McDougal and Nordstrom's "Ma ka Hana ka 'lke (In the Work Is the Knowledge): Kaona as Rhetorical Action" brings up the interesting point of bringing down the master's house using the master's tools. In both Powell's essay and McDougal and Nordstrom's essay, the idea of molding to the dominant rhetoric in order to keep the integrity of their indigenous rhetoric.
This idea fascinates me because it allows, in any situation, the ability for those in an oppressed state to change the power dynamics with communication. Both Winnemucca and the Hawaiian Queen, both indigenous women (probably one of the most oppressed demographics of the time) were able to be part of both cultures simultaneously and gain support for their people all the while proving their credibility in a rhetoric that held different values. Both these women worked on appearing educated and civilized, and both women appealed to the Christian values of those they were speaking to in order to garner support.
Unfortunately, words are not always enough to bring about the total of changes one needs, but it can help the ball begin rolling in the desired direction, as Powell's essay showed us with Winnemucca and her attempts to acquire changes in how her people were treated. However, despite this, both women did make a difference in the lives of their people. Winnemucca helped her culture become more than an idea, and helped her people move toward keeping their sovereignty. The Hawaiian Queen gave her people hope in a difficult time. Both used a foreign rhetoric to stay true to themselves and their own cultures. That kind of mastery is pretty incredible.
So you're posing that we master the ideas posed by these "other" rhetorics in order to bolster our own form of communicating rhetorics in our current society? Obviously that's what these pieces seem to be doing, or at least attempting a certain level of awareness at least.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I wonder how this is done successfully because it seems like fighting somewhat of a losing battle. Even with the awareness that these "other" rhetorics use western rhetorics productively. Western rhetorics don't necessarily have to incorporate these other rhetorics because they hold the current standard, thus the power.
I'm just curious what you would pose is a good way to go about dismantling this power structure, or how you would recreate it with the inclusion of some of the pivotal ideals that "other" rhetorics provide?