Alexandra Hinchcliff
After reading through this chapter, I was intrigued by the male/female roles in rhetoric that is presented to the readers. In this chapter we see that Enheduanna is the author of her hymns/personal narrative/praise to the goddess. No other explanations is given about the authorship but yet because she is a women living in a time before Greek rhetoric it is a possibility that she is fictional. On the other hand there is Plato; he has no surviving work of his own. The only reason we know of Plato is because of his students and yet it is not questioned if he was real or not.
The dominant discourse that is Greek rhetoric makes it impossible to conceive that a Mesopotamian woman was educated in reading and writing and held the honored position of high priestess. Thus obstructing any contributions that Enheduanna might have on both the historical and rhetorical lens of Mesopotamia: “the primary controversy around Enheduanna appears to be whether or not she existed as an actual person. Thus the implications of her context, her work, herself, and her rhetorical context have not been explored to any great extent” (52). On the previous page, it states that her existence is accepted within the discipline of Assyriology. And yet Enheduanna cannot be found in Mesopotamian literature because of Greek discourse that states that women have no agency.
At the beginning of the chapter Roberta Binkley defines rhetoric as “inscribing the relationship of power and language” (48). Stated in the previous paragraphs one can see the relationship of power where old Greek men define the boundaries of Rhetoric and status of women. Binkley’s other definition of rhetoric about language is just another on a list that “others” women into a column of non-existence. “the Sumerian language has no grammatical gender” (56). This concept of an ungendered language liberates women from the subjugation of men which is shown in this chapter of Mesopotamian women have just as much agency but when applied through a Western Rhetorical lens we get this oppression of women through a gendered language. Which in essence changes the meaning of the Sumerian language and makes the translations inaccurate and meaningless. In the example we are given of Enheduanna’s work the phrase “oh exalted Lady” is used which show readers the manipulation of Sumerian language to fall under the dominant discourse of Western society.
I pose this question: Is Plato fictional or does Western Discourse make him real?
I think it is interesting to analyze "real-ness" in rhetoric. The constant truth seeking going on internally while we read is hard to ignore and is often argued over. I believe it was Lilly who spoke to the point that whether something is true is not the issue at hand, but how we read into the truth holds higher importance. We have been lead all along to believe that Plato was a real man but now we are suddenly forced to question his credibility and this is what Binkley intentionally forces us to consider. The answer to truth may never be known (mostly because it is malleable and subjective) which means that we may never know if Plato or Enheduanna were 'real' people. Binkley caused us to wonder whether there is importance in the concrete truth. The truth is unimportant; the analysis of 'why' we need truth is necessary and plays a massive role in how and why we study the rhetorical pieces we do.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your question of Plato. It provides a different view point on traditional forms of rhetoric. However, due to this question how many other rhetorers from the past during Plato's time can we question whether or not they are real?
ReplyDeleteIt almost as if the further we go back the more mythology is involved, questioning whether or not some of these people were real or not. Mythology isn' t real, even though the myths during the time of the Greeks was a large cultural affair for all. If we begin to understand the truths of their cultures, maybe then we can determine the "real-ness" of their ideas and rhetorical styles.
I really like this post, and the last question (which I’ve been thinking about for a while now): Is Plato fictional or does Western Discourse make him real? And the sad truth is that we will never know (the same goes for Enheduanna). Even if he is fictional, it would probably not make a difference in todays rhetoric. The Greek rhetoric would still be as important, because we have looked to if for 100 of years. Like with religion it is up to each person to decide if they believe it, but the fact is that the different texts exist. On the other hand it is interesting, as you point out, that Enheduanna teachings have been irrelevant, because she might not be real (+ a woman). In my opinion it should not matter if she is real- or not, a female or a man. She and her writings are a part of the rhetorical history and should be taught, just like Plato.
ReplyDelete