg, GwenMartin, Deborah M.Morken, Kristi

PROFESSORS:

Jr.

Pfister, NancianneReid, Mary Jane

Sarant, ChristineSpooner, Deanna M.Steers, Thomas A.

Stevens, PatWilliams, Kathleen Gayle

EDITOR - CRITICS

,1ick. Robert C., University of New Mexicoreeman, William G., San Fernando Valley State College

Fulkerson, Wi:diam Jr., Fresno State CollegeFunk, Alfred. University of WyomingHammerback, John C., California State College, HaywardHennings, Ralph, Fresno State CollegeIrvine, James R., Colorado State UniversityJones, Dennis C., California State College, HaywardKeele, Gary, Calif. Poly., Kellogg-VoorhisKosakoff, Stephen A., Portland State UniversityMohrmann, G. P., University of California, DavisQueary, Part, University of California, Berkeley

DIRECTORS OF THE CONFERENCE

Harold Barrett Stephen D. Peat

iii

Schedule of Events

9:00 Briefing Music Building

9:30 Critics' Silent Review of Papers in Sections

9:30 "Entertainment in Rnetoric" A Readers' Theatre Pi..0 :onDirected by Dr. Melvin R. White

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Presentation of Papers in SectionsPresentationComments of Editor -CriticsDecision for Commendation and Publication

4:00 Reading to Entire Conference of Commended Papers

6:00 No -host social hour: Doric Motor Hotel

7:30 Dinner: Doric Motor Hotel

Master of Ceremonies: Professor John Cambus,Acting Chairman, Department of Speech and DramaCalifornia State College, Hayward

Introducing the Speaker: Professor Harold Barrett,. Department of Speech and DramaCalifornia State College, Hayward

Speaker: Professor Barnet Baskerville,Department of SpeechUniversity of Washington

"Rhetorical Criticism 1971: Retrospect,Prospect, and Introspect"

iv

Contents

ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCEPage

Dr. Barnet Baskerville, "Rhetorical Criticism 1971: 1

Retrospect, Prospect, and Introspect"

COMMENDED PAPERS OF THE CONFERENCE

Barbara Gamba, "Seeds in the Garden of Eloquence: 6

Mr. Spectator on Delivery"

Gwen Lundberg, "14th Century Peasant Power: 9

A Contemporary Lesson"

Deana M. Spooner, "The Rhetoric of Women's Lib: 12

Too Much Noise"

v

RHETORICAL CRITICISMby

Barnet Baskerville

I shcrAd like to appropriate some words of AbrahamLincoln to introduce my remarks to this Conference.They are the words with which he opened a memorableaddress to the Illinois Republican Convention in thesummer of 1858:

If we could first know where we are and whitherwe are tending, could then better judge whatto do and hove to do it

Well, where are we?We are in Hayward. California, at a conference called

to engage in and talk about something we have agreed todesignate as "rhetorical criticism." It is the year 46A.W. (after Wichelns). Surely it was tit% publication in1925 of Wichelns' "The Literary Criticism of Oratory"that marked the beginning of the modern era of rhetoricalcriticism and set in motion a chain of circumstanceswhich resulted in our being here today for this purpose.That essay cut us loose from our colleagues in theEnglish Department and sent us prospecting down sep-arate paths until their rediscovery of rhetoric in the1960's gave promise of bringing at least some of ustogether again. That essay provided a chart to newterritory which was assiduously explored for the nextforty years, and which some think has now been prettythoroughly tracked.

The trail from 1925 s strewn with critical artifacts.There are the three venerable volumes of a History andCriticism of lmerican Public .1ddrss and similar col-lections of critical essays on southern oratory, on theoratory of antislavery and disunion, on American pulpitoratory, and on miscellaneous subjects. There aretheses, dissertations. end journal articles withoutnumber which profess to present "A Rhetorical Criti-cism of . . . " nearly every man who has mounted thepublic platform from Jonathan Edwards to GeorgeWallace. In addition to the critical essays, we now havea rapidly growing body of literature about criticism.Thonssen and Baird's .Sprecit Critic ism. which held thefield alone for nearly twenty years before the appearanceof other books on critical nwthod by Black, Hochmuth,Hillbruner, Cathcart, Nilsen, and others, has recentlyappeared in a second edition an indication that onepublisher, at least, considers the subject a live one.

The journals, national and regional, publish with increas-ing frequency articles offering new "approaches" tocriticism. Convention programs list section meetings oncriticism. Conferences, colloquia, and symposia oncriticism persist (the Hayward Conference is in itssixth year). The published report on the recent NationalProject on Rhetoric will undoubtedly have a chapter oncr it icism.

Where are w!? Well. unless I misread the signs com-pletely, we have entered a season marked by a lushflowering forth of criticism and (especially) criticism ofcriticism a time when everyone who has ever turnedhis attention toward speakers, speeches, and speakingregards himself as an accredited "Rhetorical Critic,"and strives mightily to come up with some tivw critical"methodology," or at least with some authoritative dictaon how the job should be done.

If this indeed he where we are (and I am considerablymore than half serious), the..-1 is it possible to speculateon whither we are tending? At least two tendenciesseem to me clearly discernible.

In the first place, I would call attention to the remark-able expansion of the concept of "rhetoric," and con-sequently of the scope of rhetorical criticism. Oneevidence is a blurring of the distinction between rhet-oric and poetic. Wichelns, you will recall, in pleadingfor a new attitude toward oratory, emphasized the dif-ferences between two kinds of discourse one utilitarian,practical, instrumental, primarily directed toward persua-sion; the other imaginative, mimetic, primarily designedto delight.

This distinction between "the two literatures,"preserved for over twenty centuries, is still made today

perhaps most persuasively by Professor Howell ofPrinceton. On college campuses until quite recentlythe English Department has been the chief custodian ofpoetic discourse; the Speech Department of rhetoricaldiscourse. But the dichotomy is no longer so sharp, not.does it seem quite so important. One breaker of the oldmolds has been Kenneth Burke. Burke defines rhetoricas "the use of language in such a way as to produce adesired impression upon the hearer or reader." Thus,

in Burke's view "effective literature .poetry, fiction,drama' could be nothing else but rhetoric." Burke'sscheme, therefore, seems not to acknowledge allegeddistinctions between rhetorical and poetic discourse.Furthermore, in the field of oral interpretation. TomSloan and others have been advocating a "rhetoricalapproach" to imaginative literature an emphasis uponthe persuasive element in poetry and upon the part playedby the "audience." Wayne Booth, a professor ofEnglish. in his book Hue Rhetoric of Ficti,m argues thatthe novelist whether he realizes it or not performs arhetorical function. And Phillip Tompkins writes in arecent (,)./ article on "The Rhetorical Criticism of Non-Oratorical Works." This blurring of old distinctions,this extension of the terms "rnmoric" and "rhetorical,"has obvious implications for criticism. Where Wichelnsonce protested against the literary criticism of oratorN,we now enthusiastically advocate the rhetorical criticismof literature.

But we must note a much more dramatic expansion ofCie concept of "rhetoric." There are those who wouldextend its realm far beyond discovrxr (of whatever kind)and would have it embrace the persuasive effects of sit-ins. fire-hoses, cattle-prods, and the like. I have hearda prediction that in the f'iture people will persuade lessand less with their words, and more and more throughtheir acts. Recently I was permitted to read the prelim-inary draft of a statement from an important nationalconference which contains this astonishing pronuncia-mento:

We shall no longer assume that the subject ofrhetorical criticism is only discourse . . .

Rhetorical criticism may be applied to anyhuman act. process, product, or artifact which,in the critic's view, may formulate, sustain, ormodify attention, percept ions. attitudes orbehavior.

It proceeds to mention specifically rock music, put-ons,architecture, ballet anything which has a "suasoryeffect" intentional or unintentional With the accep-tance of such a redefinition, the rhetorical critic becomesat a single bound the Universal Man, taking all knowl-edge to be his province.

