Clearly by the title, I spend too much time watching shows like Mad Men and House of Cards. However, the show House of Cards feels relevant to the topic at hand. On page 112, the definition of rhetorical exclusion is given as " a rhetorical strategy that defines those who seek inclusion into the larger polity on thier own terms as inherently destructive of that polity, questioning the motives of those who challenge governmental power, and a presumption that those involved in such challenges are inherently guilty of crimes against the policy."
The game that non-natives use to provide reason for convicting others of wrong doings because not all can understand this form of rhetoric. This creates problems for those that are not a part of this political community. Not only is this a problem with the natives, it is still a problem for today's society. As a voter making an "educated decision" is like doing a research paper on the tests ran by the Nazi party during the beginning of the second World war (most of which today is under lock and key now). This rhetorical strategy has created many of the voters and non-voters an outsider to the game of politics. Even though the natives had the similar problem, this rhetorical strategy is now creating a smaller field of those that can understand what is being said in a debate, article, and speech.
However, with the political rhetorical exclusion, the natives can become the enemy with the people in power as described further down on page 112. The natives have found a way to alter and understand the rhetorical exclusion. This gives them power over the politicians. If majority chooses to understand what the natives are trying to say the game of politics, the tower of power which the politics built for themselves would end up falling because then many would be a part of an old very inclusive discourse community that used to be of a select few. They would end up being weakened and allowed to reverse some options made by previous rulers that controlled the laws of the land, such as the natives and being proven guilty soon after a shoot out as described in today's article.
I like how you tied this to modern politics and how rhetorical exclusion has cast a larger net over all American people. No longer is it just Native Americans but also of-age voters, the uniformed, and the mentally susceptible. I also appreciate how you brought it back to Native Americans and their ability to combat rhetorical exclusion. However, what are you thoughts on how to combat rhetorical exclusion in today's politics?
ReplyDeleteNatalie,
ReplyDeleteI also liked how you tied this reading to modern politics, because I found myself making the same kind of connections. The genre of modern politics are a good way of understanding this notion of “rhetorical exclusion,” because we usually have to be somewhat educated in a topic in order to be truly included in conversations of such. This is why I often avoid topics like politics and religion because I sometimes feel like I’m not educated enough in the discourse to have something meaningful to say.
So I guess what I am understanding after connecting your blog thoughts with my own, is that the limitations of either rhetorical exclusion or inclusion depend on how well studied we are with the material. Rhetorical exclusion and inclusion have to do with the level of mastery a person has with a subject. The body of a subject, like rhetoric, will always seek the voices with the most insight and mastery to represent them, rather than the less credible voices. Those included are acknowledged and are well studied, while those excluded are likely excluded or dismissed because of their lack of mastery of a subject; hence, we study rhetoric, as to be included and join in on complex intellectual conversations about politics, religion, rhetoric and such.
Cheers