Reflective Overview

Gorgias & Ethics

One of the most compelling topics to me while reading Gorgias is the ethics of rhetoric. I am not sure what stance I take when it comes to rhetoric being an importance practice, which in my opinion effects how I see ethics playing a role in it. If rhetoric is purely the art of persuasion, then you can never truly measure an argument for being ethical or unethical. I say this because the underlying root of persuasion is not all that ethical. Why is it so important to win over someone to something you believe just because you believe it? Is that ethical? I think of how persuasion has been used throughout history, and usually it isn’t for a greater good. It is more so used for a personal benefit, despite what it might cost those they are persuading. If this is the case, then rhetoric is never ethical. Of course good people can practice rhetoric, but if your goals are to help everyone, or in another case, will not harm anyone, wouldn’t the truth be enough to make your argument strong. The only thing you would need to convey your message is how to speak and knowing who your audience is. Altering your speech to make sure your audience understands what you are saying is very different than altering it to convince them. This would also mean that determining whether a speech is good or bad has nothing to do with ethics or its implications, which I think I agree with (Hitler may have written and performed some good speeches in his day, but ethically he was a horrible person. I think you wouldn’t admit that his speech was good because of the ethics behind it however). But then again if we aren’t using ethics to determine whether a speech is good or bad, what are we using to judge speeches? This is touched upon in Judging Rhetoric, but I don’t technically agree with his approach. Only because he is bent backwards on proving that rhetoric is ethically a good thing, and I’m not too sure with today’s definition is is. I think rhetoric’s heightened importance in the 20th and 21st century as something plausible has a lot to do with the politics of that time. If America is actually an individualistic society, then it would make sense that people gravitate towards rhetoric because everything is about personal gain (personal being one individual or a specific group that shares the same values). My modern day example is someone like the Koch brothers who spend so much money (I’m referencing a Michael Moore movie I believe) convincing poor Americans that they are for them with different types of campaigns, when in actuality they are more concerned with their personal benefits (according to the film). This is what I feel like is the danger of rhetoric, there is no ethics to the practice.

Four Main Issues

There are so many issues that are interrelated when it comes to rhetoric and its purpose. The most prominent one for me is rhetoric as an ethical tool. What I also like to pay attention to when it comes to rhetoric is word choice and its effects, rhetoric creating or playing off of a culture, and the increase in importance or support of rhetoric in the 20th and 21st century (the history of rhetoric’s use in culture). These issues seem to overlap in all of our discussions and our readings. At first I wanted to break each issue up into separate paragraphs to discuss, but it became confusing because of their close relationship. So instead, I’ll use my favorite readings to show how these issues are interrelated.

BlackLivesMatter

Without examining ethics, rhetoric can be used for harm or for good. Is rhetoric itself ethical? Does one’s rhetoric become ethical or unethical based on if that person is a good person or a bad person? Or does it become unethical or ethical based on if the speaker is trying to reach a personal gain or if they “are for the people”? Even as I try to explore these questions, I see the use of rhetoric that has created these concepts that may or may not even be true. What exactly does it mean to be “for the people” or concerning the “good of all people”? Who coined that term and why? We have to keep exploring ethics and rhetoric and their relationship because it can be very tricky. For example, exploring the ethical of “Black Lives Matter” can be very tricky. We all know (or at least I hope as an African American that we all know, but then again my relationship to the word “black” is very different then say your relationship to it. On the other hand, this is a white woman explaining the importance of the term, which shows that our relationship to words aren’t static) what its suppose to mean. But when “taken out of context”, is it ethical to say that only one “race” matters? What does it even mean to be black, since this choice or words, this rhetoric is socially constructed. Thishashtag not only reflects a culture that has and continues to face injustices (because of being black, but also because of the rhetoric and language that is associated with the word “black”), but it created a culture in a figured world (social media) for those who identify with it or simply want to learn about it.

Judging Rhetoric

Is it ethical within itself to not judge rhetoric using ethics? Usually when this question comes up, people use the example of Hitler. I often have too. Hitler, as unethical as he was, was a great speaker and rhetorician. We say that he was a great rhetorician because of his ability to persuade the masses. That’s judging by skill, not ethics. However, if we look at his speech and dissect what is being said, we may (and I say may because I have never actually looked at or heard one of his speeches and I don’t like making sure statements without sure knowledge) see that there are many fallacies. Could he still be considered a good rhetorician if he altered certain truths? Or were they actual truths to him? If they were actual truths to him, did his culture or experience create the rhetoric that he used? In the “Judging Rhetoric” passage it states, “The problem is thus that in judging rhetoric we can never fully escape our own deepest convictions.” We have our own systems of truths that are created by both our experiences but the language and rhetoric we are always around. (For example, being from NYC, I don’t see curse words as something “bad” language, but word emphasizers to further explain an emotion”.

