rhetorical citizenship paper final

7/30/2019 Rhetorical Citizenship Paper Final

1/7

Robert Lovelady

ENC3331

We often think of rhetoric in modern contexts alongside traditional ones, such as its

history in ancient Greece. It was closely related to citizenship, which although is a vastly

different concept today, is still very much a part of peoples civic lives. Although

instances of civic engagement havent been abundant throughout my life, my reflection

on the meaning of rhetorical citizenship has made me think of how I live my life in

relation to others. My initial ideas of engagement in a community were closer to the idea

of community service, but my study of rhetoric has led me to believe it is much more

than that. Rhetoric is somewhat cryptic in nature, as many scholars offer a spectrum of

the meaning of rhetoric. Because I agree with some notions of rhetoric, and disagree with

others, it will be important for me to define rhetorical citizenship.

As many peoples civic lives center around ideas of rhetoric and citizenship, it is

important to reflect on rhetorical citizenship as two separate terms, and as one idea.

Rhetoric itself is a term which has meaning that stretches back to ancient Greece. Classic

philosophers and speakers offer varying opinions on rhetoric. Rhetoric was effectively

the ability to persuade, as explained by Isocrates (203). His work,Antidosis, is an

effective demonstration of the use of rhetoric in its context. In this work of fiction by

Isocrates, he is charged with paying a liturgy (a civic tax) which he tries to dispute by

persuading the court with a speech which also defends his teaching of rhetoric. Rhetoric

was taught to wealthy citizens to defend themselves in court by persuading their large


2/7

court of citizens. These teachers of rhetoric were known as Sophists, and developed a bad

reputation for enabling people to gain an unfair advantage in persuading others.

This form of rhetoric was closely tied to citizenship, as citizens in ancient Greece were

the only ones who had a say in government and in court. Citizenship was also not

available to all, and was restricted to males (Palczewski et. al, 11). Due to the limited

access of rhetoric to male citizens who could afford it, and the size of civic bodies,

rhetoric was exclusive and audiences were less aware of the rhetorical moves made to

persuade them.

This did not change much over time, until this past century when citizenship was opened

to women, and rigid rights were established for minorities. Today, the idea of citizenship

is slightly different from what it used to be. Almost all inhabitants of a country (or group)

count as its citizens, and in democratic countries, not every citizen chooses to vote or

become involved. The requirements for citizenship are usually dictated legally by birth or

by application, but there are implicit requirements, or recommendations for being agood

citizen. Amy J. Wan comments that Democracy cant work unless citizens are literate

and informed ( 31). The quality of Democracy is tied to the quality of its citizens, who

are aware of civic matters and express their voice through voting. We may be born into a

democracy and have the right to vote, but if we arent engaged in civic matters, how can

we form an opinion on them? For these purposes, we must consider the importance of the

modern citizens role in society as opposed to classical notions.


3/7

We often think of citizens in terms of education, since many suppose the goal of

education is to produce better citizens. Wan supposes that a good citizen is commonly

perceived by others as one who participates, who is engaged, who can critique society,

and who is a productive, satisfied member of the nation, using advanced literacy skills as

a means to achieve these civic acts. (33) However, she warrants that this idea is

grounded in assumption; that citizenship is like a status or a product of a system. This

definition seems to presume one to be a result of schooling, and that citizenship is

dependent on literacy, which isnt always true. The definition also does not consider

cultural identity, status, beliefs, and other factors which encompass the many varied

actions of citizenship that people engage in. Here, is easier to relate citizenship to a form

of identity and nationality. Linda Bosniak best describes citizenship as identity and

solidarity that a person maintains in collective or public life. (qtd. in Wan, 34) This

definition does not restrict the idea of citizenship to depending factors like status or

education, leaving it more open to interpretation. I feel that leaving this definition more

open is appropriate, since there are countless forms of civic action that can be tied to

citizenship, which do not necessarily depend on the quality of ones character or status.

These points have led me to a revelation of sorts- rhetorical citizenship is much more

than its two combined definitions. We might look at rhetorical citizenship as a concept of

persuasion as communicative action in the civic sphere, but this concept must be

grounded in todays modern political contexts. I think todays societal climate is best

described by Placzewski, Ice, and Fritch fromRhetoric in Civic Life, who provided my

revelation in the first few pages of their work. They describe a modern society consisting


4/7

of a large body of participants, all with different interests and goals. Many of them refuse

interaction with each other, avoiding conflict and discussion when it comes to civic

matters. Yet todays open society relies on the exchange of ideas and opinions, as they

are crucial to decision making. Rhetoric insists on people who are open to having their

minds changed, and enables them to listen, modify, and communicate their message.

