Why Should I Have the Right to Speak?

I am twenty-one year old female college student. So why should I have the right to speak? Why should I have the right to proclaim my opinions and ideas? In what way does my identity give me the justification to have a say in the world? These are just a few of the questions that arise when considering whether or not our unique identities gives us the capacity to make claims about the world we live in.

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.

Identification

The strength and weakness of identification is its ability to group. Identifying with people can be a great thing that fosters belonging and understanding. Identifying does not just happen though; it is a conscious choice, which means that while identification is taking place so is the reverse.

Keller / Burke / Butler

Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller immediately got me thinking about how language is viewed as social action. As we’ve learned throughout our time as EWM students, Burke deeply studies and theorized how we use language. He has referred to humans as “symbol using animals,” butting much emphasis on the fact that we communicate through symbolic sounds. However, in this text from Argument Reason and Rhetorical Theory, he, and his epistemology, is being compared to Helen Keller, who was mute, deaf and blind.

Gender & Racial Trouble

Within Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble, she attempts to disrupt gender as a means of identity. She argues that politics complicate this identification further by acting as a facet. Politics are a result of cultural imposition, and is used to signify gender. Furthermore, politics confuse Butler’s gender when split into various categories, such as ethnicity, sexuality and class. Similar to Butler, Louis Gates Jr. critiques the effects of politics and ethnicity through displays of biological and social oppression. Butler and Gates discuss the significance of politics in disrupting gender and racial identity.

Hermione Granger is a Feminist Too!

After reading Judith Butler's Gender Trouble I immediately thought of Emma Watson. If you're a Harry Potter freak like me, you'll know her as the one and only Hermione Granger. These past couple of years Emma has been speaking out on what it is to be a feminist, and how important it is to have equality. On September 20th 2014, Emma delivered an inspiring speech about feminism at the United Nations Headquarters. She discusses the ideas on how she wishes for not just women but for men to join the fight in gender inequality. Her "HeForShe" initiative aims for men and boys to help to pledge to join the feminist fight. Emma makes the very important point that in order for gender equality to be achieved, harmful and destructive stereotypes of and expectations for masculinity have got to change. Above is the entire speech, which I hope everyone who hasn't seen would take a look at. It's worth every minute!

What might this have to do with Butler's idea of feminist theory? I think just about everything. In her first chapter Butler discusses the controversial terms politics and representation. "On the one hand, representation serves as the operative term within a political process that seeks to extend visibility and legitimacy to women as political subjects; on the other hand representation is the normative function of language which is said either to reveal or to distort what is assumed to be true about the category of women" (2). This statement that Butler makes perfectly exemplifies Emma's speech at the UN. She discusses that feminism, by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economical and social equality of the sexes.

Butler discusses the ideas of differentiating "man" and "woman" with the terms "sex" and "gender" and how in reality there is more that is connected between those two latter terms. She continues by stating, "this radical splitting of the gendered subjects poses yet another set of problems. Can we refer to  a "given" sex or a "given" gender without first inquiring into how sex and/or gender is given, through what means?" (9). How does one even identify what "sex" is? Butler asks if it is either natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal? Therefore, "gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription of meaning on pregiven sex" (9).

During her speech, Emma Watson explains this idea perfectly by referencing back to a speech by Hillary Clinton in Beijing and how less than thirty percent of the audience was male. She continues and asks how one is supposed to expect change when only half the world is invited? And finally says:

"Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue, too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my need of his presence as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either."

Overall I think her speech is a perfect example of how everyone should be willing to help in the fight against this inequality. No matter what "gender" because, in truth, what difference does it make if you are a man or a woman. Differentiating people by their bodies should not even be the case. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, and every little bit of help counts. 


- Kayla Gonzalez 

Mr. Burke meets Ms. Keller

The beginning of Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller gives us a good point. The extent of my knowledge of Helen Keller is the idea instilled upon me primarily from the pop culture - she was an inspiring blind (and deaf?) woman. It was a completely different perspective to suddenly see Helen Keller from a rhetorical standpoint and what she did as a radical feminist. I suppose the blind aspect is more compelling than the woman aspect of her story.

The Issue of Experience

In Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller, Ann George discusses the criticisms that Helen Keller faced when she wrote about experiences people viewed as outside her realm of understanding. They assumed that Keller could not have true knowledge of things such as poverty and war, and expressed complaints when she wrote of visual or aural experiences. These criticisms brought a question to my attention: is first-hand experience vital to our understanding of the world?