If you infer from these remarks that I think we are indanger of biting of more than we can conveniently chew,you are right. I take my stand with Professor DonaldBryant in affirming that rhetorical criticism should notstray too Lr fro r.. the world of..4iscourse.. though obvi-ously we often find it necessary to deal with non-verbalmanifestations which accompany, precede, and followdiscourse. If in my subsequent remarks I seem to speakprimarily of the cr it ic ism of public speeches, it isbecause my own interest happens to lie there, and notbecause I wish to exclude or disparage the rhetoricalcriticism of other forms of discourse, spoken or written

novels, satirical essays, poems, such works as Dar-win's Origin of the Species, Tom Paine's The Rights ofVan. or even the McCuffey Readers.

2

In addition to this great extension of our field ofoperations, much of which I applaud, I discern a secondtendency. It is our tremendous preoccupation with andproliferation of critical methods. We derive keen sensorypleasure from uttering that blessed word "methodology."We are sharply censor ious of something called the"traditional" method of criticism. Our conventionprograms proclaim the need for "new critical models andmethodologies." Each new issue of our journals heraldsa fresh "approach" to rhetorical criticism. We should,we are told, adopt a "culture-related methodology," or

toward "an intuitive rhetoric." or engage in.ential, phenomenological criticism," or analyzecomponents of the listeners' perceptual or cogni-

tive reality." We should apply the insights and metitodsof Burke or Richards or Wittgenstein. We have not yetseen the emergence of "schools" of criticism as in oursiF'er field; we are not classified yet as impressionisticcritics, or psychoanalytic critics, or ideological, orhistorical, or existential-phenomenological critics butwe may be on our way.

Of course these safaris into related disciplines fornew methods and techniques are often productive, butunless the new methods can be put to use, unless theproposed techniques become part of critical practice,they can become just so many polysyll^.bic dead-ends.A year ago at the Wingspread Conference I expressed anopinion which I now reiterate: for the past ten yearsour scholarly efforts have got out of balance becauseprescription has outrun performance.

I am impressed by the testament of Malcolm Cowley,who wrote a few years ago in the Saturilul Review:"Although I have been a literary critic for more thanforty years, I must confess that I have not devoted muchtime to the basic theories of *my profession .. . . Insteadof dealing critically with the critical critics of criticism,I have preferred to be a critic of poems and novels ... "Could there be a message here for us?

IIIAnd now, having adumbrated where I think we are and

whither we are tending, it remains for me to venture afew suggestions concerning the immediate future.Lincoln's words are "What to do and how to do it."Perhaps I have said enough already to convey the impres-sion that I think we have been over-concerned with "howto do it" and should get on with the job forthwith. Atthis point in our development as an academic disciplineI think it is more important to ask why than how. Whyare we doing what we are doing? What is the purpose ofall this feverish activity? What is our criticism for?What good is it?

Hopefully we may agree at the outset that the essen-tial purpose of criticism is not merely to illustrate orexemplify the latest "approach," theory, or methodology .

Nor is it even to achieve a moment's superiority by out-alliterating Agnew or cleverly condescending to RichardNixon. Perhaps we may profit from the experience ofcritics in other fields, many of whom have been at this

business nprch longer than we. The ultimate aim ofcriticism, they seem to be to be saying. is inurnration.the providing of insights into the work which will deepenthe reader's understanding and appreciation. Each of ushas gained fuller a ppree iat ion of the contemporarytheatre from the perceptioas of a trained drama critic.Many of us have recently had our eyes opened and ourimaginations stretched by the urbane commentaries ofKenneth Clark's '`Civilisation" series on television.Is it too much to ask that rhetorical critics provide thenational audience with similar insights into speechesand speaking into all kinds of "rhetorical transactions,"formal and informal?

Indeed, there is occasional evidence that some ofus, at least, are doing just that. A participant in thisvery conference two years ago wrote a paper, laterpublished in u estern Sp,ech, on Stokely Carmichael.His thesis: "Carmi..:hael's oratory . . . contains theelements of content, organization, and style that areanalogous to the unique Negro art of jazz." His con-clusion: that white Americans, who in the past havegained insight and empathy for the black man throughthe jazz idiom, may ponder with profit the analogybetween black jazz rausic and black rhetoric. This kindof thing, supported by a careful analysis of the speechesthemselves, seems to me eminently worth doing.

Provocative also is Edwin Black's idea of "TheSecond Persona," the auditor implied by the discourse,"the sort of audience that would be appropriate ro it."In a recent issue of QJ Black subjects the metaphor"the cancer of communism" to close scrutiny, revealingits particular usefulness and appropriateness for spokes-men of the Radical Right. He concludes that

the association between an idiomand an ideologyis much more than a matter of arbitrary con-vention or inexplicable accident. It suggeststhat there are strong and multifarious linksbetween a style and an outlook, and that thecritic may with legitimate confidence, movefrom the manifest evidence of style to the hu-man personality that this evidence projects asa beckoning archetype.

Such critiques as these (and there are more, of course,though not nearly so many as we would wish) hold up awork of practical art to scrutiny, illuminate it, extendour understanding of it, and so deepen our capacity forappreciation.

All this is very well, some of you are thinking atthis point, but are you not forgetting that the ultimatepurpose of criticism is judgment? Is not the critic bydefinition one who makes judgments about better orworse, one who evaluates? Eighteen years ago I wrotean article in which, with considerably more certaintyand confidence than I now feel (or had any right to feelthen) I made the following assertion:

Strictly speaking, analysis is not criticism;synthesis is not criticism. By its very nature,all criticism is judicial.

3

This is not the place to open up that old discus!,Iagain. I should acknowledge, however. that peson,much more distinguished than I have :alien quite thecontrary view. Mr. T.S. Eliot, for example, says of 11:tcritic:

In matters of great importance . . h mils' notmake judgments of worse and ber:er Hemust simply elucidate; the reader will form thecorrect judgment for himself.

Regardless of your position on the judicial functionof the critic, we can probably agree that critics ofspeakers have of late been more prone than is entirelybecoming, to assume the role of judge on ta bench.handing down sweeping pronouncements of guilt andinnocence, success and failure. For example, whilethumbing through the Papers of this conference forprevious years, I came upon a critical essay by an undergraduate student, the first sentence of which is as follows: "Eugene V. Debs, spokesman for revolutionar'.socialism, was a rhetorical failure." An entire speakingcareer is swept by a single stroke into the dustbin ofhistory. Another undergraduate student closes his essaywith this devastating repudiation of a speech acceptingthe Nobel Peace Prize: "Dr. Bunche was a failure."Period. The speech, we are told, "was 'window dress-ing,' not only to the Black Community, but to the worldas well."

One cannot help feeling that a critic has an obliga-tion to know a great deal about Eugene Dehs or RalphBunche about their rhetorical aims and expectations.about the times in which they lived, the subjects theydiscussed, the audiences and the d if ficu:t ies they faced -before he can sustain judgments like those. One needs.in short, to earn the right to judge. Criticism, likespeech-making, is as Lawrence Rosenfield has shownus a reason-giving enterprise. The critic, too, is arhetorician, and he is just as susceptible to extravagantand unsupported generalization as the orator he isjudging. One might go farther and suggest that evt nafter he has earned the right to judge, the critic will hemore gracious (and probably more effective too) if heregards himself as primarily an evaluator of method, adiscriminator among values, and not as a judge on thbench pronouncing the defendant guilty. The discourseand not the discourser; the rhetorical transaction, notthe theta; should be the central focus of the judgmentsmade. In dealing with speakers like Spiro Agnew or RapBrown or George Wallace there is an almost irresistibletemptation to engage in criticism by smart crack. !orespond to the speaker's rhetorical excess with excessof one's own heaping ever more felicitously phrasedabuse upon one'!- vulnerable victim. Emerson has somegood advice for us here, The scholar's task, he says.is to serve as discriminating observer, to poiht out factsamidst appearance. He must declare his belief "that apopgun is a popgun, though the ancient and honorable ofthe earth affirm it to be the crack of doom." The critic

need not banish his victim from civilized society. norblast him from the face of the earth with cleverly-wroughtanathemas. It is, moreover, quite possible to trnpl%judgment through careful analysis. or to present mate-rials and interpretations which will enable a reader toform his own judgments.

