Superiority and the Revolving Door: The "Daily Routine" of Rhetorics

     “For many American Indian speakers and writers, establishing a measure of identification with their white audience has been a primary demand” (Stromberg 4). This line got me thinking about the amount of energy necessary for “minorities” to enter a western rhetorical discourse. In the intro, Stromberg represents this book as a bridge that others built to establish identification, and thus, be considered a speaker that is included in the discussion.

     All this energy, while a great tool for cultures to use against another dominant/oppressive culture, must be focused on simply being allowed in the door, let alone speaking or being considered as “legitimate.” I would argue that this is a mechanism of the dominant rhetoric (in this case Euro-American rhetoric) to reduce and repress “othered” rhetoric from undermining its place atop the power hierarchy.

     I liken this to the narrative presented to women from a young age that they must keep themselves presented in a certain way, encouraging hours of preparation in makeup, hygiene practices, clothing style, and hair considerations. This narrative says that a woman must meet a set of prescribed functions “to be allowed out in public” in the same way that western rhetoric forces “others” to present themselves in a certain way to be heard. Either way the “participant” is required to expel large amounts of energy just to walk into a space. Now the “regulars” already have the upper hand, being well rested and comfortable clothed in their ownership of the space.

     On this subject, I would ask all of you that read this to watch Tracey Spicer’s Ted Talk “The Lady Stripped Bare.” She spells it out better than me with a personal retelling of her daily routine, and she discusses the potential loss women will experience in their lifetime following these “daily routines.”

     I believe the field of rhetorics should look for ways for all peoples to walk into the discussion and be heard without first requiring them to conform to standards that benefit those in power. In relation to the Native American exclusion to western rhetoric, I think Stromberg says it best: “Indians who would speak or write on behalf of Native rights and cultures were and often still are addressing an audience that generally assumes its own superiority” (5).

     How can we remove the “daily routine” from, in this case, western rhetorics, which wastes valuable time and energy forcing “others” to negotiate and conform to society? Most in the academic field would argue that these standards need to stay in place to ensure a measured and coherent discussion. But they would say that wouldn’t they? Establish a daily routine for others. Rinse and repeat until they are all washed up.

     Let’s skip the spin cycle, and start drying out these watered down methods.