(Placzewski et. al, 15) Since the civic body has vastly increased from classical times, to

include many varied groups of people, there are many opinions and interests which affect

policy making. However, not all of them can be appeased at once, thus requiring some

form of compromise, and negotiation; persuasion. Without rhetoric, citizens wouldnt

understand or be able to express their ideas as part of a larger goal; to reach some form of

agreement.

Today, rhetorical citizenship isnt solely about persuading large audiences or any

particular aspect of civic action. It is a way of life; a skill set which serves political,

personal, and epistemological functions (Placzweski et. al, 15), producing a capable

citizen, and allowing him or her to communicate in an open and large society which

increasingly necessitates negotiated compromise between many stratified factions. This, I

feel, is the most important meaning of the term by todays standards, and expresses the

relevance of something greater than a universal definition.

To me, rhetorical citizenship isnt a narrow meaning, but it also isnt all-inclusive based

on the definition I have identified with. When reflecting on the mapping project I

completed in class, remember it by its process. It was a collaborative effort, which was


5/7

based in several different interests, which required continuous communication and

negotiation for common tasks. During the process of defining the mission statement for

this map, we all practiced rhetorical citizenship by voicing our mission statements. As a

class, we discussed common elements of our statements, yet we could not all be

convinced of a single mission statement. To continue to work on this matter in class; to

attempt to reach an agreement with everyone, would have been very time consuming and

difficult. In a sense, by suggesting moving the discussion of the mission statement to

another space, where only interested participants would go, I helped make the process

easier by shrinking the body of students active in the mission statement. With a smaller

group of more interested people, it was easier to reach a consensus, and less persuasion

was needed. This example supports my definition, which would explain that we were all

not rhetorically skilled enough to compromise on our mission statement as a large civic

body.

To show rhetorical citizenship as a skill set, I will recall a unique experience with rhetoric

in the political realm a few years ago, which did a lot to help shape and supplement my

notions of rhetoric to this day. In 2008, myself and about 500 other students across

Florida were selected for a weeks stay in Tallahassee for Boys State (there was an equal

Girls State as well) where we were shown the legislative processes of the state capitol,

given lectures on its processes, and given a chance to enact mock legislative procedures.

The processes we were educated on were all procedures for discourse in a political body,

which involved following Roberts rules of order, and dictated how to discuss bills in a

timely and efficient manner. Eventually, we elected each other to positions, and proposed


6/7

mock bills on the floor of the actual state senate. Although there were many of us, we

were given a chance to propose a bill, and after some preliminary selecting, we debated

for hours over several bills. We were very orderly; there was an elected speaker, allotted

time for support and criticism for proposed bills, time for the amendment of bills, and

conventions for speaking in turn and voting as a group. Because of the conventions and

procedures in place, engaging in rhetorical discourse was easier, since the procedures

gave us goals to work towards (i.e. persuading others to amend, support, and criticize

bills). These procedures forced in place certain qualities or skills that we needed to have

to effectively negotiate- patience, motivation, participation, being open to change, and the

ability to listen to others and communicate well. This experience strengthened my

rhetorical citizenship, by equipping me to understand the motives, values, and methods of

real politicians and the processes that are required for real legislation to be successful.

I think rhetorical citizenship will be an evolving concept. Wherever history leads us, the

need for persuasion will persist in different forms, and the idea of rhetorical action itself

will always be tied to the rhetorical context of an era, defined by its citizens. Today there

are still large issues which have not been resolved, and as I hope they will not persist in

the future, it is important now to engage in these issues as citizens to solve them. I find

myself becoming a more involved citizen; more willing to challenge others and put

confidence in myself as an expert in several topics of discourse. As I continue my

academic career and engage in more group-related work, I trust I will find it more

necessary to enact rhetorical citizenship, to continually negotiate and compromise with

those around me.


7/7

Works Cited

Mirhady, David C., and Yun Lee Too.Isocrates I. University of Texas Press. 2004. Print.

Palczewski, Catherine Helen, Richard Ice, and John Fritch.Rhetoric in Civic Life. State

College: Strata Publishing, Inc. 2012. Print

Wan, Amy J. In the Name of Citizenship: The Writing Classroom and the Promise of

Citizenship. College English 74.1 (2011): 28-49. Print

rhetorical citizenship paper final

Documents