I have spoken of the need to earn the right to judge.One way to do this, as I have tried to show, is bybuttressing one's evaluations with preliminary analysisand by providing "good reasons." Another way is bytrying to learn as much as possible about the art one isattempting to evaluate, in this case the art of persuasivediscourse. It is common to find critics dismissed aspeople who have failed at literature or art, and whoconsequently turn to appraising someone else's creativework. I believe it was Channing Pollock who defined acritic as "a legless man who teaches running." And Ionce came upon this oblique comment on criticism:"Said the sieve to the needle. 'You have a hole in yourhead.' "

We need not take too seriously this censure of thecritic as a frustrated. unsuccessful artist; it is perhapsno more than the agonized outcry of a wounded artificer.To shift the focus to our own field, it is doubtless un-necessary that one be a celebrated orator in order tomake competent commentary on another man's speaking.AS Henry Mencken once observed, in rejecting the ideathat a critic must be a practitioner of the specific art hedeals with, "a doctor to cure n belly-ache need not havea belly-ache."

Nevertheless, it is surely not too much to ask thatthe critic of speaking (as well as the critic of otherkinds of discourse) know something of the difficultiesof the art and preferably as the result of actualexperience. The speaker before an audience, the pamphle-teer, any man who seeks to influence others with words,stands in the center of the real world. There are alwayslimitations to what he is able to 0. under the prevailingcircumstances. The critic, nom his sheltered positionon the sidelines, with his "model" of communicationand his "critical methodology" before him, finds it

relatively easy to pass judgment on what should havebeen done. Sometimes in reading student papers andeven the critical articles in our journals, with theirsavage condemnation of individual performers and per-formances, their confident assertions of what Nixonshould have said at Kansas State or what Humphreyshould have told the Democratic convention, one is ledto wonder if the critic himself has ever stood before areal live audience whether he has any clear conceptionof the immense difficulties involved in adjusting peopleto ideas and ideas to people.

If critics of speakers and speeches have sometimesassumes. the role of imperious judge-on-the-bench,handing Jown life and death verdicts, we have also over-played the pedagogical role and overdone the pedagogicalmanner. My colleague Professor Mark Klyn has corn-

4

plained in an essay with which many of you are familiarthat the tendency to blur the distinction between peda-

gogy and criticism "has been both the burden and thecurse of rhetorical critics; they have purchased theteacher's authority at the cost of the critic's freedom."It is no more the task of the rhetorical critic to teachhis readers to make speeches, says Professor Klyn,than it is the task of the critic of literature to teach hisreaders to write stories.

I agree with Klyn that the distinction should be pre-served. Still (as he acknowledges) the two are notunrelated. Criticism can aid pedagogy, and pedagogycriticism. Criticism is a useful pedagogical tool. It isa valuable, yea indispensable, exercise to proceed in asystematic fashion to analyze and evaluate a speaker'sstyle, proofs, organization, "strategies." methods ofpreparation and delivery, etc. Without such training.without the ability to make such painstaking analyses,a critic runs the risk of flights of fancy and impres-sionism. It is well always to keep at least one foot onthe ground.

Let us not despise the pedagogical function of crit-icism. Each new scholar must serve an apprenticeship,learning his craft through classroom exercises, termpapers, theses and dissertations. But we have reachedthe point in time when we should no longer conduct oureducation in public. As a discipline we have passedthrough our period of apprenticeship. I doubt that weshall or that we should publish for general consumptionmany more truncated theses, or for that matter manymore attempts at complete, all-inclusive, cradle-to-the-grave essays of the type that appeared nearly thirtyyears ago in the early Brigance studies. They haveserved their purpose and well but they are behindus. When we write for export, as we must certainlybegin to do, we shall probably eschew such ambitiousattempts to touch all the rhetorical bases in one briefessay, in favor of less global and more focussed, insight-ful observations leading to genuine appreciation. in allthe rich meanings of that word.

In short, we shall be well advised not to confuse theroles of critic -..s- pedagogue. and critic-as-artist. In theclassroom we shall continue to function without apologyas teachers and students. But when we seek to commendthe attention of our colleagues in the academy or of theintelligent reader anywhere, we shall need to adopt asomewhat different stance.

In this connection, it occurs to me that once againwe may profit from the experience of critics in otherfields. We are aware that critics of literature and artsometimes produce writings that are creative works intheir own right. A critic, reflecting upon a work of fineart occasionally manages to create a work of fine art.What begins as a comment on a book or a painting or asonata turns out to be an e..ig:eel essay of some dis-tinction. It seems to me possible that the rhetoricalcritic, reflecting upon a work of practical, instrumental

art, can himself produce a work of practical art thatin dealing with discourse designed to influence humanthought and behavior, he may himself assist in directinghuman thought and behavior through his clarifyinginsights, perhaps in the direction sought by the speakeror writer, perhaps in an opposite direction. In short, asthe literary critic occasionally manages to become acreative Elitist, so the critic oZ persuasive discoursemay become an effective persuader.

IVThe temptation is great to continue indefinitely to

barrage this captive audience with advice on what ascritics you should or should not do, but I must terminatethis much too didactic discourse. I have tried to sug-gest where we self-proclaimed rhetorical critics are andwhither we are tending. I have called attention to awidening of the range of our inquiries and a multiplica-tion of methodologies. I have urged that we devotesome attention to the question of u 1 we are doing whatwe are doing, that we examine the role of the critic andthe function of criticism. I have expressed a personalpreference for the critic as discriminating insightfulobserver over the critic as hanging judge or rule-dispensing pedagogue.

I would venture to say in conclusion that if ou: zrit-icism has fallen short of our aspirations it has not beenfor lack of available critical methodologies. We seem

5

to have an ample supply, for the present at least. IfKenneth Burke's drainntistic pentad is preferred to theclassical categories, it is there to use. If Llo..4Bitzer's perceptive delineation of the rhetorical situ.ition provides a suggestive pattern for discussing dis-course, we can use it. If Thomas Nilsen's notion of theconcepts of man, ideas, and society embodied in aspeech, or Ed Black's "alternate frame of reference" toneoAristotelianism, or Lawrence Rosenfield's dissec-tion of the "Anatomy of Critical Discourse" can beused as handles to take hold of a critical object, so oeit. If the behavioral scientist through his controlledobservations in the laboratory can provide more precisecritical tools, that is all to the good.

But in the end it will be the critic himself and nothis method that will make the difference. Is he a knowl-edgeable, perceptive, discriminating human being whohas earned the right to pass judgment on the productionsof other men? Is he equipped to act as intelligentobserver of the critical object, displaying hidden facets,remarking aspects and implications which may haveescaped less sensitive observers? Can he impart tothe consumers of rhetorical discourse, the listening andreading public, the interpretative clarification andillumination which are so badly needed today? This isa big order. All applicants will not qualify. But it isan ideal toward which we can all aspire.

SEEDS IN THE GARDEN OF ELOQUENCEby

Bar Sara GambaGraduate in Rhetoric, University of California, Davis

Throughout history, criticism of the elocutionistshas been consistently, though not exclusively negative.Elocutionists have been considered entertaining butridiculous, and the movement they perpetuated is com-monly studied as a perversion of the rhetorical tradition.

Granted, the elocutionists were often entertaining,and many were ridiculous, but that the elocutionarymovement was a rhetorical fluke is not a fair hypothesis.On the contrary, it was a natural extension of manyEuropean views and principles. The importance placedon the relationship between outward expression andinner feeling the foundation of the elocutionary move-ment is noted so frequently in European scholarshipthat it cannot be overlooked.