Language Awareness

This was my favorite reading so far. Slanting through the use of language touches on the issues of ethics because we can or cannot say that an argument was ethical or unethical based on word choice. What does it mean to address a professor by teacher? Is it okay depending on the context or what words are emphasized in that situation? Say a professor were to get upset because they were called teacher (which in my opinion is a very small form of elitism that is created by giving certain words certain meanings). To me, that shows the culture that is formed around a simple title. What does it mean to be a professor vs. teacher? What is the culture created when students must call someone “master” vs. “teacher”?

Virtuous Arguments

Here, Duffy kind of argues that practicing rhetoric and argument will create ethical and rhetoric. This to me is not accurate for a slew of reasons dealing with the idea of truths and relativism and objectivism. Someone can still argue an undeniable evil as true. His/her approach to it may be ethical (not condemning the other side) but does that make his argument ethical? If we agree with Duffy, then the book “The Bell Curve” explains that African-Americans are scientifically proven to be less smart than their white counterparts. Maybe eugenics is a true science as well!

Working Draft of Assignment One

ROUGH ROUGH DRAFT

The relationship between ethics and rhetoric is very tricky. For one, the definition of rhetoric has gone through many changes over time, and is still not a concrete definition, just a somewhat concrete understanding. For this reason alone, I believe it’s really hard to place a label or title on their relationship. It’s more so like a situationship – there is something there more or less, one day ethics and rhetoric are working together hand in hand, the next they are fighting with each other, almost seeming as opposites. If the relationship between the two is hard to define, then one can agree it must be hard to teach others or inform others on how they are used in relation to each other because in actuality, they can be placed in an array of different ways. Nonetheless, there are those that believe learning rhetoric is important to learn and understand when it is being used and why. And that I agree with. But I won’t try to make rhetoric seem as something that is ethical and just and provides justice to all. Because in all honesty, that isn’t how it’s used and has not been used in that way in the public sphere for as long as I can remember. I won’t make that argument because I do not want to lead another generation into being fooled into having false hope in others. Instead, I would like to show you how rhetoric is more often than not used in unethical ways, almost arguing that rhetoric is in fact an unethical tool. However, because it is practiced so often and is almost necessary, it still holds some value in society. Nothing good can exist without a certain combative force. If one can see how rhetoric has some unethical tactics, then they can better understand and better question those who practice rhetoric. They can better evaluate when they are being told something for their personal benefit or for the personal gain of the rhetorician. They can place the rhetoric and rhetorician in historical contexts and understand why they are being told what they are being told. Its easy to continue to praise something and show all the good about something with just small glimpses of the bad. But let’s really sit there and evaluate the bad, and continue to progress rhetoric and discussions to where we can come to common ethical grounds. Let’s take a new approach, because the old one is simply not working.

To show how rhetoric is more often than not an unethical tactic, I’ll use the easiest and most abundunt example available; advertising and marketing! We all know the goal of advertising and marketing, to sell the consumer a product. But now a days, it seems as if the goal is more than just selling a product, but a dream, a story, an alternate reality where you do not want the product, you desire and believe that you need it. The tactics of creating such desires continue to push boundaries as we enter a world where marketing is found through every medium trying to grab your attention. I will use the Dove Beauty campaign to show their use of rhetoric is highly unethical in order to gain profit. They are using all tactics that can be found in ethical arguments. They are also for the most part a somewhat ethical brand. However, if we use their campaign, something that looks good on the surface and analyze it, it will absolutely result in my audience seeing that rhetoric is just knowing how to win over your opponent, and if that’s the idea behind rhetoric, then it isn’t unethical.

