Beyond miracle work: Difference and strategy in Helen Keller and Kenneth Burke

Both Kenneth Burke and Helen Keller may feel sentimental about the Wobblies, but according to Ann George, in “Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller,” the two differently-abled theorists share more in common as rhetorical theorists than mere leftist ideology and the “desire to encourage radical social and political change,” though such a desire is greatly emphasized in each of their writings.

It is their shared rhetorical strategies and theories unite them on a much more complex, comprehensive scale, but also place them side by side in a conversation with Judith Butler about Keller’s ability to form her own opinions and experience “reality” as canonical male theorist Burke does. The complication is manifold — her ability to represent herself not only as a woman but also as a differently-abled person are called into question.

One shared shared rhetorical strategy between the two theorists (if we are going to consider Keller a “theorist” in a non-traditional sense)that struck me as important is this notion of “boring from within” — a method of advancing “controversial arguments by identifying them with existing cultural values,” primarily because it seems to more or less acknowledge the limits of idealism and the difficulties in persuading the masses, even using the language they are so accustomed to ‘experiencing.’ 

That such a method would be required to convince Americans of her basic humanity and ability to independently form political opinions is dismal and realistic, and ultimately amounts to a nimble reaction to a hostile world. She is able to represent herself as a “subject” only insofar as she represents her reality with signifiers and concepts associated with the able-bodied and upholders of hegemony. This speaks to a frustration with being marginalized and Judith Butler’s claim that “Juridical subjects are invariably produced through certain exclusionary practices that do not “show” once the juridical structure of politics has been established” (Butler 3). Keller struggles against the practices that deprive her of a very basic validation as theorist, she is subject to a discourse that created her distinction and marginalization in the first place but is invisible in the present.

Derrida’s belief that reality is ‘textual’ and thus that “all parts refer to or signify other parts, which are themselves signifiers of other parts” largely justifies Helen Keller’s ability to create her own political opinions despite not having first-hand contact with the natural world without assistance, as all texts created by differently-abled people are based on differance. She is defined by her very “difference,” not spatially or chronologically but in terms of ability. The norms and status quo that she is fighting to define herself against have put into place the very idea of her “disability” and perpetuate her very marginalization and exclusion from the traditionally white, male, able-bodied canon of rhetorical theorists, such as Kenneth Burke, no matter how sympathetic to her cause.