In particular, an examination of one popular form ofeighteenth century English literature the periodicessay as published in The Spectator clearly revealsthat several of the views expressed both adumbratedand influenced the elocutionary movement.

The periodic essay is at its best in The Spectator.a periodical edited by Sir Richard Steele and frequentlycontributed to by Joseph Addison and other members ofthe fictitious "Spectator Club" which met on Tuesdaysand Thursdays at "Mr. livekly's in Little Blitain."

In the first issue of The Spectator, Steele enunciatesthe purpose of the periodical, stating that "I have oftenbeen told by my Friends that it is a Pity so many usefulDiscoveries which I have made, should be in the pos-session of a Silent Man. For this reason therefore, Ishall publish a Sheetful of Thoughts every Morning, forthe Benefit of my Contemporaries; and if I can in anyway contribute to the Diversion or Improvement of theCountry in which i live, I shall leave it . . . with theSecret Satisfaction of thinking that I have not Lived invain."

Actually, The Spectator was published, in essentiallythe same format, six days a week, for approximatelytwenty-one months. Each issue customarily began withsome pertinent Latin or Greek quotation or motto, whichwould be followed by a single essay. Occasionally,letters addressed to Mr. Spectator would appear in thepaper too, if the members of the "club" agreed inadvance that these letters would contribute to the"Advancement of the Public Weal."

6

contributors to The Spectator discussed a montageof subjects, from governmental banking policy, to opera,to education. But of particular interest to the studentof rhetoric are Mr. Spectator's observations of Cicero'sfifth canon delivery particularly those essays con-^erned with physiognomy, gesture, dress, and the pre-cepts of proper delivery. This paper will examine thosefeu: topics, and the analysis will show that several ofthe opinions and concerns expressed in these essaysforeshadowed as well as influenced elocutionary thought.

Mr. Spectator declares that "everyone is in someDegree a Master of that Art which is generally distin-guished by the Name of Physiognomy," and devotes twoentire numbers to a discussion of that science, whichpurports to judge of the qualities of the mind by the out-ward features of the body. Addison warns his readersthat a "wise Man should be particularly cautious howhe gives credit to a Man's outward Appearance," buti_grees with later elocutionists that the science ofphysiognomy is not exact, and that it is possible forthe orator to appear to be an "honest, just, good-naturedMan, in spite of all those Marks and Signatures whichNature seems to set upon him for the Contrary."1

Addison's sentiments are echoed almost exactly by"Orator John Henley, as he was commonly called." Inone essay, he too examines the "close Correspondencebetween the Outward and the Inward Man," and con-cludes his letter with a description of several externalmanifestations of internal qualities; for example, the"over -much Visibility and Pertness of one Ear" is an"infallible Mark of Reprobation."2 Among other refer-ences to the subject of physiognomy are the frequentallusions to Mr. Spectator's "short face" and the paperson the "Ugly Club," that "ill-favored Fraternity . . .

which consists of a certain merry Species, that seer., tohave come into the World in Masquerade. s3

Physiognomy, for Addison, Henley, and other writersirof their time, is a relatively fixed science. Ne ithe-

less, Mr. Spectator argues, the orator should o tain agood understanding of it. However, Mr. Spectator goeson to contend, there are other external manifestationsof inner feelings which are flexible and adaptable.Spectator 407 is devoted almost entirely to a discussionof the speaker's use of gestures. Addison asserts that

"proper Gestures and vehement Extrtions of the Voicecannot be too much studied by a Pub lick Orator," andaddresses the remainder of his remarks to the "ridicu-lous . . . Gestures of English speakers." He is notsure if "we ought ...to lay aside all kinds of Gesture,"or "make use of such only as are graceful and expres-sive," but he is certain that something must be done toinsure that a deaf man does not conclude that a speakeris "cheapening a Beaver. when perhaps he is talking ofthe Fate of the British Nation."

Like Addison, Steele cautions that gestures can beeither "graceful or unbecoming," and he explains thetheory of gesture, arguing that "every Thought isattended with Consciousness and Representativeness,"and that this "Act of the Mind discovers itself in theGesture.' 4

Thisinternalcussionacter.

same concern with the external expression offeelings is evidenced in Mr. Spectator's dis-of dress as an outward manifestation of char-

Replying to letters about new fashions such asthe "little Muff . . . . silver Garters buckled below theKnee, and . . fringed Gloves," Addison says that "itis not my Intention to Sink the Dignity of this my Paperwith Reflections upon Red-heels or Top-Knots, butrather enter into the Passions of Mankind, and to correctthose depraved Sentiments that give Birth to all thoselittle Extravagances which appear in their outwardDress and Behavior."5 He goes on to explain that"Foppish and fantastic Ornaments are only Indicationsof Vice, not criminal in themselves." "Extinguish theVanity of the Mind," Addison concludes, "and naturallyretrench the little Extravagances which appear in . . .

outward Dress and Behavior."6Eustace Budgell, a minor contributor to The Spec-

tator. addresses the orator specifically, contending that"few things make a Man appear more despicable, ormore prejudice his hearers against what he is going tooff:r, than an awkward or pitiful Dress." Budgell optsfor the happy middle course, suggesting that "a Man ofSense would endeavor to keep . . . the Medium betweenFop and Sloven," and concludes that "had Tully him-self pronounced of the Orations with a Blanket about hisShoulders, more People would have laughed at his Dressthan have admired his Eloquence."'

A more comprehensive view of delivery also appearsin The Spectator. John Hughes, third most frequentcontributor, devotes at entire essay to "some Thoughtsconcerning Pronunciation and ,Iction . . . chiefly col-lected from his Favorite Author, Cicero." While Hughesis primarily concerned with "the British stage," heargues that "he is very unfit to personate a RomanHero, who cannot enter into the Rules for Pronunciationand Gesture delivered by a Roman Orator," and he turnsto De Oratore, repeat ing that "Nature herself hasassigned to every Emotion of the Soul. its peculiar Castof the Countenance, Tone of Voice, and Manner ofGesture." Hughes anticipates the elocutionists in

describing the expression of several varied passions -anger, sorrow, complaint, courage. pleasure, perplex-ity - and attends his descriptions with excerpts take"from contemporary stage plays for the purpose ofpractice. He adds that the actor should also study "theright pitching of the Voice."8

In another issue, Steele concerns himself with therules to be followed and the type of delivery to beavoided by the preacher. "Whinnings, unusual Tones. . . . Bawling and Mutterings . . . . and Praying andPreaching like the unlearned of the Presbyterians:"these are the common faults Steele finds in most preach-ers' delivery. He next relates specific advice as to howpreachers could improve this situation, if only the"Gentlemen who err in this kind would please to recol-lect the many Pleasantries they have read upon thosewho recite good Things with an ill Grace," and see"that what in that case is only Ridiculous in themselvesis Impious."9

Mr. Spectator's primary goal is to rescue his audiencefrom "that desperate State of Vice and Folly into whichthe Age" had fallen, but better delivery is a part of thatpurpose, and the comments above do not exhaust Mr.Spectator on the subject. Other related topics includethe passions (see, for example, numbers 197 and 408).stagefright (231), and the eyes as the mirror of the soul(206, 250, 252). Furthermore, the external display ofinternal emotional states is discussed in relation topainting (226, 244), acting (13, 39), music (29, 258),and poetry (279, 285), as well as to oratory.

These remarks indicate the elocutionary emphasis ontones, looks, and gestures, and this evidence from TheSpectator reveals that the seeds of the elocutionarymoveme .t were sown prior to 1750, agreeing with WilburS. Howell's analysis of the origins of that movement.")And when we cons ider that the circulation c.f TheSpectator is estimated to have risen from 3,000 to4,000, 20,000, and even 30,000 copies - many of whichwere read in coffee houses and clubs by upwards oftwenty people each-11 it also becomes evident that theelocutionary movement began from a much wider basethan most critics, including Howell, allow.