Rhetorical Soulmates

It seems strange to me that most of my peers (myself included) learned about Helen Keller in elementary and/or middle school, but all that was taught to us about her was in regards to her disabilities. We learned that she was blind and deaf and bravely learned how to read and write. But that was it. Throughout those school years we were taught how much of a prominent figure Helen Keller was by being able to overcome her disabilities. But now I know there's so much more that she did. She wasn't this important figure solely because she learned to read and write. Helen Keller was a blind and deaf feminist and rhetorical theorists. Saying that now I realize that those aren't exactly terms that elementary/middle school kids are familiar with, so I kind of understand why we only learned the basics, but it's important for everyone to know just how intelligent she was and what she did for society.

Interestingly enough, it seems that Burke has found his rhetorical soulmate. As pointed out by George in "Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller," Keller, as more than just the miracle girl, "matches him [Burke] rhetorical move for rhetorical move" (George, 344). As a political activist and radical theorist, it shouldn't come as a surprise to hear that her discourse is strategically planned. Following the same method, both Burke and Keller would push for a leftist agenda by identifying with their audience and following these three strategies: boring from within, translation, and perspective by incongruity.

At first, when I said that Burke has found his rhetorical soulmate, I was going to say he found the female version of himself in terms of rhetoric, but nor after reading Butler's "Gender Trouble." It's clear to me that we can't ever reach equality until we stop using anatomical characteristics to identify someone. We're at the point where not even the obvious is so obvious. In other words, just because someone might have breasts doesn't mean they're female. With the emergence of transgender and merely just your choice of how you want to be, it's become more difficult to categorize. That goes the same for not only gender but for race as well. Once we stop using the words 'male,' 'female,' 'white,' 'black,' etc., then we can start to reach a degree of equality.  

What is Feminism?

I think that Feminism is a very popular topic in our present day society. Feminist Criticism is something that is highly debated by people all over. I feel like especially recently this topic has been at an all time high of popularity. Everyone has their own opinions about it, but for the most part, women are feeling subjected by men and thinking that they should have their own voice when it comes to their bodies and themselves. While there are many topics and sides to debate regarding feminism, let’s take a look at some of our theorists.

Helen Keller and Authenticity

Of course I learned about Helen Keller at a young age; the trials she faced being both blind and deaf, and they way she overcame them through her teacher, Anne Sullivan Macy. I must honestly report that I never knew she was such a left-wing political advocate or a writer. Last class, when discussing how much of our histories are visual rituals and/or habits, the question was raised of whether authenticity is outside of the technical. On Tuesday, I believed that it was possible for something to be authentic without all of the specifics included. Now, after reading George's article on Keller and Burke and pairing that with "Rome Reborn", I have to say no, it is not possible. The technical must be included to see the authenticity of a subject.

Disability Speaks, But No One Is Listening: Keller, Burke, and the Autism Speaks Campaign

Autism Every Day is a short documentary by the group Autism Speaks that helps to communicate to neurotypical people what it's like to have a child with autism. It shows parents in various stages of distress and depicts various children stimming, screaming, and scratching in the depths of their disability. Autism Speaks is known for their charity fundraisers, walks, and selling of puzzle piece jewelry to raise money for finding a cure for autism, however, this organization tends to draw a lot of criticism. People have held issue with Autism Speak's goal of finding a cure for autism, and they have threatened to sue autistic children in the past. The video above has received criticism for seemingly displaying the troubles that the parents go through instead of the experiences of the children. This closely relates to Judith Butler's Gender Troubles and Ann George's Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller in how they display how disability is appropriated by able bodied and able minded people.

Comparing Butler's Argument to Gates, Jr.'s and What Words Are At Stake

As I read Judith Butler’s “Gender Trouble” I couldn’t help but compare it to Henry Gates, Jr.’s “Writing ‘Race’”. At the center of both Butler’s and Gates’ respective discussions is the argument that modern discourse and language inhibits full understanding and equality. Butler focuses on how generalized terms like “gender”, “sex”, or “woman” create boundaries of discourse and analysis because they presume that those terms encapsulate a group defined by one feature or idea. Gates says that the language we speak in is dominated by our Western traditions that have inherent ideas of race, reasoning, and humanity attached to them. For Gates, the word “race” became a word of classification overarching a larger group, much what like what Butler says has happened to the word “woman” or “gender”.

