Cole Elliott

Garriott

4 December 2015

Final Reflective Research Paper

Rhetoric’s 2500 year history has included a number of changes, shifts, and complex debates that has transformed it into what it is today. What was once considered a useless, pointless exercise has grown to become a very common method of oral communication in the 21st century. Rhetoric has strong roots that date back to the Ancient Greeks when it was debated as a mere act of persuasion. And while the foundation of rhetoric that was laid then has changed much over time, it has very much stayed the same as well. Due to the foundation of a tradition, men have had a strong hold on the utilization of rhetoric. They have done this through the advantage of having control in society—through powerful occupations, positions, and public figures. Because of this, rhetoric has been dominated by men in the public domain. As a result, both men and women have been the victims of having forcefully thrust upon them a certain norm and status quo of how rhetoric functions.

Long before the development of the society we live in today, women were very much considered the lowest figures in society—other than slaves and children. It is with this opinion that the tradition of seeing women universally as only useful in certain areas began. Today, we see an abundance of women in the public form—as doctors, attorneys, congresswomen, etc. But long ago this just wasn’t normal in society. In Miriam Schneir’s Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings, a commentary on many different feminist writings, a chapter is dedicated to Anna Garlin Spencer’s Woman’s Share in Social Culture. It is in this excerpt that Spencer asserts how women were never even considered to be useful or talented, and therefore no one could even see any sort of potential in them. Spencer writes, “Can a woman become a genius of the first class? Nobody can know unless women in general shall have equal opportunity with men in education, in vocational choice, and in social welcome of their best intellectual work for a number of generations” (Spencer). It is clearly noted that Spencer believes in the idea that women are undiscovered and not taken seriously in areas that men are perceived as superior. She takes it a step further by declaring a case involving a Venetian woman, Modesta di Pozzo di Forzi, writing a well renown book on the achievement of women. Spencer remarks, “[di Forzi’s] biographer in giving an account of the ‘great success of her book’ shrewdly remarks that ‘unfortunately for her that which perhaps assisted in that success was that men could praise her without fear, since she died just as the work appeared’”(Spencer). Here it is revealed that men of this time would have been in a dangerous and life-threatening situation should they praise di Forzi for her eloquent work. This represents the status quo of how women must not be recognized or praised for anything outside of their “normal duties” and if someone does so, they will face severe punishment. By having this foundation set in stone so long ago, it became increasingly harder to eliminate as time went on.

Furthering the divide between men and women is a concept that still exists as a core foundation of the United States, democracy. Democracy did not originate in America, as the Ancient Romans were the first to implement a democratic system of government into action. But regardless of the Romans, democracy has developed into a label for the United States—it serves as a representation of what we stand for as a nation, freedom. It is a concept that gives us the opportunity, innovation, and freedom to maintain our role as a world power. Yet democracy is believed by many to have a severe gender crisis. Anne Phillips is the author of Engendering Democracy, a unique look at how democracy and feminism have interacted with one another. Phillips asserts on the very first page that, “In 1700, Mary Astell made the now obvious connection when she asked why those who so vehemently rejected the absolute sovereignty of a king nonetheless accepted it as natural in a husband” (Phillips). Phillips provides historical context of the assertion Astell makes in the colonial period, but also provides the additional remark that it is now an “obvious connection” to make—deeming it common knowledge and the norm now. This represents how far society has come in just over 300 years. It does also illustrate the depiction of women in the 18th century as well—where women are represented as being enslaved to the authority of their husband. A few pages later Phillips explores the role of women in political theory,“political thinkers draw on a wealth of moral, psychological and historical argument, and might seem to agree on only one thing: whatever else is at stake, gender is irrelevant to the issues and will not affect the arguments on anyone’s side” (Phillips). Here Phillips takes the strong stance of asserting that women are traditionally left out of political theory, and done so in the fashion of “they are irrelevant to the subject.” This concept of arbitrarily excluding women speaks to the hold men have on the political world. Phillips then states, “With the odd exception, the entire debate on democracy has proceeded for centuries as if women were not there, or it has, as with Rousseau, only acknowledged us to show us our place” (Phillips)—this takes her argument a step further by stating that not only have women been excluded for a long time, but they have been excluded based on the motive to “show them their place.” This further enhances the idea that men not only want to exclude, but want to prove a point in doing so—that politics, for example, are no place for women. Phillips later provides a sort of solution to how to combat these issues, “It has been left to feminists to explore how far the relentless privileging, not just of real living men, but of the very category of the male itself, has formed and deformed political theory and practice” (Phillips). According to Phillips, it is the feminists who can figure out a solution to the problems of exclusion in subjects like political theory. Through research, scholarship, and curiosity feminists must find the reasons behind not only the actual advantages of men in political theory, but also the towering personified male figure that provides them the privileges that women do not possess—even though they have every right to them. After all, isn’t this democracy we’re talking about?