That The Spectator was extremely influential withcontemporaries and that this influence lasted well intothe nineteenth century is abundantly clear. Its papershave been reprinted regularly,12 and there were feweighteenth cent ury critics who did not judge "itsrequisite to point out its beauties and detect itsblemishes."13 Of these critics Hugh Blair is partic-ularly important, and although he is a r het or i ca 1theorist, Blair devotes four entire lectures to a criticalexamination of the style followed in The Spectator. Heasserts that "the good sense, and good writing, theuseful morality, and the admirable vein of humour whichabound in it, render it one of those books which havedone the greatest honour to the English nation," and hesays that it "is a book which is in the hands of every

one."14 Of course, Blair, though not an elocutionist,supports the study of delivery (Lecture 33), and it isclear that The Spectator was in the hands of the elocu-tionists as well. Thomas Sheridan cites Steele whendiscussing the importance of elocution,15 and GilbertAustin quotes Addison in his Chironomia.16 Among lesserfigures, Wikliam Enfield recommends The Spectator andincludes may extracts from it in The Speaker."

Space does not permit an extensive examination ofthe influence of these essays on elocutionary theory,but it is clear that Mr. Spectator Coreshadows attitudesthat were to develop into the elocutionary movement,and it is also clear that the papers of The Spectatorexerted a direct influence on elocutionary theory.

'Spectator 86.

23pectator 518. In his articles "Sources of the Elocu-tionary Movement in England: 1700 - 1850," Quarterly Journalof Speech XLV (February, 1959), . 6, Wilbur SamuelHowell states that "John Henley . . . attracted more attentionto the elocutionary movement than did anyone else of histime."

3Spectator 66.

4Spectator 38.

5Spectator 16.

6

6Ibid.

7Spectator 150.

8Spectator 541.

9Spectator 147.

10Wilbur Samuel Howell, "Sources of the ElocutionaryMovement in Engt-nd: 1700-1850," Quarterly Journal ofSpeech XLV (:-. braary, 1959), 1-18.

11 The Spectator, ed. G. Gregory Smith (London. 1879),p. 318.

12See. for example, Smith, pp.

13 The Spectator, ed. Alexander Chalmers (New York,1953), p. 23.

14Hugh Blair, Lectures ott Rhetoric and Belles Lettres(Illinois, 1966), pp. 408-409.

15Thomas Sheridan, A Discourse Being Introductory toHis Course of Lectures on Elocution and the English Language.The Augustan Reprint Society publication.number 136 (LosAngeles , 1966), p. 38.

16Gilbert Austin, Chet/Wanda, or, a Treatise on RhetoricalDelivery (Illinois, 1966), p. xxv.

"William Enfield, The Speaker (London, 1774), p. xlvii.

14th CENTURY PEASANT POWER:A CONTEMPORARY LESSON

byGwen Lundberg

Senior in Speech, University of Washington

Revolution was coming. In the words of John Ball,an it i ne r a nt preacher for social justice nearly sixcenturies ago, this was made clear: "Good people,matters go not well in England, nor shall they until allthings be held in common and there shall be neithervassals nor lords, but we shall all be united together,and the lords shallbe no more masters than ourselves."1

A self-styled freedom-seeker robed in the vestiary ofgentle friar, John Ball ratified revolution and then engi-neered a bloody rebellion, the Great Revolt of 1381 inEngland. Historians call it the Wat Tyler Rebellionafter the man who initially disclosed the peasants' mal-content, but Ball assumed an equally notable leadership.Ball's station in life generated a personal empathy forthe peasants' situation, which was reflected in hisoratory. Whereas Tyler sought personal aggrandizementand possessed the "ambition, insolent tongue, and giftof magniloquence which a mob orator needs,"2 Ball wasrevered as the peasants' leader, fighting for their cause.

Since "power to the people" is not a contemporaryinvention, those who may feel inclined to fight undersuch an ideology today might take a lesson from thatrevolt 600 years ago. In linking the peasants of thepast with people of the present in revolution, NeilJoseph Smelser's Theory of Collective Behavior will beemployed as the catalyst to explicate and relate thecharacteristics of both periods of revolt. It is towardsthe end that those who know history will be less likelycondemned to relive it, that this paper is directed.

Smelser offers consthaents of revolution. He doesnot imply that they are absolute "ingredients" in a"recipe" for revolt, but that they are generally present.His formula analyzes evolution of social change frominitial tremors of discontent. It also demonstrates howthis process can fail, ending in revolution alone, with-out desirable change. It is the purpose here to investi-gate the pattern of the 1381 revolt with Smelser's con-stituents in order to learn a lesson which may be appliedto the processes of contemporary revolution.

The rebellion of 1381 had all of Smelser's constitu-ents; however, one was incomplete. It appears that ifnot for this deficiency, the peasants might have achieved

9

the changes and freedoms for which they fought. Butthat revolution failed violence was achieved and littlemore. Oman says, "the immediate result of the rebel-lion did not seem to have been any general abandonmentby the lords of their disputed rights. Indeed the years1382 and 1383 are full of instances which seem to provethat the first consequence of the suppression of therevolt was that many landlords endeavoured to tightenthe bonds of serfdom, and to reassert rights which wereslipping from their grasp."3 This paper contends thatabsence or fragmentation of any of Smelser's constit-uents or elements in a revolutionary movement mayrender it ineffective and in some cases, effect the deathof the revolution; 1381 seems to exemplify this hypoth-esis. Smelser's constituents are:

Structural ConducivenessStructural StrainPrecipitating FactorsMobilization for ActionIneffectual Social ControlGeneralized Beliefs (ideologies)4

This sixth constituent has five elements:Myths or PremisesHostility Beliefs"If-Only" BeliefsStrategies and TacticsA Program for Reconstitutions

The question is: Why did John Ball's rhetoric ofrevolution ultimately fail in 1381? The answer can befound in delineation of the first five constituents, asfound in 14th century England. This will precedeanalysis of Ball's rhetoric, for the effectiveness of hisoratory hinged upon the social conditions of the day.

"Structural conduciveness," Smelser's first con-stituent,6 is primarily breakdown of governing bodieswhich permits, and in some cases, appears to inviteovert hostility into society. Authority generally respon-sible for alleviation of social tensions and maintenanceof order does not act and the people then assume theresponsibility themselves. In addition, the channels forexpression of grievances is archaic and ineffective; thepeople begin communicating grievances among them-selves until emotions boil into revolution. Smelser also

cites the meat her as conducive to eruption of mobviolence. Hot, stuffy humidity seems to aggitate griev-ances while riots seldom occur in crisp, wintry weather.The 1381. Revolt was in the summer of that year.

Note the other signs of structural conduciveness in1381. There was no resistance to the initial rebellion."The lords . . . remained quietly at home as thoughthey were asleep."7 This lack of response was com-pounded by the communication problems of the day.Richard II, a boy of 14, did not officially denounce therebels or the revolt nor did he attempt to dissipaterumors that he had countenanced it. But then he had nohot lines, telegrams or special bulletins at his disposal;in fact, Gutenberg was yet to be born. Communicationchannels between the people and the monarchy, normallyunsatisfactory, became even worse at a crucial time andpeasants turned to one another for support. With theabsence of le adership and lack of communication,devastating insurgency resulted.

The second constituent, "structural strain." isdefined by Smelser as tension and pressure created byconflicting norms and values within society.8 Classtraditions, interests and customs clash and breedfrustrations, and opponents impatiently seek relief,occasionally with physical force.

In 1381 the structure of peasant norms and valueswas straining for freedom in conflict with the traditionalvalues of peasant subordination and submission, valueswhich the hierarchy was determined to maintain overthe peasants. John Gower defines the peasants as"those whose fate it is to undergo the labors necessaryto supply food and drink for the sustenance of the humanrace(); however, they were beginning to loathe thisancient duty. In addition, they bore the burden of Eng-land's economic squeeze; heavier taxes were beinglevied. And as always, labor was their duty, absenceof punishment their reward.