Both theorists are arguing against the words that are used as markers of difference. In their presumed connotations they are binaries, two-sided and limiting. But, both Butler and Gates say this is not how it should be. The terms “race”, “gender”, “woman”, among others should be such vivid symbols of distinction, because they are not. A person cannot readily identify with a rigid, solidified definition of the word, because each person’s experience is different. But, there are key differences between the two essays. Gates seems to delve more into how modern language and discourse has been constructed, and therefore explains why we attach certain assumptions to words. But Butler explains what we should do differently, why rigid definitions limit discourse, and why we should expand our definitions of words.

Of the words that Butler says need to be reconceptualized in her essay are “gender”, “woman”, and “sex”. But, “construction” is one that holds special significance to her argument. Butler questions what it means to be “constructed”. Choice and destiny have become defining characteristics of the words she says are at stake. This explains why a rigid definition cannot be used to cover a broad group. These words rely heavily on personal experience and choice.

So, to answer another question for today’s class, I think Butler would argue that conveying one’s personal experience is the ultimate discursive power. She wants us to remove presumptions made about words that are used to define wide and varied groups of individuals. That’s because we can’t apply rigid definitions of the words to every single person. Instead, the words should become more varied in their definitions so that they can then be used in discourse and analysis. Individual experience needs to become a part of their definitions. To apply a rigid definition is to restrict understanding of the broad nature of a group and consequently create markers of difference.

"But It Would Be Nothing Without A Woman Or A Girl"

Judith Butler explains in Gender Trouble that gender, sex and even the word "woman" is just another way to classify or represent someone. Being a woman has a strong social discourse already attached to the term, but do other classifications-such as race or even sexuality- have control over how a "woman" is viewed? Butler explains that "Feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of 'women,' the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought" (4). By labeling women as a woman are we simply taking a step backward in the world of feminism? Can women overcome the bearing weight that is held over them simply due to the fact that they are indeed a woman?

Helen Keller and Constructing Representation

Like most students, I learned about Helen Keller in elementary school. I knew that she was blind and deaf, and I knew that she had worked with Anne Sullivan to learn to read and write. I also knew that she had advocated on behalf of the blind. What I didn't know, was that she was a political activist, a supporter of socialism and left wing policies, and is considered by many to be a rhetorician on the level of Kenneth Burke.

Feminist Irony

One part that really stood out to me in Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller, was when Keller claimed “Very few people open fresh, fearless eyes upon the world they live in. They do not look at anything straight. They have not learned to use their eyes, except in the most rudimentary ways” (George, 341). For some reason, as I was reading this particular quote, I kind of had an epiphany about the nature behind gender theory: it is one giant irony.

#LikeAFeminist

I feel that this blog post is something that many people can relate to and have an opinion on, because feminist criticism, and feminism in general, is something of a hotly debated topic among the youth and twenty-somethings of today. Recently, I attended an event put on by Greek life and there were many mentions of feminism during performances, so it inspired me to write an article for a company that I write for in my free time. I wrote the article about my issue and my confusion – not necessarily my stance or complete opinion – on feminism, because I feel that it can greatly get taken out of context and in turn, diminish its potency or meaning. If you feel like perusing the article, you can find it at http://theodysseyonline.com/fsu/my-issue-feminism/101294.

The trouble with Gender in a Linguistic World

It was to my complete and utter surprise that Helen Keller formed an experience of the world as intricate as mine - and that statement alone may allude to the fact that as an "abled" person, my understanding of the disabled experience is flawed and doesn't understand the complexities of such a life. Keller's observations of the world, even through her loss of senses, is elegant, eloquent, and an insightful look at discourse in the way that Burke himself sought to study representation and symbolic action. Burke and Keller's observations parallel in uncannily similar ways - their philosophies both call a need to analytically restructure the symbol systems we have created that define our realities instead of simply critiquing the "realities" themselves. Keller asserts, "We cannot be free until we know the nature of our bondage and examine the chains that bind us" (341, Keller). Similarly, Butler's theory on gender follows a structure much like Keller and Burke's: "Feminist critique ought to also understand how the category of "women" is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought" (4, Butler).

