Dale 1 Stacey Dale Professor Wolcott ENC 3331 16 Nov 2012 Rhetorical Citizenship: Building Bridges Through Language

What makes citizenship rhetorical? In order to understand rhetorical citizenship, first we need to have a good grasp of rhetoric and citizenship separately. Thus, I have sectioned my paper into three parts. First, I look at rhetoric and what prominent writers say it is, and then create my own definition. I do the same with citizenship, pulling most of my information and resources from Amy J. Wan, and conclude with a definition of citizenship. Lastly, I use the newly acquired understandings of rhetoric and citizenship to help explain and enhance my own rhetorical citizenship experience. Buckle up and enjoy the ride.

Who can define rhetoric? (yes, this is rhetorical) Once a piece of the basic three-part education system called the trivium (Leith 34), rhetoric has now lost much of its desirability as a skill. Nowadays, many people only associate rhetoric with politicians, assuming that rhetoric is manipulative and deceptive. Thomas Sowell, a columnist for Townhall.com, says that much of rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead. Concerning Obama in particular, Sowell states that his great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound. Sowell is not alone in his opinion about rhetoric. However, although many people consider rhetoric to be a shadowy business for those who dont have logic on their side, rhetoric is simply a form of art that can be used for either questionable purposes or profound good.

Dale 2 So what is rhetoric? Simply put, it is the art of persuasion: the attempt of one human being to influence another in words (Leith 1). Here Leith lays the foundation of rhetoric: it is persuasive. Im cool with that. However, he also constricts rhetoric by claiming that the influence, or persuasion, must come through words. Im not sure if I agree. Speaking is a symbolic action, in that what we speak about signifies an action, a thought, an opinion, etc. But is speech the only kind of symbolic action available to humanity? Consider the work Habitat for Humanity does. Outwardly, Habitat builds houses, but that is by no means its final goal. Ill discuss this in more detail later. Leith doesnt stop there, though. He offers multiple forms and definitions of rhetoric; a means to an end (2), language at play (6), and the formal strength of words (9) are just a few of the definitions Leith presents. Aristotles definition of rhetoric is broader, and encompasses more actions. Rhetoric, he says, is concerned with such things as are, to a certain extent, within the knowledge of all people and belong[s] to no separately defined science (30). So firstly, Aristotle deflates Sowells claim that rhetoric only relies on feelings. Aristotle argues that instead rhetoric is based on universal knowledge. He says that the function of rhetoric is not to persuade but to see the available means of persuasion in each case (Aristotle 36), which doesnt necessarily contradict but certainly refines Leiths basic definition. Aristotle, then, believes that rhetoric must concern itself with syllogisms commonly understood, and that it is Rogerian rather than assertive in form and focus. So rhetoric is persuasive; Aristotle and Leith have drilled that into us. But what else? Donald McCloskey, a distinguished professor of economics, history, English, and communication (McDonald), writes that rhetoric is merely speech with designs on the reader

Dale 3 (McCloskey 3). C. J. Classen argues that rhetoric should not only be regarded as the art of speaking or the art of speaking persuasively; it is also and should also be taught as the art of thinking clearly, the art of speaking responsibly, the art of listening and judging critically (Classen 2). Between these two, I appreciate Classens definition more than McCloskeys, because it emphasizes rhetoric not only as persuasive speech, but also as responsible language. So rhetoric. Rhetoric, to me, is the responsible use of language to understand the situation and persuade an audience as a means to an end. And when I say language I am referring to any kind of communication, be it through speech, the written word, or other symbolic action. Rhetoric does not only rely on the action, the language, the communication; it also lives and breathes off context, apt timing, the perfect moment, kairos. A good rhetorician understands and constructs the situation of the argument, and he skillfully bends and molds his rhetoric to the occasion.

Citizenship: from legal leeches to civil servants How do we define citizens and citizenship? In the broadest sense of the word, a citizen is merely a legal member of the state or country. To be a citizen of the United States, your only requirement is to be born on American soil. A citizens duties may include paying taxes and voting. Its comfortable and easy to be an American. But is that all, or are more duties attached to citizenship? Amy Wan offers some varying definitions of citizenship, but she relates every definition to literacy. Wan proposes that the will to produce citizenship through the teaching of writing is strong (Wan 28), and so all of her definitions emphasize writing to produce citizenship. Wan defines the main principles that

Dale 4 establish boundaries of citizenship, or more precisely, full citizenship, as liberty, democratic participation, the public good, [and] social equality (34). Liberty is an important premise to citizenship. In a country that does not have free elections and freedom in general, the people are slaves and not citizens of the state. The public good and social equality are both foundational pieces of good citizenship. Democratic participation is a little stickier. I think Wan ignores another form of democracy that we have available to us: nonparticipation. Nonparticipation is a strong tool that citizens can use to express opinions and solicit change; however, it generally does not occur in written form. Linking literacy so closely to citizenship may lead Wan to ignore other important parts of citizenship. Wan continues that writing teachers, whether intentionally or not, imply through assignment choice what they believe makes a good citizen (32), and that students learn much of how to be a participatory citizen through the writing decision in the classroom. But is teaching participatory citizenship in the classroom enough? Where else could obstacles lie for those wishing to be engaged, informed, and responsible citizens? In her book Living Room: Teaching Public Writing in a Privatized World, Nancy Welch address the barriers students face when they want to voice their concerns. She writes about one such experience when her students attended a rally, but neglected to speak about their greatest concerns. She says