And then the fuse was lighted. A "precipitatingfactor" in the guise of a massive Poll Tax arrived, thebulk of which fell upon the already burdened peasant,says Oman.1° Such a factor is the last straw whichfinally forces release of pent-up emotions. It is the"specific event which sets flight in motion;"11 it pre-cipitates the fourth constituent, "mobilization for action,"or the "outbreak of hostility."12 Massacre, theft anddestruction ravaged English counties. Officials weremarked for death who advocated the Tax and who con-tinued to support peasant slavery and ignore peasantde.nands. Macabre acts of public torture, arson anddecapitation were rampant.

As terrors continued, obviously there was "ineffectualsocial control," the fifth constituent. That is, therewere no "counter-determinants (enacted) which prevent,interrupt, deflect or inhibit the accumulation of the otherdeterminants."13 There was nothing done to reduce thestructural conduciveness and strain; nothing was donewhen revolution initially arose. But after one month of

I0

rioting, the first effective social control was instituted.One man, Bishop Henry of Norwich, "showed realpresence of mind and single-hearted perseverance"14when he clashed with insurgents entering the city'sChurch. Henry and a band of churchmen fought againstrioters thereby setting an example for others to follow;the revolution began to calm the end of revolt wasin sight.

But the death of the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 cannotbe attributed entirely to a single, vigorous counter-reaction by one band of determined churchmen. Newswas slow to travel, yet the Revolt died concurrentlyacross England. Its conclusion must be questioned.Perhaps its death can be attributed to a deficiencywithin the revolution, wherever it existed. There appearsto have been inherent in the sixth constituent, theideology, (as expressed in Ball's oratory) a weaknesswhich may have- rendered the revolution futile. Thatconstituent, analyzed with Smelser's five elements,reveals an omission in Ball's rhetoric which likelyprevented attainment of tangible gains for the enslavedpeasant population.

The first element, "myths and premises," are thefantastic and usually undocumented stories invented bya movement's leader to foster feelings of discontent.These tales "name" the enemy, for without an objectof disdain, the movement perishes. Ball's myths andpremises were revealed when he charged the upper clasawith extravagance: "They are clothed in velvet andrich cloth ornamented with ermine and other furs whilewe are cloth. I in wretched rags."15 The landlords,even though relatively rich, were by no means clothedin velvet, much less ornamented in ermine. Ball'smythical accusations, wholly accepted by the peasants,embittered them and prepared them to plunder at hiscommand.

"Hostility beliefs" are the antagonistic presump-tions of the ideology which generate anger and justifyacts of rebellion. The peasants had to be convinced ofpersonal suffering in order to uphold vengeance; theyhad to be convinced to the point of utter hatred for theirlords. To do this John Ball said: "It is with ourstrength and labor that they support their estates. Weare called their bondsmen and are beaten if we do notreadily perform their services, and we have no sovereignto whom we can complain, nor anyone to hear us or rightour wrongs. "16 Ball made them even more hostile when heasserted that all men were created equally by God; ifGod had wanted slaves He would have created them.He cried: "Are we not all descended from one fatherand one mother, Adam and Eve? How can they maintainor show that they are more masters than we except thatthey force us to gain and labor for what they spend?"17Incessant reminder of their grass roots status effec-tively angered the peasants, bred hate towards land-owners, and alleviated guilt feelings for violenceenacted against them.

"If-Only beliefs" promise a future predicated uponaccomplishments in the present: If only this now, thenthat later. Such statements imply simplicity in actionand absolute guarantee for the effort, overlooking under-tying complexities which might be found insurmountableipon examination. Ball said: "If the powerful areDestroyed then there shall dwell among you liberty forall, and all shall have the same degree of nobility,dignity and powel."18 He failed to recognize that theEnglish class system could not be obliterated simply bygetting rid of those in office; merely destroying a mandoes not destroy an attitude or idea.

Ball's rhetoric also included "strategies and tactics"of revolution. "First kill the great lords of the realm;then destroy the judges, court officials, and those whoestablish taxes throughout the land."19 The "madPriest of Kent"20 offered a diabolical and simple solu-tion to a desperate people; they accepted. The peasants,convinced that tyrantr, would be crushed with the incep-tion of Ball's strategies, followed his decree of deathto the enemy. With final enactment of these violenttactics of revolution, the peasants had been broughtfrom silent submission to active retaliation. But yetthat Revolt and others like it which followed. inessence, failed. Oman says, "there can be no doubtthat the old system went on; it had received a rudeshock but had not been completely put out of gear."21

Ball's ideology was nearly complete, but the "pro-gram of reconstitution" was absent. Ball did not leadthe peasants to achievement of desired changes; hisrhetoric was deficient and there appears to be a con-nection between this fact and the failure of the Revolt.Ball did not tell how reforms would be structured oncethe blood spilling ,:nd torrent of destruction had ceased.He led the peasants in war but had no succeedingpeace treaty. The Revolt released frustrations momen-tarily and little more. Even though all constituentswere present the peasants were unable to continue withthe deficient ideology presented to them by Ball. Theyneeded a philosophy to follow which would satisfactorilyreplace their traditional loyalty to the monarchy, aphilosophy which could supplant the attitude of sub -gervience engrained in their lives since birth. Theyneeded a program to reconstitute that which they weredenying, once it was destroyed. Freedom was appealingno doubt, but achievement of it meant loss of securityfor a time, a condition which they could not tolerate;and there was no other security presented to them asan alternative.

Today there are yet revolutions, uprisings, wars andmovements for many causes all contain ideologies.Possibly contemporary revolutionaries and other seekersof change might take a lesson from the Great Revolt of1381; though far-removed, it does resemble 20th centuryrevolt.

The realities of 14th century government may havemade revelation and acceptance of a program of recon-

I I

stitution an impossibility for Bali, but six centurieslater, what is our excuse when conference tables haveeven been made to order? If we carefully design ourprograms to reconstitute our society and then conferwith opponents in a spirit of compromising objectivityrather than forceful intolerance, maybe change will beeffected not only peacefully, but hopefully violentrevolution can be eliminated. It must be worth a try,for mere violence failed in 1381 and we can see that itis failing today.

1John Ball. "Let Us Go to the King: Speech at the Peas-ants' Rising" g380.1 in Select British Speeches. ed. DonaldC. Bryant et al. (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1967',pp. 42 -45.

2Charles Oman, Great Revolt of 1381 (Oxford: ClarendonHess, 1906), p. 37.

3/bid.. p. 153

4Neil J. Smelser, Theory Of Collective Behavior (NewYork: The Free Press of Glencoe, /963). Smelser's bookdeals with these constituents as they are found in varioussocial movements, not only revolutionary (hostile) movements.

5Smelser, "Generalized Beliefs," pp. 79-130. Smelserdiscusses various types of collective behavior. The elementsof ideology for each vary slightly; however, for all practicalpurposes, the le five terms will be used as they synthesizegenerally all of the basic elements of social movement ideol-ogies in succit.c r-ns. (They were assigned by Dr. HerbertSimons. currently of the University of California in Berkeley,for convenience in classroom discussion of Smelser's book.summer quarter. 1970. University of Washington.)

6Smelser, pp. 227-241.

7George Macaulay Trevelyan, England in the Age ofWycliffe (London: Longmans, Green and Co.. 1920), p. 212.

8Smelser. pp. 47 -48.

9Eleanor Eugenia Vernon, Gower's 'Vox Clamantis' as aSatire on English Society. (Thesis submitted for the degreeof Master of Arts, University of Washington. 1931), p. 47.

"Oman. p 29.

11Smelser, p. 16.

12/bid.. 17

131 bid.

"Oman. pp. 128-129.

15Select British Speeches. p. 44.

16/bid.

17/bid.

18/bid.. p. 45.

19/bid.

"Oman, p. 12.

2 153.

