Why "Anticolonial" International Rhetorical Studies?

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Matthew Detar
{"title":"Why \"Anticolonial\" International Rhetorical Studies?","authors":"Matthew Detar","doi":"10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Rhetorical studies as a discipline relies on a set of theories and a geography of case studies that circularly reinforce one another to authorize white-Euro-American traditions of knowledge beholden to colonial ways of knowing the world. Calls to \"internationalize\" the cases and topics of rhetorical studies are easily subsumed by the self-authorizing racist epistemology of the discipline, since additive models of \"diverse\" cases repurpose diversity to reinforce the authority of the discipline as it already exists. How should the globalization of rhetorical studies address the disciplinary logic of white, colonial, U.S. normativity? Studying non-U.S., non-Western rhetorical practice must be an anticolonial political intervention to fundamentally reimagine the discipline or it will risk reproducing a racist disciplinary structure.This essay maps three ways that scholars studying \"international\" cases have led a restructuring of the discipline by challenging the presumptions of universality that creep into scholarship. Anticolonial rhetorical scholars challenge processes of universalization as method, as rhetorical practice, and as ontology. When these processes of universalization become the object of study for rhetorical scholars, there is a possibility that rhetorical studies can develop the reflexivity to challenge its own circularly reinforcing, exclusionary disciplinary logic of white-U.S. normativity.","PeriodicalId":45013,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric & Public Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetoric & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract:Rhetorical studies as a discipline relies on a set of theories and a geography of case studies that circularly reinforce one another to authorize white-Euro-American traditions of knowledge beholden to colonial ways of knowing the world. Calls to "internationalize" the cases and topics of rhetorical studies are easily subsumed by the self-authorizing racist epistemology of the discipline, since additive models of "diverse" cases repurpose diversity to reinforce the authority of the discipline as it already exists. How should the globalization of rhetorical studies address the disciplinary logic of white, colonial, U.S. normativity? Studying non-U.S., non-Western rhetorical practice must be an anticolonial political intervention to fundamentally reimagine the discipline or it will risk reproducing a racist disciplinary structure.This essay maps three ways that scholars studying "international" cases have led a restructuring of the discipline by challenging the presumptions of universality that creep into scholarship. Anticolonial rhetorical scholars challenge processes of universalization as method, as rhetorical practice, and as ontology. When these processes of universalization become the object of study for rhetorical scholars, there is a possibility that rhetorical studies can develop the reflexivity to challenge its own circularly reinforcing, exclusionary disciplinary logic of white-U.S. normativity.
为什么是“反殖民”的国际修辞研究?
摘要:修辞研究作为一门学科,依赖于一系列理论和案例研究的地理学,这些理论和地理学循环地相互强化,以授权欧美白人的知识传统受制于殖民地的认识世界的方式。要求修辞研究的案例和主题“国际化”的呼声很容易被该学科自我授权的种族主义认识论所包容,因为“多样性”案例的加法模型重新利用多样性来加强该学科现有的权威。修辞研究的全球化应该如何处理白人、殖民地和美国规范性的学科逻辑?研究非美国、非西方的修辞实践必须是一种反殖民的政治干预,从根本上重新构想学科,否则将有重现种族主义学科结构的风险。这篇文章描绘了研究“国际”案例的学者通过挑战学术界普遍性的假设来领导学科重组的三种方式。反殖民修辞学学者将普遍化过程作为方法、修辞实践和本体论加以挑战。当这些普遍化过程成为修辞学学者研究的对象时,修辞学研究就有可能发展出反身性,以挑战其自身循环强化、排斥性的白人美国规范性学科逻辑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rhetoric & Public Affairs
Rhetoric & Public Affairs COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信