And Keller Takes the Rhetorical Cake

Helen Keller is a name that most people automatically associate with a woman who was deaf-blind. It is a name that is sprinkled throughout history books like gray in an aging man’s hair. What I was not aware of (and I am guessing I’m not the only one) was the impact that Keller had as a political activist and rhetorical theorist. Anyone can be considered a rhetorician, you might say. Well, that is true, depending on one’s definition of the word, but Keller was a sly rhetorician, one who probably did not even recognized her own power when she began writing. Keller argued rhetorically in a way that reflected her progressive views in a light that few people understand as playing on their own opinions. She was able to push past many of the social restraints that I believe Burke discusses in his rhetoric, but isn’t always able to overcome.

Keller was able to clearly articulate the bounds of the people’s social constraints in eloquent and sometimes very explicit ways that were necessary for adequate understanding. For example, she actually calls out her readers in saying that they are the ones who are indeed blind, because they think and act in black-and-white “conformity to cultural pieties” (George, 341). I may even go so far as to say that her words resonate in my head at a level that Burke’s never did, whether that be because she is a fellow female or because she was never called a theorist or rhetorical strategist, yet still experienced the struggles of rhetoric in a way that few people have. She was a rather sassy nonconformist, pointing out the things that others frequently complained about. I love what she said about when people forget the fact that workers “do all the work that is done,” because it not only demonstrates that were people criticizing the speed of production in the ‘20s and ‘30s, but also that there was a call to speak out that Keller accepted and molded to fit this particular stretch in American history and the people who were a part of it.

Like Burke and all rhetoricians, Keller was able to connect by identifying with her audience, something Burke called "translation." Another name for this popular strategy that both she and Burke used was “boring from within,” similar to having an “inside job” that allows multi-dimensional access to another's mind because of the knowledge the rhetorician has about the reader that allows them to connect. The complicating matter is defining the rhetorical intent of translation. Miller observes this because she understands that “situations are social constructs that are the result, not of ‘perception,’ but of ‘definition.’ Because human action is based on and guided by meaning, not by material causes, at the center of action is a process of interpretation” (Miller, 156). This reiterates the fact that everything in rhetoric is based upon individual experiences and interactions the reader has, which then affect his or her interpretation and mental construction of a text or theory, but more so because of the “definition” that already has a connotation in society. This is supported by the notion of exigence, because the need must rise up out of the social construct of society. “It is located in the social world, neither in a private perception nor in material circumstance” (Miller, 157). All of this culminates into “types,” which are formed from “typifications” that are already in existence and are shared through communication, so they “reside in language” (Miller, 157). 

A full circle is drawn when composing the theory of concept breakdown and typification buildup of rhetoric, so it is difficult to define where one aspect begins and other ends. “Both [Keller and Burke] sought effective ways to advocate radical change and argued for socialism by creating identification and ‘boring from within,’” (George, 340) but Keller was able to portray her ideas in a way that Burke wasn’t able to, or at least didn’t use. She put tablespoon-size amounts of her “theories” into her texts and speeches, helping to separate her from Burke because it is quite possible, probable even, that she was able to reach a wider audience than Burke was. True, Burke wrote a great deal of rhetorical texts and such, but he did so in a way that clearly defined his ideas, rather than giving examples that the people might be able to relate to in a more direct way, like Keller did.

P.S. So...is there a cake, if it's rhetorical? :)