Rhetoric and the City

The western rhetorical theory can be traced back all the way to the times of Artistotle. It can most commonly and easily be explained as the art of discovering all the available means of persuasion and the art of discourse. Urbanity is the quality or state of being urbane which means but in the context of urban cities, it refers to a region that is well developed. Urban, or well- developed areas are filled with many roads, commercial buildings, railways and houses. It is difficult to make the connection between then ambient context and the materiality of the city to the “standard” theoretical practice. I’m not sure that it can exactly help define it but it can be used as an example to explain some aspects of the rhetorical theory.

With cities like Rome that entail so much rich history, it is difficult to grasp the full meaning and understanding behind it all. You can travel to Italy, visit the city and admire all the beautiful statues and structures but without a single understanding of Rome’s history, it might be difficult why the architecture is so significant. This applies to any city anywhere in the world. The experience of traveling and sight-seeing is more meaningful and fulfilling when we understand the reasoning behind a beautiful sculpture or a breathtaking building. If it has no meaning whatsoever then it loses some of its virtue and the reason why it is so important to a particular group.

To Whom is Feminism Really Benefiting?

In Ann George’s chapter “Burke, Meet Helen Keller”, she begins by comparing the two – Kenneth Burke and Helen Keller – as rhetoricians. She claims that Keller was just as successful as Burke rhetorically and they even used some of the same exact techniques to get different points across. Both did so effectively. Okay. Fine. The two are rhetorical counterparts. I get it. But then George further explains that Helen Keller took a more ambiguous, roundabout approach in presenting rhetorical theory, apparently much like other female rhetorical theorists, as opposed to Burke’s more straightforward approach. Keller reveals rhetorical ideas through a series of discourses otherwise meant to have a different purpose – almost as if she was hiding her ideas, disguising them as something else in order to present them to the public.

Third Person, So Why First Person

Upon reading more into the notion of New York City and Rome reflecting themselves as a whole. I came to realize that all perspectives are necessary into thinking about the history and implications behind these two cities and maybe our everyday lives. Should we always live in our first-person mode (which is naturally how we see things)? Or should we tell ourselves to take a step back and look at the things all around us and see what is held in our past, present, and future?

Representation: The Feminist Crisis

When first reading Butler’s article, I began to think that feminism is failing us. It’s very nature of representation undermines itself. In seeking to fully represent all individuals, namely women, it restricts women by simply classifying them as women. Our human desire to classify seems to be hindering our progress. So is feminism really failing us, or are we failing feminism? Butler seems to be arguing for the latter. But, perhaps, Miller’s theories of genre typification and fluidity can bandage this wound.

The drones in the "city"

Certeau’s concept of the city is nothing short of a statement that we are all drones.

The City in the Mind

A common precept of the 21^st century is the interpretation of cities as living and breathing structures. That is, to say, that cities are viewed with life and seen as evolving in structure and creation. Diane Favro and Michel De Certeau make claims about the construction and recollection of a “city” whether in viewing in contemporary sense or historical accuracy. How do these concepts align to our own human nature? The works of Favro and Certeau serve as an analysis more of recollection and perception than just a creation of the physical structure but rather, a mental reconstruction.

Erasure + Misrepresentation in the Narrative of Helen Keller

In retrospect I am now able to see the erasure that functioned in my learning of Helen Keller. In elementary school I learned about Helen Keller through the narrative of “The Miracle Worker”, this narrative has been the main vehicle through which a lot of children learn of her. The various adaptations of “The Miracle Worker” were based on Keller’s autobiography but they focus on Anne Sullivan, the teacher who taught her how to communicate. Keller is just her pupil and despite the fact that this is the way in which her story is told, she is not the main focus. I did not learn about Helen Keller as a person, but as a subject.The narrative as transcribed to me was cut short when she began to talk. This woman who was already disabled by her physicality also faced the suppression of her thoughts and personhood.

Representati(WOMoEn)

In Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, she points out the impossibilities surrounding the categories of "women". Since gender, in itself, is not fixed historically, socially and/or culturally how women are represented becomes dependent upon the other discursively constrained identities surrounding gender; including, but not limited to, race, class structures, ethnicity and sexuality. "Feminist critique ought to also understand how the category of "women," the subject of feminism, is produces and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought" (Butler 4).  Is it possible for women to transcend these structures of power? Or is the representation of gender, women in particular, too dependent and constrained by other societal discourses?

Cities as Meta? Moreover, cities as metapictures?