Outline

Intro – Discuss the relationship of rhetoric and ethics as I see it and discuss my stance on it

Rhetoric as unethical using marketing and advertising using the Dove campaign

point one – slants the truth

point two – feeds off of ethos alone, leaving for an unethical, illogical argument

point three – creates a new reality/culture

point four – this type of rhetoric has found in increase because we are a consuming culture

point five – showing that it did not work BECAUSE people where able to call out the negative of the rhetoric, why its important to see it as a negative tool so you can maneuver through the “information age” more efficiently (know what’s garbage and what isnt)

Civility & Other Things

I have issues with the idea of civility, not because of what it stands for, but what it makes people do with their speech. The idea behind civility is to be thoughtful with what you intend to say so that you are not offending anyone. The idea is to consider their situation so that what you saying isn’t disregarding their experiences. Instead of people seeing civility as this, people tend to see it as people being afraid to say what they have to say because they either think that the only way to get their opinions across is to be rude or attack the other side, or it turns into this very passive aggressive way communication that does more harm than good. Without the practice of civility period, you have people make vicious and empty claims and attacks on things they don’t agree with, people forming hierarchies l as to what they think being more important or more righteous than things they don’t agree with, and people considering their problems more insufferable. Although none of these things don’t seem to be attached with the concept of civility, I conclude that they are because civility is tied to this idea of rhetorical listening. In order one to practice true civility – the idea being thoughtful with what you intend to say so that you are not offending anyone, the idea to consider their situation so that what you saying isn’t disregarding their experiences, is only possible with practicing rhetorical listening. Or is one of the ways to practice true civility I should say. In my observations, when I truly listen to someone, I often consider their experiences more, so I will respond in a more polite form. It’s not that I change the ideas behind what I say, but I can better communicate with without taking away from what they have said. It also works for the speaker to have rhetorically listened in the past to its audience, so that when the speaker speaks, it doesn’t offend the audience. This example can be used in the conversation of two friends by the way. It’s just a general idea behind communication. This is similar to the idea of situatedness that I found. In the definition it states that situadness is, “Situatedness is the context that provides the multiple perspectives needed for understanding that permits all voices to be heard in good faith”. It’s the idea and the practice of really trying to understand everyone no matter their differences. I’m guessing putting the word political in front implies that this is done in the political realm, including things like race, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, etc. My one issue is that no one seems to stress the idea of difference enough. None of this is possible, the idea and practice of civility, rhetorical listening, and political situatedness, without the acceptance of difference. In my opinion, people have made that harder than it seems. The idea behind accepting people though for who they are, and I don’t mean someone who is ignorant and is rude and thinks that’s okay, but really accepting people for their culture, their race, their ethnicity, their gender, etc, involves giving up power, and that’s an internal struggle for everyone. You are giving up power to say that you know best. You are giving up power to say that there is more than just your truth. And this is power that some people can not give up, because we are made to believe there there is only one right answer, it’s this or that. But if we were to learn things as being on a spectrum, maybe these ideas can be more than just academic theories that are made to seem harder than they are. But they can actually be put into practice.

Gee

I did not care for this reading so much because while Gee discusses the relationship of power, language, and meaning, he induces the same theory he is trying to critique. Not to say that his theory isn’t true. I do believe that language holds a very substantial amount of power because it is the core of communication. If one does not understand the main power in use, then they somehow become inferior, not to say that they are actually inferior. There is also power behind the meaning of words and what it can and can not mean. However, in proving this theory, Gee reduces his examples and supportive statements to stereotypes, most of which he does not belong to (he is not of the groups he speaks of). He commits the crime his is accusing others of. Creating a relationship to morality, it is in our best interest to deem all languages as important and the differences between language, even the difference of one language and how different people come to those languages.

Assignment Two Proposal

My idea for the second assignment is to focus on the questions, “Is Hip-Hop Dead?” This question has caused a lot of debate in the hip-hop/rap community because of the growing definition of what hip-hop is. The different variations of hip-hop, from singers to rappers, to gangsta rap to neo-soul, to artists who are considered rappers or entertainers, really makes defining hip-hop complex. There is also the divide between the new and old school forms of hip-hop. There’s also the issue of what death are we referring to? Death of a culture? Death of music sales? Death of artistry? The choices to the answer are yes, no, and a combination of both. To find sources, I am relying on music critics, entertainers, and music journalists. For the purpose of my topic, I believe that it’s okay because hip-hop isn’t an academic field and can not be critiqued without using those who identify and/or are submerged within the industry. Another tricky part, is that those who may see hip hop as well and alive do not have a firm yes. It’s usually, “Yes, but”. Here are some sources I found with a quick Google search:

