I initially found Binkley's statement,
"Crossing disciplinary boundaries, I find that embedded within the
methodologies of my own area of rhetoric are often unstated, and frequently
unconscious, theoretical assumptions," (47) to be especially interesting.
Since taking my first class in rhetoric, I have been thinking about how we can
look at something and set aside the assumptions that are so deeply embedded in
our minds aside. Even how we are introduced to rhetoric in school plants the
initial idea that the Greeks were the beginning of rhetoric and we are given
the base knowledge of what Plato and the following created as Western rhetoric.
How would our ideas change if we were first taught about Mesopotamia first and
then the Greeks? Binkley brings up, “In Assyriology, the narratives around
origins become problematized by the beginning of the discipline itself in the
nineteenth century with its early scholarly roots embedded in nationalism and
colonialism” (51). If these weren’t the roots we are already predisposed to how
differently would we see things?
The fact that Enheduanna is a woman is
also obviously worth focusing on. The fact that traditional Western rhetoric
did not focus on women partially explains why Enheduanna does not hold a place
within that discourse. Basically, rhetoric was denying other rhetoric, which is
a rhetorical move in itself. It is interesting then to consider the idea
Binkley brings up that much of the Greek intellectual and literary tradition was
influenced by Egypt and Mesopotamia. The image of the barbaric “others”
compared to the civilized Greeks is another interesting angle to consider in
relation to the roots of traditional Western rhetoric. If other ancient cultures were painted as being barbaric then people would not want to consider their ideas.
Another interesting point is that he Mesopotamians
believed that the human body was a genderless creation. When compared to our
world where genders are clearly distinguished in language, this would have
shaped how Enheduanna viewed herself, how she created language and how she received
it. If this was an element traceable to traditional Western rhetoric, how did
gender become so important? Obviously gender is highly related to power, which
is a deep root in traditional Western rhetoric, but considering Enheduanna puts a new
spin on things.
In Binkley’s conclusion, she points out
that whether or not Enheduanna was actually the first author is not the point.
What matters is that we read things questioningly. We have been taught that the
Greeks were the creators of rhetoric and I had never questioned this. If women
like Enheduanna may have been valuable parts of an intellectual tradition
before the Greeks, we can use them as a window through which to view the
rhetoric of women in other times.
I think it's interesting to contemplate how different our existence would be -- as a global society, and as a unique more focused American society -- if we were to define origins differently.
ReplyDeleteThere's no way to really postulate what this existence might look like, but it is certain that our understanding of different cultures may be more broad and accepting.
However, who is to say that if there were a switch from originating philosophy, rhetoric, and science -- essentially everything of value -- from the Greeks to Mesopotamia that the same problems of dominate ideas would not occur.
Sure, it's pretty safe to say that the treatment of the human psyche would probably not be so Western focused, but would it not in turn then be more focused on the Orient, or Eastern cultures? Would this not pose the same issues of The Other that Binkley brings up in her essay?
It's easy to hypothesize about the impact of a more broad view toward the origins of human thought, and more specifically for this class, rhetoric. But, that's only because we are experiencing the issues themselves.
Perhaps in some alternate existence of the Earth, side by side with ours, the Earth's cultures are struggling with an Eastern-dominated origin viewpoint and are wondering what the benefits of a more broad view, incorporating that of the West, would look like.
I wonder if we can consider the creation of gender in language to be the biggest and most impactful rhetorical move in the history of language (maybe history of humankind?). It staggers me to think of the implications gender has played in societies. Would knowing about Enheduanna have changed things? I think her writings would have helped earlier generations resist against gender empowerment/disempowerment. In other words, the feminist movements would have possibly happened sooner. But I think male dominant rhetoric still would have taken us through the Great Social Depression, a depression that has lasted 5,000 years, that we are still trying to claw out of.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's important to look past women as a single unit. Women of the United States are diverse in a myriad of ways. And it's kind of scary to point out that women of color's rhetoric has been marginalized and suppressed in our society as well. We are all trying to climb the hierarchal ladder, and the easiest way to get to the top is to create a new hierarchy with yourself at the top.