            De Certeau and Favro both make arguments about the complex nature of the construction of cities and people's interaction with them. In studying how cities are made and interacted with, perspective is of the utmost importance. De Certeau begins his essay by giving us the aeriel perspective of New York City from the top of the World Trade Center. This helps us to consider angles and privilege. It helps us to imagine that every person has a different experience of the city that is sometimes very reflective of their class and race. In many ways Favro especially gives us a Marxist-like argument and helps us to consider how a city reflects, selects, and deflects reality (Burke 45). Cities are not dead. They are live structures that act as a reflection of their people, almost like a metapicture.

Burke the Feminist?

Gender Troubles recognizes a distinct problem that the feminist literary movement will always face, the limitations of language. Butler specifically finds an issue in the fact that “the presumed universality and unity of the subject of feminism is effectively undermined by the constraints of the representational discourse in which it functions “(6). She notes that the binary system of gender we have is due to a “phallogocentric language” system in which women are essentially impossible to depict due to the dominance of male orientated language (Butler 13).  This perspective honestly made me feel a little guilty for being a man and raised the question whether women are able to escape the influences of male language in their writings.

The Power of City Walk

Favro’s “Street Triumphant” and de Certeau’s “Walking in the City’ emphasize the strong influence that the populace can have on the makeup and design of a city, contributing to its unique culture. While this may very well be true, the question that arises from these theorists is who exactly holds the power to transform the design of a city? Are the inhabitants considered agents, and if so, does every inhabitant hold power as an agent?

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.

Selfhood?

With all of the talk about feminism and gynocriticism, it harder to tell what kind of critique is accurate. To some, feminist theory is a movement. Smith says it "awaken's selfhood." Without that word being a definable term, it is difficult to say what it is exactly. If I had to make a definition for the word, it would read as follows: "a true knowledge of and about one's own personal being."

But what does knowing one's self have to do with rhetoric. I found that the entry for gynocriticism can actually help explain that. In the glossary, we are told that feminist criticism is separated into three phases. In those phases, we see women imitate masculinity, than protest against standard values, and finally advocate for their own perspective. That final step is a key to selfhood. By knowing what one's own perspective is on a topic, we can know ourselves.

But how can selfhood deal with rhetoric? Later in Smith's work, we see that consciousness is also a component of the creation of Feminist Criticism. Freud had introduced the idea about humans having three levels of consciousness: the id, ego, and superego. Now those deal with our normal conscious and our subconscious. It is difficult to deal in our subconscious due to it taking a larger percent of our brain to access. But if we know our ego, that is knowing our conscious. To learn our conscious, I believe writing what you believe and what you think can help. If you can defend your thoughts, you can defend you.

If you can defend you, that means your conscious can lead to your own selfhood.

Rhetoric. Ft. Helen Keller

  In George's article, his information provides the audience to look at Helen Keller in a new light. Although we all know how difficult Helen's life was being as disabled as she was, have we ever thought to see her as a Rhetorical Theorist? I know I didn't. However, I couldn't agree more that she was and will forever be stronger than any man to be able to accomplish the things she has done from such a young age.

  In her time era, women weren't seen as the dominant type. Men were always said to be more dominant even in our day. I whole-heartedly disagree on that. I am not saying I am a feminist but I am saying that anyone, man, woman, or any other classification of a human, should be recognized for their work that they apply to this competitive work. I think George makes a good statement when he says that she was living in a world that was "unauthentic, unreflective and strangely disturbing" (George 345). No one understood what she was going through even less then people understanding it now. Society doesn't recognize the struggles that went on in her life. Men wanted to give her pity but in reality she was born into that life therefore she learned how to cope with it. She didn't need pity, all she needed was people to believe in her which they did. She was more of a "woman" then ever. BEing called a "girl" or woman should never be a bad thing. The commercial by Always, is a prime example of this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs  . 

As for Butler's "Gender Trouble", this article provides a lot of information around how complex it is to be a male or female. The quote by Butler, "women constitute the unrepresentable"(Butler 13) , due to the fact that we have always lived in a man's world. I find this to be untrue. If it weren't for women pushing out babies, there would be no man. I think if men realize that, besides our emotions that can sometimes interfere with our thoughts, we have always found easier ways to do things in this life. I am not, by any means, saying that men have done nothing, but women have never been aloud to voice their opinion or be taken as seriously as men till a lot later in the game. We, as women, are not only nurturing, but very smart. 