Those who believe it is dead:

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2014/10/8-reasons-hip-hop-rb-dead/

http://www.daveyd.com/commentaryishiphopdead.html

http://www.spin.com/2015/08/hip-hop-single-dead-drake-fetty-wap/

Those who believe it isn’t:

http://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2014/11/hip-hop-isnt-dead-its-just-evolving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0M06q9h-A0

http://theodysseyonline.com/unh/why-hip-hop-isnt-dead/185438

http://www.vice.com/read/hip-hop-isnt-dead-its-just-repackaged

Those who see hip-hop as dead are those who saw hip-hop as a political statement that was suppose to encourage and help a people through struggle. They believe now that hip-hop has no substance like it use to, always referring to conscious rappers.

One who believes that hip-hop isn’t dead at all would argue that hip-hop, did and still does stand for the uplifting of a people, by showcasing realities, showcasing dreams of people living in harsh realities, and also adding enjoyment to their lives.

Those who believe hip-hop isn’t dead, but has changed, see it more as a rebranding or shift in culture. 

Three Conceptual Definitions

1)Rhetoric and Civic Engagement- For this conceptual definition, I want to explain why the discussion of rhetoric needs to past the walls of academia. In order to have engaged and active citizens, everyone in that particular society should learn about how rhetoric and how it is used and how to use it. If rhetoric is actual public discourse. You can not have a proper running democracy without it. These same concepts or ideas can be found in Socrates and Aristole’s work, but back then the only people who were considered citizens were white males. Now that the concept of citizens have broadened, so does the education of rhetoric have to.

2) Public Sphere – There is no one public sphere. And it is important to understand that there are various public spheres operating simultaneously and in correspondence with one another. If we understand that we maneuver through various public spheres, we are better able to speak effectively with others and rhetorically listen.

3) The Personal Is Political – Positionality is the foremost important thing when understanding how to maneuver in the political sphere. Without taking into account all the things that make up people’s perspectives in life, we can not fully and properly understand or debate their viewpoints when it is unethical and harmful to a greater people. It also helps people to understand that emotion and personal struggles are embedded into what people stand for politically.

Proposal MLK Case Study

What I want to explore in my MLK Case Study is how much of an idealist MLK was and if this idealistic view was actually practical for the goals that MLK wanted to achieve. There is also a change in discourse from MLK from his early speeches to old speeches, where he himself is not as idealistic as he was before. He himself starts to realize maybe flaws in his own work that caused him to become a lot more practical in his speeches and ideas. He still had very idealistic views but his rhetoric did not come off that way. He himself still stayed idealistic. However, I believe he starts to see that people need goals they could reach at the current state. He also may have been tired from all of the political implications of his work. I think of the side-by-side meme of Obama when he first entered office and then the photo of him during his last year. And what you see is tiredness. Even comparing how witty Obama became over the years. There is a transformation that occurs when the weight of the world is on you or the weight of a people. Specifically with black men in Western society, who also have to deal with masculinity complexes. I also want to explore this change that happens. If I compare MLK to other prolific black leaders, it would obviously be Malcolm X. But I would like to get past the binary of MLK being peaceful and X being militant. I want to explore the change that X himself goes through of when he was affiliated with Elijah Muhammad and when he wasn’t.

Making, Taking, & Faking Lives Response

There are some questions that this passage raises that I found really interesting. For one, I don’t think the question of ethics comes into whether or not the author has an agenda when writing a collaborative autobiography. All writers of collaborative autobiographies carry an agenda. There is a reason you want to help write the “story” about someone else’s life. This could either be because of interest, because you want more information, etc. Where ethics comes into play is the motive behind someone’s story. Did you want this person to have a voice? Or did you want to exploit some information about them? Did you know writing a story about them from a certain angle would make your book a success? Those questions are better at examining the ethics behind a collaborative autobiography. I think of his example of slave narratives. Some were written as an emotional appeal to aid in getting slavery abolished. But then there are some accounts that to me seem to be more about just simply telling the story of slaves because they believed that slaves, an integral part of American/world history, should have their voice heard when speaking of pre-industrialized America.

