RhetoricalFeminism

8/7/2019 RhetoricalFeminism

1/11

2010

Montana Tech The

University of Montana

Dr. Jim Mackin

Rhetorical Theories

[FEMINISM THEORY]Analysis of a speech delivered by Hillary Clinton, critiqued by the theory of Karlyn Kohrs Campbell


2/11

Feminism theory is fairly new to rhetorical theories. It has yet to be fully adopted by traditional

rhetoric and faces much criticism. Many rhetoricians have contributed to vastly growing field.

Past work by and about women has been recovered and analyzed to develop a foundation for

feminism theory. Present work is produced everyday and provides continuous additions to the

collection. This paper serves as a case study that analyzes Hillary Clintons speech Shame on

you, using Karlyn Kohrs Campbells feminism theory. It will provide insight into Campbells

theory and a look at some specific aspects.

Karlyn Kohrs Campbell is well educated rhetorician that focused much of her attention on

rhetorical feminism theory. She branched off to a specific sub-topic addressing the

underrepresentation of womens issues in public address and the lack of critical analysis of

major works by women. Campbell wants to prove that there has been a significant impact on

male rhetoricians due to the omission of works created by women. She argues that the white

male political elite face fewer rhetorical challenges than they would if womens work was

acknowledged. However, women scholars have developed a process called, mainstreaming.

This refers to how discourse by and about women can be integrated into rhetorical studies

(Campbell, The Sound of Women's Voices, 1989).

Campbell focuses on the rhetorical criticism and theory based off of the notion of

mainstreaming. She also points out that the groups that get the least amount of rhetorical

attention are usually the ones that are more important for rhetorical criticism and theory.

These groups are usually referred to as activists or protesters and are usually forced to find


3/11

alternative methods of getting their message across. This is due to the amount of persuasive

obstacles that stand before them (Campbell, The Sound of Women's Voices, 1989).

In making the claim that the rhetoric of out groups is more important for rhetorical criticism

and theory, Campbell proposes three assumptions. First she points out the relationship

between criticism and theory, stating that critical studies create theory by highlighting the

varieties of human symbolic action. Do keep in mind that theories must be able to be proved to

work, if not then the decision becomes whether to abandon it or revise the theory. Second, the

objects selected for rhetorical analysis limit theory and criticism. Luckily most theorists and

critics base their knowledge on a wide variety of symbolic action. Lastly, the arts gain a voice

through criticism (Campbell, The Sound of Women's Voices, 1989).

These principles directly relate to rhetoric by and about women. Few critical studies have been

done on the scarce materials provided; this limits the amount of rhetoric that can be applied to

a special character. But due to the lack of rhetorical materials by and about women, it becomes

difficult to apply the concepts. Unfortunately, traditional principles place women, most

engaged in protest, in an awkward position. They are accused of not relating and conforming

to their audience but the intended goal is to motivate or alter society to make a change.

Granted, relating to the audience is an important aspect when delivering public speech, but

protesting is not necessarily defined as a traditional public speech. Rather it is a channel used to

get voices heard (Campbell, The Sound of Women's Voices, 1989).


4/11

Women, however, are up against yet another obstacle: persuading or convincing men to listen.

Since most rhetoricians are male and stuck in traditional ways, women already have the odds

against them. The downfall, if women fail to gain the attention and persuade the male

counterparts, their rhetoric is dismissed and deemed ineffective (Campbell, The Sound of

Women's Voices, 1989).

Robert Scott and Donald K. Smith point out that protest rhetoric is ill represented and

understudied. Therefore, making claims that rhetoric by and about women is ineffective is

unfair and over criticized. It is recommended that if protestors, particularity women, must find

a way to confront an audience by relating to their values while stimulating action and

motivating people to step out of their box (Campbell, The Sound of Women's Voices, 1989).

Campbell insists that a feminist critique of rhetorical studies is not simply requesting that

materials by and about women need to found and included in rhetorical studies, rather it is a

challenge to rethink fundamental concepts and assumptions in rhetorical theory and criticism

(Campbell, The Sound of Women's Voices, 1989).

Rhetorical feminism began to take shape when womens texts were recovered. These texts

included speeches by women and social-movement analysis of womens rights and suffrage.

Since the beginning of the second wave of feminism, efforts have been made to incorporate

women into the rhetorical tradition and to develop critical perspectives that are better suited

to understanding womens discourse (Campbell, Rhetorical Feminism, 2001).


5/11

Campbell uses the concept of consciousness-raising to link the recovery of texts, their

recuperation through criticism, and the extraction of theoretical principles that underlie

womens ways of persuading. She first explores the recovery of texts by and about women.

Preserving womens rhetoric began before the womens rights movement was enacted. This

was due to the lack of materials women had to reference too. As the collection of works piled

up, a book was created called the History of Womans Suffrage. The purpose of this book is to

preserve the struggle women have experienced as well as to understand and interpret the

experiences. Some women such as Frances Wright and Maria W. Miller Stewart collected their

work, published, and republished it (Campbell, Conscious-Raising: Linking Theory, Criticism, and

Practice, 2002).

There are many factors that contribute to the lack of documentation of womens rhetoric. For

instance, many women were illiterate, undereducated, or belonging to the lower class. Other

works that were documented were done by radical newspapers that received little attention.

Women would appear in special proceedings with state legislatures and deliver speeches but

unfortunately they were never recorded. Such speeches addressed womens rights and related

items. However, there were a select few that were able to get their work published or at least

recognized.F

ormer slaves, Harriet Jacobs or Harriet Wilson, were lucky enough to be literate

but the fact that they were slaves did not help boost their work (Campbell, Conscious-Raising:

Linking Theory, Criticism, and Practice, 2002).