Why was it, for instance, that that the topics these students had said were of chief concern to them at the moment . . . did not show up on any of the students lists of what they felt they could write about? One woman explained that shed

Dale 5 sometimes tried to argue with her stepfather . . . but always wound up tonguetied and mixing up the facts. (Welch 115)

Thus, Welch was faced with a different issue. She had intelligent, fully literate students in her classroom who struggled to speak and write about their concerns because they were afraid of being taken seriously. For me, this raises the question about literacy and citizenship, and if literacy on its own is enough. How can writing teachers not only provide the tools for students to become better citizens, but also give them the courage needed to step out into a confrontational, unforgiving environment. Literacy may be the MVP of good citizenship, but the power of authority must be considered too. So winding down, Wan never lays out an easy, take-away definition of citizenship. The reader is left with students learning how to be citizens in class, and teachers possessing the power to mold citizens as they see fit. I am uncomfortable with Wans conflation of literacy and citizenship because, although she claims social equality as one of the core principles surrounding citizenship, I believe that the requirement of literacy actually discriminates against a minority that will never be literate but still have an opinion. An example would be individuals with Down Syndrome, autism, etc. I believe citizenship is rooted in the symbolic action of informed individuals. A good citizen doesnt take for granted the opportunities made available by democracy that allow the spread of ideas to enhance informed decision-making. A good citizen uses the skills he/she has to expand liberty, broaden democratic participation, better the public, and achieve social equality. Voting is a simple example; building a house for Habitat another.

Dale 6 Rhetorical Citizenship: Offering free ESL classes to residents of East Orlando In the beginning of the fall semester, I was given the opportunity to volunteer at University Presbyterian Church as an assistant teaching free English classes to any who would come. Our first night we had over sixty Orlando residents ranging from pre-beginner to advanced ESL speakers. The church offers a sixteen week program that meets every Monday from 7-9pm. Every week our schedule is class from 7-8, a snack, a bible story, and than the commencement of class until 9. I recently saw one of the women students at church. She is in the pre-beginner class and still struggles with the most basic English, but she attends the sermons to enhance her learning. Our efforts to draw residents to church are successful, at least slightly, and she is able to get the instruction she wants for free. The volunteer work is rhetorical because it is not only teaching. We are participating in symbolic action through the teaching of bible stories to persuade residents about our faith. It is citizenship because we are enabling better social equality by bridging the language gap many residents experience. By helping others to become citizens legally (many of our students are illegal) and giving them the opportunity to be more informed through language and thus participate in citizenship, we are participating in rhetorical citizenship. We are registering that there is a problem, which many people overlook, and we are offering a solution: help the residents to become legal citizens. Our work is audience-specific; we tailor our activities to those who directly are influenced. Our work is purposeful; we teach those who are alienated, we welcome those who feel foreign and overlooked, and we offer fellowship to people lonely and far from family and relatives.

Dale 7 So rhetorical citizenship is not only the action appropriate for a citizen; it is persuasive, contextual, situational, and timely. It addresses a specific audience, and it doesnt lose sight of its goal. It is the neat, clean fusion of rhetoric and citizenship. We are free, we are responsible, and we participate purposely and thoughtfully.

Dale 8 Works Cited Aristotle. On Rhetoric. (I dont know how I should cite this) Classen, C. J. The Role of Rhetoric Today. Renaissances of Rhetoric. Ed. S. Ijsseling and G. Vervaecke. Leuven: Leuven UP, 1994. 38. Webcourses@UCF. ENC 3331: Additional Rhetoric Definitions. 2. Oct 2012. Web. 13 Nov 2012. Leith, Sam. Words Like Loaded Pistols: Rhetoric From Aristotle to Obama. New York: Basic Books, 2012. Print. McCloskey, Donald N. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; 1994 xiv. Webcourses@UCF. ENC 3331: Additional Rhetoric Definitions. 3. Oct 2012. Web. 13 Nov 2012. McDonald, Susan B. Deirdre Nansen McCloskey. Prudentia. N d. Web. 13 Nov 2012. Sowell, Thomas. Obamas Rhetoric. Townhall.com. 19 Jul 2012. Web. 13 Nov 2012. Wan, Amy J. In the Name of Citizenship: The Writing Classroom and the Promise of Citizenship. College English; 74.1, 28-49: Sep 2011. Print. Welch, Nancy. Living Room: Teaching Public Writing in a Privatized World. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann, 2008. Print.