Either way, I don’t think the genre of collaborative autobiography is necessarily a thing. I think it is a very noble idea, but once the autobiography was not written by the person being discussed, it takes away from the book being theirs. It could be as close of an account of their lives, still told by someone else. It’s the same as a I think of the Malcolm X autobiography that I read in 10th grade. When I want to recall on X’s life, I always quote what I have learned from that book as well as other readings about him. But I quote that book as if he wrote, which is problematic. Because just like movies depicting the lives of other people regardless of if that person was their to help aid/guide the “story”, things are left out/added in to meet consumers expectations, the purpose of the book/film is still to make a profit from so it needs to intrigue entice consumers with colorful language, which may falsify the content. That is where ethics come into play. It’s also deceiving to call it such, an autobiography because it is never the voice of the person talking. I think his reference to collaborative autobiography as ventriloquism was very smart and the best way to explain it.

Website

https://bkdautru.expressions.syr.edu/

Drafts

1)Rhetoric and Civic Engagement- For this conceptual definition, I want to explain why the discussion of rhetoric needs to past the walls of academia. In order to have engaged and active citizens, everyone in that particular society should learn about how rhetoric and how it is used and how to use it. If rhetoric is actual public discourse. You can not have a proper running democracy without it. These same concepts or ideas can be found in Socrates and Aristole’s work, but back then the only people who were considered citizens were white males. Now that the concept of citizens have broadened, so does the education of rhetoric have to.

 

Rhetoric’s purpose is to create active and participative citizens, thus rhetoric needs to be taught and discussed beyond the walls of academia so that we ensure civically engaged citizens.

 

If we assume that life and the lives of individuals serve a purpose, then there are things in life that fulfill purposes. With that said, rhetoric, as complex as it may be, should serve a purpose in life and in the lives of individuals. When first studied or first examined in (the era of Socrates and Artistole, one of them said it best that the work of rhetoric was to ””). In using this definition of the purpose of rhetoric is to form and the shape the minds of citizens so that they can critically engage themselves in public discussions. The goal is to rightfully serve the duties of a citizen of a nation by being a part of discussions that move a government, a nation forward. If that was the purpose of rhetoric now, what has changed? We use and study rhetoric in academia, in specific parts of academia, with hopes of encouraging these few students to use what they learn to become better thinkers in whatever fields they go into. If we go back to the purpose of rhetoric, then we have failed. These few that are taught or can discuss rhetoric do not account for the entire group of this nation’s citizens, thus these few can not move a nation forward, not by themselves. This is why it is critical to move the discussion and teaching of rhetoric beyond the walls of higher education, where a very few is even introduced to a subject. We need to implement the discussion and teaching to every citizen so that they can properly perform their civic duties, so that they can properly engage with the rhetorical debates that surround them in the government, and so that they can properly analyze arguments surrounding them.

 

 

2) Public Sphere – There is no one public sphere. And it is important to understand that there are various public spheres operating simultaneously and in correspondence with one another. If we understand that we maneuver through various public spheres, we are better able to speak effectively with others and rhetorically listen.

 

Rhetoric allows for the proper understanding of a public sphere.

A public sphere when learned is a space where people can basically share opinions and discourse. It is taught that there is one main public sphere, and then smaller ones surrounding the main public sphere. The main public sphere is considered the discourse found in mainstream society, focusing on only the majority issues, which in America would be white America. Smaller public spheres surrounding the main one would be made up of demographics that fall into the minority category. With this current model, one large public sphere and then smaller ones surrounding it, although concurrent with the current frame of how we view and how we treat certain subject matters, it is problematic to continue framing public spheres in this light. Using Frasers, “”, we must detach ourselves from the current model and come to look at public spheres as all small spheres creating a larger sphere.

 

3) The Personal Is Political – Positionality is the foremost important thing when understanding how to maneuver in the political sphere. Without taking into account all the things that make up people’s perspectives in life, we can not fully and properly understand or debate their viewpoints when it is unethical and harmful to a greater people. It also helps people to understand that emotion and personal struggles are embedded into what people stand for politically.

 

??? still having trouble with this one.