THE RHETORIC OF WOMEN'S LIB:TOO MUCH NOISE

by

Deanna M. SpoonerGraduate in Speech, Portland State University

A characteristic of the communication of human beingsis the possibility that a word or phrase can be so embel-lished with meaning and emotion that it assumes a newstatus in that communication system. Such is the caseof the contemporary term "Women's Liberation." Theeffort of women to liberate themselves to a better, lessoppressive life has been greeted with such cries as"They're a bunch of frustrated hags" and "They actlike a bunch of stupid dames."

Upon closer examination, the rhetoric of the womenliberationists and the counter rhetoric of their opponentsprovide some striking contrasts. Mrs. Saul Schary, theexecutive secretary and president-elect of the twenty-tine& million member National Council of Women, hassaid, "There's no discrimination against women likethey 3ay there is; women themselves are just self-limit-ing. It's in their nature and they shouldn't blame it onsociety or men." 1

In opposition to Mrs. Schary's statement are thefollowing words from the manifesto of one of the radicalgroups, the Redstockings. "Our oppression is total,affecting ev.--y facet of our lives. We are exploited assex objects, breeders, domestic servants and cheaplabor. We are considered inferior beings whose onlypurpose is to enhance men's lives. Our humanity isdenied."2 Two other viewpoints reveal a similar polar-ity. From the ma n if e s t o of the New York RadicalFeminists comes the order, "We must begin to destroythe notion that we are indeed only servants to the maleego, and must begin to reverse the systematic crushingof women's egos by constructing alternate selves thatare healthy, independent and self-assertive."3 Thephilosophy of Helen B. Andelin, a writer and presidentof the Andelin Foundation which sponsors courses inFascinating Womanhood, is that "man must be the uncon-ditional leader and the woman should strive to be anunconditional follower.' 4

It is this writer's purpose to inquire into the natureof female opposition to the ideas expressed in the radi-cal manifestoes and to hopefully identify the basis fornon-agreement with radical feminism. In this writer'sopinion two factors hampering the acceptance of radical

12

feminism by some women in America are the ethos of theliberationists who are the source of the communicationand the feminine identity of the women who are thereceivers of the communication.

To grasp a picture of the women's movement is notdifficult, ior as Susan Brownmiller, herself a N.Y.Radical Feminist, wrote in the New York Times, "Fromthe radical left to the Establishment middle, the women'smovement has become a fact of life. "5 The initiationand development of the movement proceeded from twosources: from the National Organization of Women(NOW), begun in 1966 by women active in their profes-sions and desirous of gaining equal pay and opportunity;and from the radical feminists, whose founders in 1968had previously worked in the civil rights movement andwho then sought equality c` opportunity for the female insociety. The radical feminists were the creators of theconcept of women's liberation as opposed to women'srights.

If the movement's origins are not difficult to trace,categorizing the present membership is. Following theAugust 26, 1970 Women's Strike for Equality one jour-nalist stated, "There is no way of categorizing thewomen of the movement except in the most generalterms; those who seek to change the existing conditionsof life genera 11 y are more likely to be liberal."6Though labels do not exist for the membership there aresignificant dissimilarities between two types of groups."Working to achieve the goal of full equality for womenin America in truly equal partnership with men,"7 NOWtries to change the basic social structure through work-ing for such measure as passage and ratification of theEqual Rights Amendment and the establishment of fed-erally financed day care centers. Less concerned withrestructuring laws than with changing the social structureby revolutionizing the female and freeing her from maledominated institutions are the radical women's groupswho label NOW and its sympathizers as bourgeois.8

Not only are the two groups' purposes dissimilar butthe groups' approaches to the same problem revealanother distinction. For a New York legislative hearingon abortion law reform in February, 1969, the Redstock-ings organized an abortion speak-out; when the hearing

VMS hastily adjourned, the held its own hearinga month later. About the same time the New York chap-ter of NOW formed a committee to lobby for repeal of

restrictive abortion legislation.9 The radical approachwas one of activism and demonstration in front ofsociety, whereas NOW sought its goal through more con-vent ional means, committee act ion

Responses from some women in America toward thesetwo types of groups have been varied. A poll conductedby Good Housekeeping magazine which sampled onethousand members of its Consumer Panel indicated moreagreement with the purpose and approach of NOW thanwith that of the radical groups.") The report of the pollresults was 6 uramarized in the opening paragraph.

If the leaders of the feminine liberation move-ment depended on the readers of Good House-keeping for backing, tlmly would be out of busi-ness before nightfall. But on basic bread andbutter issues affecting jobs and legal rights,readers of this magazine are in strong agree-ment with the current feminist drive.11

The majority of panelists approved items that wererelated to discrimination that disadvantages a womanfinancially, on the job or in public accommodations.Ninety-six per cent voted for equal pay for equal work,86% said they were in favor of equal hiring and promo-tion policies, and 75% agreed to the elimination ofdiscrimination in public accommodations (refusal toserve unescorted women in restaurants, hotels). GoodHousekeeping panelists agreeing with those mattersmore appropriately advocated by the radical groups werefar fewer in number. Twenty-five per cent said thereshould be equal sharing of child care by father andmother with father as likely as mother to stay home witha sick child, 17% said there should be pay for house-wives so that wives do not have to ask for an allowanceor feel guilty about spending money, 9% supported thesubstitution of Ms. for Miss and Mrs. to remove a dis-tinction between married and single women, and 6%opposed the use of cosmetics and perfumes becausethey contribute to making women 1-,ex objects.

In terms of a communieaticn context, one might askwhy there is this smaller agreement with the message ofthe radical feminists. One factor hampering the accep-tance of radical feminism is the ethos or image of thefeminists held in the minds of the receivers. Ethos hasbeen described as corresponding to the psychologicalconcept of attitude toward the source with measurementinvolving the collection of opinions. 1 2 Numerous de-scriptions of the liberationists expressing attitudes thatare less than favorable in the receiver's view haveappeared in the press. "What puts me off the Women'sLiberation Movement is its sweaty virility. They shout,they swagger, they talk tough. Their approach to sexwould shame a groom of the stable."13 One of the mostcommon complaints against the Women's Liberation typeis that "she is so `unfeminine'; that she comes onsounding strident, harsh and fanatical; that she puts

13

people off before they even hear what she has to say."14"The extremists in the feminist groups choose a par-ticularly agly way to make their point. By shouting a'dbad grooming they cast an aura of vulgarity on the whclemovement."15

Such attitudes printed in the media indicate that animage of a source is a composite of several elements.One speech theorist and researcher states that extrinsicethos, or the image that exists in advance of a com-munication, is influenced by the prior reputation of thesource and his behavior and appearance up to the incep-tion of the message.16 The image of the source createdduring the message transmission, or intrinsic ethos, isinfluenced by the message itself; dress, manner andpersonal appearance and delivery.17 The above sampleof attitudes toward the radical feminists repeatedlyrevealed behavior, dress, manner, and personal appear-ance and delivery techniques as the basis for the forma-tion of an image of the feminists. The receivers viewedsuch dress, manner and personal appearance negatively,therefore the image of the feminists was negative. "Inessence as the source becomes identified with behavior,beliefs, actions, appearance and material that are posi-tively evaluated by receivers his image moves to thepositive. As he identifies with or is identified by thereceiver with negative elements his image becomes lessfavorable."18

What follows from the feminists having been identi-fied with this unfavorable image by the receivers is thatthe feminists themselves weaken the persuasion effortof their message to those receivers. A housewife-motherin a recent magazine feature said that she believedWomen's Lib was just a lot of noise because she hadseen one of those Lib women ranting and raving on TV.19Also relating the image of the feminists to non-accep-tance of their c om mu n ic at ion, Lenore Romney hoswritten that the "Women's Liberation Movement is noterasing prejudice against women because many membersare abrasive and resentful of their own roles in society,and that attitude simply turns people off. "20 Thematter of a message source offering direct warrant foracceptance of his message has been understood to beone of the proofs in persuasion. "Viewed more broadly,ethical proof may be defined to inclure all the ways inwhich the image of the source operates to produceeffects in the persuasion process."21 Certainly oneeffect of the image of the radical feminists On thosereceivers who do not accept the liberationists' messageis a lessening interest in listening to the message letalone agreeing with it. This effect is indeed detrimentalto the feminists' persuasive effort.