I believe that changes are being made and points are being taken seriously. Helen Keller was a great start for women and it will only continue to get better over time. 

(Mis)Representation

Judith Butler vocalizes an idea I had been trying to form from our discussion on Hum and Gates; She gets to the root of the problem in the fight for representation--the subject. We may have already realized that language and politics harbor limitations and constraints on representation (cyclically reinforcing each other), "For feminist theory, the development of a language that fully or adequately represents women has seemed necessary to foster the political visibility of women" (Butler, 2). As Butler states this is obvious, however her application of Foucault's critical theory is how she substantiates claims I could not quite solidify in my mind.

Helen Keller's Rhetoric

George’s article, “Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller", introduces the reader to a different side of Helen Keller. I knew Helen Keller as the girl who lost majority of her sense but now we are discussing her in a different way. George challenged readers to think of Helen Keller in terms of her being a woman still since she lost some of her senses. It's amazing to know that Helen Keller was “living and writing rhetorical theory". (George 340) I say that because the debate about men being stronger then woman stands around even today. However, knowing what Helen Keller experienced and went through I could see how Keller would be stronger than a man because she still was able to live without having the majority of her senses. If a man was to do that as well then this would definetly be a pointless argument. George also mentions how the society in which Helen Keller was living in was more so dominated by men and he called it "unauthentic, unreflective and strangely disturbing" (George 345). I'm pretty sure it was hard living in the society like that because that situation was very strange, it was not common. It gave many men more power because there was not a man or boy who was in the same situation as Helen Keller. This left women to be looked at as more fragile then men.  Had Helen Keller been born in today's society she would have been fully excepted without being looked at differently, or without questioning her womanhood.  

Now in Butler’s “Gender Trouble”, the author basically states that "women constitute the unreprestable because they existed within a language pervasively masculine, a phallogocentric language ." (Butler 13) I agree with Butler because I feel as women just came about in the world and were expected to just adapt to the language of the man. Even if it could be women's language, the fact that it is always called the "man's" world or the "man's " language, it is perceived as if we are guest in this world full of men. I do not like that at all and maybe my dislike stems from the way women have evolved over time . How vocal we are and independent we can be without a man defying who we are. Butler also says that  “the canon of modern rhetorical theory is dramatically and almost exclusively male” (Butler 346). I could see why this  text was titled "Gender Trouble" it honestly causes trouble amongst the main two genders. I feel as though not every person is able to fit into the "white male spectrum" it excludes a lot people. That doesn't become fair but it then leads to people imitating  this rhetorical canon. Living their life a certain way in order to be accepted into this canon. I just wonder what happens when you are not accepted into the canon? You have spent a whole lifetime trying to fit in and you don't get your time back. How can women be fitted in as agents? This is when women become more so seen and not heard. Becoming stay at home wives and just getting placed into the life of a man. Once again this this is the life of a man and for a man. 

Terministic works of art

Rhetorical efficacy can be measured and analyzed in both the manner in which they select, reflect and deflect realities in order to paint a picture using truth. One might paint several different pictures drawn form the same set of truths with varying results, which further progress down a line that deviated from the original truth, if there ever was one. More than this, the matter of the ends delivering and receiving are inherent to the nature of the matter itself deem the large part of its significance. The entire matter is only resolved in its significance once something has been textually portrayed, and then that portrayal has been perceived, adding to a degree of its removed nature. Despite this, Burke asserts that the quality of observation of behaviours through a terministic screens actually keeps with its nature. (Burke, 49) Burke says that our “reality” is completely dependent on the symbol systems created, thus sucking the gravity from reality, reducing it towards whatever has been constructed by man. In Benjamin’s world of artistic criticism and reproduction, the terministic screen might apply to the questions that are drawn that direct our perception of art itself. To deflect certain qualities in art by asking questions and answering questions that create a new framework of understanding is the difference between placing a work of art in a school of thought where it simply disintegrates, and a school of thought where schools of thought are limiting and thus the framework is a framework insofar as it caters towards that creator’s use, and allows the nature of the art to be more than what it is and aspired towards by the artist, but by what desires and whims are drawn from it and reflected from it by the various audiences that wish to make what they want from what they want.

Helen Keller's Rhetoric: A Necessary Development

     Helen Keller is one of the most iconic people in American history, and definitely a champion for the rights and social views of handicapped persons. Her rise to fame and development of an academic reputation came at  a time when not much was known about the handicapped, and education programs for them were in their infancy. Despite this, Keller managed to go on to become a hero to many women for her work, and not just the handicapped. Her accomplishments showed the world that someone who seems isolated from the world by their senses can still be communicated through the power of language.

     While reading Ann George's "Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller", I began to ponder and explore the idea of how Keller developed her rhetorical practices, and why she needed to. To begin, we need to go back to the way Keller communicated, because people will obviously learn to argue based on how they can talk with other people. I have always thought of rhetorical theory as being developed by how one can learn to arrange an argument, and how the argument was arranged in a text-based manner. Even if we are not writing, we think in terms of language, and that language is represented as written words. When a person thinks about a topic, they will "talk" about the subject within their own mind and lay out an argument. Now, to look back on this after reading about Helen Keller, I realize that I have taken the ability to read words with my eyes for granted, as this has allowed me to develop my thought processes by visualizing the text of words, which is kind of lazy compared to Helen Keller. Helen Keller's sensory input came from her sense of touch; it was through this medium that she could communicate with other people in the world. This brings up the question of whether or not she thought in terms of sign language? Did she have the ability to visualize at all? Because thought processes can really only rely on previous sensory experiences, then it is likely that she did not have this ability.

     Despite this, Helen Keller did indeed develop her own rhetorical practice, and she did it out of a necessity. As stated in the piece, Keller did this to defend her ability to have an opinion. It was not enough that she could speak out on certain terms, she needed to be able to defend those views in order to be viewed as credible by the public. This might seem a bit pedantic, as if it somehow is not enough for these critics that a woman with a sever sensory handicap who worked arduously to overcome this to be able to communicate should need to defend her right to have an opinion, but Keller was able to do this as well. What makes this remarkable is that Keller had to basically fill in the gaps of her own perceptions with imagined materials. Someone could explain the concept of war to her, and she not only had to try to relate to and understand the concept through her own perceptive manner, she had to then fill in and imagine the effects that war would have on society. This is what truly made Helen Keller's rhetoric a unique one; she is a shining example of the power of a terministic screen because Helen Keller's entire world was words. Words were all she could have to not only express her emotions and thoughts, but to gain knowledge on her surroundings. Most people's terministic screens are based on how their words and use of language affect their reality, but Keller's reality was her language.

Defeating Process

George’s article, “Mr. Burke, Meet Helen Keller”, introduces us to an idea that we have already brought attention to in this course; women and the previous restraints placed on them as agents. Campbell’s essay, through her propositions made us question whether women could be agents. Through her story of Sojourner Truth we were able to come to the conclusion that women can be agents but with constraints. Heilbrun also made us look at women as agents through her discussion of writing a women’s life. We were again able to come to the conclusion that women can be agents but they will never has as much power as men do. George now brings into discussion Helen Keller, who is not only a woman, but a disabled one as well. Thus, I think the idea of women as agents needs to be looked at again, as well as the idea of anyone that is an “other” as agents.

Cooper's View from the City Streets

So far, I am of the opinion that one of the boldest (and by my standards, the boldest) statement we have read this semester comes from Anna Julia Cooper. It is not speaking directly about a rhetorical theory, but it applies to many of the discoveries we have made in class. In the excerpt we read from her “Voice from the South,” she claims that  blacks are “a race that has produced for America the only folk-lore and folk songs of native growth, a race which has grown the most original and unique assemblage of fable and myth to be found on the continent, a race which has suggested and inspired almost the only distinctive American note which could chain the attention and charm the ear of the outside world,” and that they have “as yet found no mouthpiece of its own to unify and perpetuate its wondrous whisperings…” (Cooper 383).

You Ain't Nothin' But A Drag Queen

Gender theory spends so much time analyzing the complexities surrounding the male and the female. Have you ever supposed that gender was more than just a simple binary, that “man” and “woman” are not the only two entities that compose a gender? I’d prompt you to think what other “genders” might exist. While we assume that by standard definition, the sex of an individual is characterized by concrete biological factors, for example, men and women’s differing sexual organs, while gender is a concept more convoluted. Again, through an acknowledged consensus, most would define the term gender by the characteristics that are assigned to a male or a female, according to a culture or society. In essence, what one would describe as masculine or feminine are adjectives involved in defining gender. If we are to assume this definition of gender, I will ask you then to dote on this question: what gender is a transvestite? Judith Butler would certainly have a lot to say about it.