6/11

The 1960s began to shed light on feminism as social protest which spurred a minor outbreak of

discourse for and by women. Academic institutions developed womens studies programs

which helped to widen the scope of recovery. Several female authors composed books that

explored the processes of the past to help rhetoricians better understand the contexts of

women contributions to rhetoric and how it relates to the traditional rhetoric that is already set

in place (Campbell, Conscious-Raising: Linking Theory, Criticism, and Practice, 2002).

Critical analysis has been a major contributor to the recovery of rhetoric by and about women.

Campbell states that she found it hard to criticize womens protest rhetoric with the traditional

rhetorical methods and proposed that a new method be developed. Campbell studied

discursive elements of women dating back to 1848 up to 1925. She focused on how women

handled situations that posed obstacles. This led Campbell to identify strategies that she called

feminine style. This term referred to the possibility of reducing hostility of audiences by using

elements of femininity into the presentations (Campbell, Conscious-Raising: Linking Theory,

Criticism, and Practice, 2002).

When women deliver a speech they tend to use a feminine style, yet many women have

mastered the use of techniques such as inductive structure, personal experience, and

presenting evidence and opposing positions. Using all of the techniques combined offers a

productive way for women to deliver the speech and message; however, the fact that they are

still female gets in the way of whether or not their speech is effective (Campbell, Conscious-

Raising: Linking Theory, Criticism, and Practice, 2002).


7/11

This leads us to analysis conducted by Joshua Gunn in an article titled On Speech and Public

Release. Gunn focused on a speech delivered by Hillary Clinton during her campaign for

presidency. To be more specific he focused on the tone Clinton used and the effectiveness of it.

Keep in mind what Campbell said concerning the masculinity of speech and how women did not

fit into that description. She also addressed womens inability to relate to and persuade the

audience.

Hillary Clinton:

You hear one thing in speeches, and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of

tactics, reminiscent of the same sort of the Republican attacks on Democrats. Well, I am

here to say that it is not only wrong, but it is undermining core democratic principles.

Since when do democrats attack one another on universal health care? I thought we

were trying to realize Harry Trumans dream! . . . Just because SenatorObama chose not

to present a universal health care plan, does not give him the right to attack me because

I did! So, lets have a real campaign. Enough with the speeches, and the big rallies, and

then using tactics that are right out of Karl Roves playbook, this is wrong! And every

democrat should be outraged, because this is the kind of attack that not only

undermines core democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special

interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we wanna

to do for America. So, shame on you BarackObama! It is time you ran a campaign


8/11

consistent with your messages in public. Thats what I expect from you! Meet me in

Ohio, lets have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign!

Clinton is accused of becoming emotional during speeches which spark the audience into

thinking that she is irrational and incapable of running a country. Obama stated that because of

his masculine demeanor he is able to keep his emotional composer. Without stating it, Clinton

is accused of being too emotional due to the fact that she is a woman (Gunn, 2010).

Hillarys Shame on you speech was dubbed forceful, impassioned, fierce, sharp, and angry.

After reviewing the speech and using Campbells descriptions and definitions of feminine

rhetoric, I would say that Clinton was exercising feminine style, and like a male would called

upon her opponent to clarify himself. However, the speech did not seem impassioned, rather

passionate about her emotions. Unfortunately she did not gain any popular votes from this

speech (Gunn, 2010).

Laura Meyer, Florida political consultant describes the tone Hillary used in the speech:

There are two voices that dont seem very threatening. One is a little girl voice and the

other is the Lauren Bacall, very sexy voice. But, between these . . .two, I think that

women have to be very careful that they dont sound like what I call the voice of

civilization, the one who has said eat your spinach, take your elbows of the table,


9/11

wheres your homework, a voice that sort of sounds like a bit of mother or school

teacher and, initially, wife.

Here again, Clinton is being perceived as what society has labeled women as, a nag. Again, if

Campbell where to criticize Clintons speech, she would state that that it is perfect example of

feminism critique. Traditional rhetoric does not address rhetoric by women; Clintons speech is

proving to be ineffective to the audience because of her choice of words that are emphasized

with her tone. Campbell would argue that Clintons speech displays symbolic human action with

Clinton, Obama, and the audience. She was pointing out her feelings and criticizing the rhetoric

of Obamas speech. Clinton also attempted to persuade the audience to see her view and using

examples such as Obamas attack on universal health care and core democratic values. She

challenged him to address her face-to-face on issues. If this were spoken by a man, it would be

viewed in the masculine sense and would more than likely excite the audience for the Ohio

match up. Instead, it was viewed as if Clinton was scolding Obama for his disrespectful words.

Campbell refers to the speech as a classic catch-22. She states that Clinton has been victimized

because of her failure to perform femininity properly. If you recall, Campbell described her

theory on the feminine style, Clinton failed to reduce the hostility of the audience.

Hillary Clintons speech may have fallen victim to traditional rhetorical theory but it adds to the

collection of rhetorical works by women. Modern day has changed drastically since the days of

slavery. Women, for the most part, are accepted in society and recognized as prominent


10/11

members of society. Collecting works by and about women is becoming increasingly easier

since there is an overabundance of material that has yet to be critiqued by feminism theory.


11/11

Sources

Campbell, K. K. (2002). Conscious-Raising: Linking Theory, Criticism, and Practice. Rhetoric Society

Quartly, 32, 45-60.

Campbell, K. K. (2001). Rhetorical Feminism. Rhetoric Review, 9-12.

Campbell, K. K. (1989). The Sound of Women's Voices. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 212-258.

Gunn, J. (2010). On Speech and Public Release. Rhetoric and Public Affairs , 1-41.

RhetoricalFeminism

Documents

Transcript of RhetoricalFeminism