 

4) What I want to explore in my MLK Case Study is how much of an idealist MLK was and if this idealistic view was actually practical for the goals that MLK wanted to achieve. There is also a change in discourse from MLK from his early speeches to old speeches, where he himself is not as idealistic as he was before. He himself starts to realize maybe flaws in his own work that caused him to become a lot more practical in his speeches and ideas. He still had very idealistic views but his rhetoric did not come off that way. He himself still stayed idealistic. However, I believe he starts to see that people need goals they could reach at the current state. He also may have been tired from all of the political implications of his work. I think of the side-by-side meme of Obama when he first entered office and then the photo of him during his last year. And what you see is tiredness. Even comparing how witty Obama became over the years. There is a transformation that occurs when the weight of the world is on you or the weight of a people. Specifically with black men in Western society, who also have to deal with masculinity complexes. I also want to explore this change that happens. If I compare MLK to other prolific black leaders, it would obviously be Malcolm X. But I would like to get past the binary of MLK being peaceful and X being militant. I want to explore the change that X himself goes through of when he was affiliated with Elijah Muhammad and when he wasn’t.

 

I’m not sure of how to frame a case study so this is where my difficulty lies.

But this is my outline

 

Intro – MLK how to turn an idealist into a realist

Explore the languages used in his early speeches; what framed them as ideologies instead of practical for African-Americans in the 1960s. Were they necessary changes that would implement  progression for the African-American community.

 

Body- explore how looking to one leader leaves him weary and how this may have been the breaking point for MLK. He still an idealist but realizing not everyone thinks in the same way. This is where his language and thoughts changed.

 

Body – Compare the change in other prominent black leaders who are forced to lead by themselves. Malcolm X, Obama. The relationship to this type of pattern and post-slavery conditions.

Full Draft Of Conceptual Definitions

Definition 1

Rhetoric’s purpose is to create active and participative citizens, thus rhetoric needs to be taught and discussed beyond the walls of academia so that we ensure civically engaged citizens. If we assume that life and the lives of individuals serve a purpose, then everything in life must fulfill a purpose. With that said, rhetoric, as complex as it may be, serves a purpose in life and in the lives of individuals. When first studied or first examined in (the era of Socrates and Artistole, one of them said it best that the work of rhetoric was to ””). In using this definition, the purpose of rhetoric is to form and to shape the minds of citizens so that they can critically engage themselves in public discussions. The goal is to rightfully serve the duties ascribed to being a citizen by being a part of discussions that move a government, a nation, forward. If that was the purpose of rhetoric now, what has caused it to change? We use and study rhetoric in academia, in specific parts of academia, with hopes of encouraging these few students to use what they learn to become better thinkers in whatever fields they go into. If we go back to the purpose of rhetoric, then we have failed. These few that are taught or can discuss rhetoric do not account for the entire group of this nation’s citizens, thus these few can not move a nation forward – not by themselves. This is why it is critical to move the discussion and teaching of rhetoric beyond the walls of higher education, where a very few are even introduced to the subject. We need to implement the discussion and teaching to every citizen so that they can properly perform their civic duties and so that they can properly engage with the rhetorical debates that surround them in their government, and so that they can properly analyze arguments surrounding them. It can lead to wiser choices on political leaders and choices and issues that effect society.

 

Definition 2

A better model of public spheres allows for better rhetorical listening and engagement.

A public sphere according to Nancy Fraser, is “” It is a space where people basically share opinions and discuss the issues that effect society. It has been taught that there is one main public sphere, and then smaller ones surrounding the main public sphere. The main public sphere is considered the discourse found in mainstream society, focusing on only the majority issues, which in most instances would be white Western culture. Smaller public spheres surrounding the main one would be made up of demographics that fall into the “minority” category. This current model is subjective to how certain systems (patriarchy, supremacy) render certain people as more important than others. Although concurrent with the current frame of how we view and how we treat certain subject matters, it is problematic to continue framing public spheres in this light. With this model, we continue the problematic framework that allows certain issues to be considered more important than others, or certain issues more important to pay attention to. “Fraser or Anti-Fraser quote about a better model” We must detach ourselves from the current model and come to look at public spheres as all small spheres creating a larger sphere. This allows for better rhetorical listening, which is “”. It also allows for better rhetorical engagement because “” quote from the rhetorical listening passage.

 

Definition 3

Understanding positionality and intersectionality allows for better interpretative listening, as well as better rhetorical arguments. The reason for this is because understanding the viewpoints of others, their struggles, their privileges, their overall position in life due to their identity and the burdens or rewards that come from it, allow one to better execute their ideas when fighting for certain equalities and allows people to think more holistically rather than individualistically. In order to fully engage in interpretative listening, one needs to ””. The term positionality was coined by “”. Quote about it. My opinion. Kimberlee Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality. Quote about it. My opinion. Last thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *