"As we resist the Paternal Narrative of rhetorical history, we're all working as if the real and discourse were actually being joined in our texts, on our maps. We have no choice, for how can we know the world except through the words it constructs?" (Glen)
This quote sets a good precedent for change of historiographical study and briefly describes a key issue that has come to the attention of the academic world. I think it gives credence to the weaknesses and misappropriation of minorities history, and I agree with the call for extensive research into minority, disenfranchised, and subjugated peoples's history. However I am cautious about any study that claims to oppose one for the benefit of the other. I want to know more about the measures of accountability the author proposes when rewriting history to include the aforementioned peoples. I want to know how she will, in her attempted theory and praxis of a more fully developed and progressive view of history incorporate the paternal narrative without casting it into negative light sufficient to inspire within its audience dread, hatred, and suspicion of "old white men" and the other groups that come to mind when painting the paternal narrative in this light. Will she use rhetorical methods that have been developed by men such as Socrates, Gorgias, or even Foucault? How will these authors be painted in her own narrative of history as men who emitted rhetoric during their lives?
No comments:
Post a Comment