The (Un)Representation of "Others"

My approach to Butler and George's texts was through a feminist lens. I baffled with both texts, confused and annoyed until I realized that it was more than that. Of course, both were talking about women and misogyny, especially towards Ms. Helen Keller. But, I got more confused because Ms. Keller was not the ordinary woman. She was disabled. She was visually and aurally impaired. So I figured, this is more than feminism and women trying to be canonical. It was all about how the "Others" of society are represented.

Aura & Hindsight

Considering the points that Walter Benjamin draws upon aura and it’s diminutive nature through reproduction, we must also acknowledge that art cannot exist without some previous inspiration; whether this process occurs through reproduction, compartmentalization, or remediation.

Perception Is Key~ Gender & Erroneous Icons

Kenneth Burke, (for simplicity’s sake I will refer to all of the Burkean personalities as one singular individual) has become an iconic representation of rhetoric. Burke’s theories are wrapped in societal discourse and generational commentary- all of which seems to point to the totalizing failures of human society. Yet invaluable though Burkes theories are, they are often applied to the Caucasian, able-bodied, Anglo man. I in no way mean to implicate Burke as single minded or ignorant of the plight of those non-white/able-bodied men, I only mean to draw attention to the unintentionally targeted public of Burkes theory. Helen Keller is equally, if not disproportionately iconic in name, yet nearly obscure in theory. From adverse beginnings Keller developed into one of the great, yet unrecognized rhetors of her time. Ann George in her essay, Kenneth Burke Meet Helen Keller, attempts to draw parallels between these unlikely like-minded rhetors. “Reading Keller side by side with Burke underscores the extent to which Keller was not simply doing rhetoric; she was living and writing rhetorical theory- theory that often predates Burkes and rivals it sophistication” (George 340). Gender, race, disability and social situation each contains its own discourse, but how does this discourse effect the lens through which individuals perceive the world and understand it in terms of language?  The importance to be noted here is the similarity of Burke and Keller’s theory and the divergence in public perception.

Female Representation...or the lack thereof

                Many people believe that in order for a person or group of people to receive proper representation, they must tell their own story. Obviously it is hard for one group of people to represent another group of people properly, so it is up to individuals to tell the stories of their own people and of their selves. This is a notion I think a lot of writers we have previously studied in this class would agree with, such as Pauline Johnson, who argued for the proper representation of Native Americans, and Michel Foucault who spoke a lot about power structures and how minority groups require representation. After reading Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, I was left a little confused about Butler's stance on this issue, but it seemed that she did not agree that that was how representation works. It seems that she finds so many other issues in conducting a female identity in literature and media that even self representation would be flawed.

Look Behind to See Your Future

     The reproduction of a work of art will always be a difficult process, partially because if the art is a very well-known piece, it would be difficult for a entirely different artist to be compared to said original artist. Yet, the reproduction artist also must take into account the authenticity and exactness of the original artist's work because to reproduce the artwork in a slovenly fashion would be to spit in the face of said original artist. This is why those who reproduce the works of another, consider this feat historically fragile. Not only is art in and of itself a fragile concept and task, it is also one of the few ideas of mankind which has lasted since the dawn of man.

So, Certeau and Favro Walk Into a City and Discuss Structures

          Society perceives a working reality from foundations and  norms dated back to 167 B.C.E. Workers hold agency higher than certain aspects of work environment and time in order to verify their solidarity with co-workers and family (Certeau 1342). "Certeau emphasizes that every writer who describes history and culture is necessarily caught up in the myths and power relations described, and that all historiography should take the writer's subject position into account" (Certeau 1342).  Diane Favro's, The Street Triumphant , takes a historical perspective when it comes to the outlook of the urban impact of Roman triumphal parades. In regards to the reader-response theorists Richter states, "they all have in common the conviction that the audience plays a vitally important role in shaping the literary experience and the desire to help to explain that role" (Richter 962). Both Michel de Certeau and Diane Favro take a city's layout and design to describe how the working foundations impact a culture and cities' people. Dialectical materialism and discourse play a key role in Certeau's description of The World Trade Center and Favro's description of the Roman triumphal parades to show how urban agglomeration over people has diffused over time. Through their descriptions of the two cities Michel de Certeau Marxist's outlook and Diane Favro's New Historicism outlook shows the difference between reading a city as a text verses a city showing dominant cultural trends.