A second facto hampering the acceptance of radicalf e minis m is the feminine identity of the messagereceivers. The existence of one's identity, or a conceptof who one is and who he is going to be, is a concern inour contemporary society. Mrs. Virginia Johnson, femalehalf of the famous sex research team of Masters andJohnson, told a group meeting on the status of women

at the University of Missouri that, "The female needs asense of identity in order to function at her fullest or tofunction at all."22 According to psychoanalyst Erik H.Erickson the concept of one's identity evolves afteran identity crisis.

I have called the major crisis of adolescencethe identity crisis; it occurs in that period ofthe life cycle when each youth must forge forhimself some central perspective and direction,some working unity, out of the effective rem-nants of his childhood and the hopes of hischildhood and the hopes of his anticipatedadulthood; he must detect some meaningfulresemblance between what he has come to seein himself and what his sharpened awarenesstells him others judge and expect him to be. . . In some people, in some classes, at someperiods in history, the crisis will be minimal;in other people, classes and periods, the crisiswill be clearly marked off as a critical period,a kind of "second birth," apt to be aggravatedeither by widespread neuroticisms or by perva-sive ideological unrest. 23

What theorists have not recognized in c,ur society is theexistence of an identity crisis for a woman, according toBetty Friedan. "In terms of the old conventions and thenew feminine mystique women are not expected to growup to find out who they are, to choose their humanidentity. Anatomy is woman's destiny, say the theoristsof femininity; the identity of woman is determined byher biology."24

Providing a direct reply to the theorists of femininity,the manifestoes of the radical feminists say that theidentity of woman is not exclusively in her biologicalrole. The authors of the manifestoes seek to free womenfrom this notion and convince them that their previouslylimited role is the end result of a suppressive maledominated society.

To many receivers, appearing to have been condi-tioned to finding their identity in the traditional senseof womanhood passed down through the centuries, themessage of the radical feminists strikes no sympatheticor understanding chord. Evidence of this sense ofidentity is indicated in opinions that accompanied thepoll results in the Good Housekeeping survey.

I am proud to be a woman, I enjoy being awoman and I like all the privileges that areconnected with being a woman. I resent beingtold by frustrated females that I am oppressedand being used as a sex object.25

One Hunter College graduate who does part-time workfor her husband's company said:

I'm a suburban housewife and I have threechildren and I like it. I enjoy it. I feel free.I don't think there is a master-slave relation-ship between husband and wife. I think it'sequal. Equal pay and opportunity does concernme because there is definite prejudice in thatarea. What they say has validity, but not forme.26

14

One effect of the message of radical feminism thatthese two women may not be willing to concede is thatthe idea of liberation threatens their concept of identity;it is this threatening effect that prompts them to dis-regard the liberationists' message. Dr. Shirley D.McCune, an associate director of the American Asso-ciation,-of University Women has described the effectfor the thirty to sixty year old woman.

She's been in shackles all her life and nowgirls twenty years younger than she and muchprettier are telling her to run. Her whole senseof identity is deeply threatened by the freedomthe new woman enjoys because it's a rejectionof everything she stands for. No matter howbright or educated she may be she's been con-ditioned in such a way she's never had thechance to find out who she really is or whatshe could become. And the point is, shedoesn't want to find out.27

Thus, the element of the receiver's identity, her con-cept of who she is, is a significant factor in the com-munication of radical feminism. Many of the receiversbelieve they have already found their identity or refuseto question it out of fear of change and the unknown.Consequently, they find the message of the radicalfeminists not applicable to them and this hampers theiracceptance of the message.

The lack of agreement by many women with the mes-sage of radical feminism may be explained in a com-munication context as the ethos of the message sourceand the feminine identity of the receivers limiting theacceptance of the message. In other words, the rhetoricof Women's Lib generates and encounters too much noisefor the message to be accepted.

Though there is this lack of a gre e me nt with thepurpose and approach of the radical feminists, thesesame receivers who disregard the message can stillacknowledge a contribution by the feminists to an under-s t a nding of woman. The liberationists have moreaccurately defined the effort by women to change andstrengthen their status. NOW's approach was describedas efforts in behalf of women's rights, which impliedthat woman's identity was known and she was entitledto certain benefits. The radical feminists initiated theconcept of women's 1 iberat ion, which implied thatwoman's identity was being sought. Recog n i z i n gwoman's capacity and right to be a member of societyon her own merits rather than for the biological role sheperforms does not involve giving women their rights,according to two authors. "The problem is the decidedlymore complex one of helping both men and women todefine anew their identities in the altered context ofchanging roles and relationships. "28

In this writer's opinion the radical feminists' intro-duction of the concept of liberation into the women'smovement has been of benefit to society. The use ofthe concept has directed attention to the need for

individual identities to be te-defined in our technological age. This need has been expressed by BettyFriedan who wrote that every man and woman must keepup with the increasingly explosive pace of history tofind or keep individual identity in our mass society.

The identity crisis in men and women cannotbe solved by one generation for the next, in ourrapidly changing society, it must be facedcontinually, solved only to be faced again inthe span of a single lifetime. A life plan mustbe open to change, as new possibilities open,in society and in oneself.29

'Lacey Fosburgh. "Traditional Groups Prefer to IgnoreWomen's Lib," New York Times, August 26, 1970, p. 44.

2"Redstockings Manifesto," Notes from the Second YearWomen's Liberation. ed. Shulamith Firestone (New York,1970), p. 112.

3"Politics of the Ego: A Manifesto for N.Y. RadicalFeminists," Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation,ed. Shulamith Firestone (New York, 1970). p. 126.

4Betty Rollin, "Backlash Against Women's Lib: 'They'rea Bunch of Frustrated Hags'," Look. XXXV (March 9, 1971),p. 19.

5Susan Brownmiller, "Sisterhood is Powerful," New YorkTimes, March 15, 1970, sec. 6, p. 27.

6Linda Carlton, "Th. Feminine Protest," New YorkTimes, August 28, 1970, p. 20.

7 Ibid.

81bid.

9Brownmiller, p. 134.

10 `The Gil Poll: Women's Rights How GH ReadersFeel About Liberation and Equality," Good Housekeeping.CLXXII (March, 1971). 34-38.

15

"Md.. p. 34.

12Kenneth E. Andersen, Persuasion Theory and Practice(Boston, 1971), P. 218.

13Harriet Van Horne, "Women Liberation Groups TooSweaty for this Lassie," Portland Oregonian, March 27, 1970,p. 31.

14Mary Wiegers, "Public Reaction to Current Women'sLiberation Movement Remains Hostile," Portland Oregonian,Apri13, 1970, sec. IV, p. 12.

15Good Housekeeping. p. 36.

16Andersen, p. 224.

17/bid., p. 227.

18/bid., p. 234.

19Rollin, p. 16.

20Lenore Romney, "Men, WomenXXXV (April 6, 1971), 11.

21Andersen, p. 234.

22Jean Henniger, "Famous Sex Researcher Tells of Needfor Feminine Identity," Portland Oregonian, March 19, 1971,sec. II, p. 4.

23Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York,1963), p. 70.

241 bid.. p. 71.

25Good Housekeeping, p. 36.

26Enid Nemy, "A Meeting Where Nobody Walked Out,"New York Times, November 14, 1970, p. 20.

27Fosburgh, p. 44.

28cyrus R. Pangborn and Maxine Thornton, "What of thisNew Woman, Mr. Jones?" American Association of UniversityWomen's Journal, January, 1969, p. 65.

and Politics," Look,

29Friedan, p. 363.