Yarberry 1

Kristina Yarberry

Dr. Jensen

Rhetorical Theory

18 September 2019

Paper 1: “Rhetoricians as Binaries”

What is rhetoric? This is often the first question asked in any educated discussion on

rhetorical theory, but it has multiple answers. According to The Oxford English Dictionary,

rhetoric is primarily defined as “the art of using language effectively so as to persuade or

influence others, esp. the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques to

this end” (Oxford). In the Lexico online dictionary, however, it is described as “language

designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in

sincerity or meaningful content” (Lexico). Both definitions have credibility, despite the

differences in the messages they send. Some scholars might argue that one definition is more apt

than the other, while others would disagree. But, the point I want to reach is this: this practice of

defining things brings us to an important (and, arguably, dangerous) rhetorical

concept—essentialism.

In David Downing’s Just Theory, he writes “that they were ‘essentializing’” was “the

most potent charge you could level against fellow critics” during the 1970s and ‘80s (Downing

74). This “essentializing” he explains as “un-self-consciously holding onto some fixed essences

as grounds for interpretation but slipping them in the back door unacknowledged” (74). In other

words, it is a practice of 1) assuming a certain thing or group has certain essential qualities to it
 Yarberry 2

and 2) unknowingly using those assumed essential qualities as a means for defining that thing or

group.

It’s important to consider Downing’s idea that it is very difficult, if even possible, to fully

eliminate essentialist thought patterns from our minds. Why do we have them? It seems that, for

much of our history, we have sought after something called aletheia, or “universal truth”

(Downing 3). This would explain, to some extent, Plato’s dialogues or “dialectics,” as they are

conversations that act as a way of ascertaining absolute truths. So, it is fitting that we might

attribute characteristics to things (i.e., “essentialize” them) in order to better understand the truth

of what they are and what they mean. However, this search for truth—and especially the

dialectics—often result in the use of binaries, which can be damaging.

One binary that has been a topic of much discussion in current social climates is that of

gender. Although in general, this binary is not initially associated with rhetorical theory, I feel

that that is an important lens through which we should consider it. Of late, there has been a shift

away from gender as a binary, going so far as to even create ungendered pronouns for those who

wish not to associate with one or the other of male and female. But, this has not always been the

case.

As with many of the binary pairings in Plato’s dialectics, there has long been a hierarchy

placed on the binary of gender. It is no secret that women have been viewed as the inferior sex,

with society as a whole acting as a reflection of this notion. It reaches quite far backward into our

history; some would likely argue that it has been present from the beginning. But, in what ways

has it affected the world of rhetoric?

 Yarberry 3

Most known rhetoricians have been male, including the most highly respected (e.g.,

Plato and Aristotle). But how much of an impact has been made by female rhetoricians? An

important name to mention here is Aspasia. Though little is known about her, there is some

evidence that she was not only respected by some of these great scholars, but that she even

influenced their works to some degree. In his article in the Ancient History Encyclopedia, Joshua

Mark states that even Socrates “marveled at her eloquence” (Mark, “Aspasia”). However, she is

most commonly known for her romantic partnership with Athenian statesman Pericles.

This form of recognition is not uncommon among women. In her essay, “A Vindication

of the Rights of Woman,” Mary Wollstonecraft explains:

“…considering females as women rather than human creatures, [these men] have

been more anxious to make them alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and

rational mothers; and the understanding of the sex has been so bubbled by this

specious homage, that the civilized women of the present century, with a few

exceptions, are only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to cherish a nobler

ambition, and by their abilities and virtues exact respect” (214).

It is clear from the above statement that Wollstonecraft not only believes that women are

regularly viewed as objects of romance above all else, but that the commonality of this view also

causes the women themselves to believe in and pursue it. In other words, lack of respect from

others begets a lack of respect for oneself, it would seem. Mary Wollstonecraft is now recognized

as a female rhetorician of influence. However, could there have been other women in our history

that had the influencing power of the greatest male rhetoricians, but who did not bear their
 Yarberry 4

respect enough to gain renown? Worse yet, could there have been women that did not identify as

intellectuals themselves, simply because men did not see them in that way?

These questions cannot be answered with any real certainty; they can only be guessed at.

However, I think that in large part, even if the above issues cannot be retroactively resolved, an

attempt can be made to prevent their occurrence in the future. This brings me back to the idea of

essentialism.

The danger that takes place in essentializing is the narrowed understanding that it creates

in our minds. Wollstonecraft’s essay describes the way that men—and consequently,

women—have essentialized the idea of what it is to be a woman and have, therein, created an

idea of what a woman cannot be. If women are weak, they cannot be strong. If women are meant

to be objects of love and romance, they cannot aspire to be anything more than that. In

essentializing what it means to be a woman, there is a danger of forgetting what it can mean to

be a human—and, for the purposes of this discussion—a rhetorician.

Though this discussion focuses primarily on the problems that arise in the essentialism of

gender binaries, it is important to note that anything can be essentialized. And, in the hopes of

maintaining some level of realistic thinking, it must be reiterated that, just as Downing says, it is

not easy to entirely remove this pattern of thought from our minds as we seek to understand the

world around us. However, in learning to be mindful of essentialism and the dangers it can

harbor, we can be more aware of our own habits, and hopefully change them for the better.
 Yarberry 5

Works Cited

Downing, David B. Just Theory: An Alternative History of the Western Tradition. National

Council of Teachers of English, 2019.

Mark, Joshua J. “Aspasia of Miletus: The Art of Eloquence.” Ancient History Encyclopedia,

Ancient History Encyclopedia, 17 Sept. 2019,

https://www.ancient.eu/article/80/aspasia-of-miletus-the-art-of-eloquence/. Accessed 18

September 2019.

“Rhetoric: Definition of Rhetoric by Lexico.” Lexico Dictionaries | English, Lexico Dictionaries,

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/rhetoric. Accessed 18 September 2019.

“Rhetoric.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd ed. 2010. OED Online.

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/165178?rskey=auBBym&result=1&isAdvanced=false#

eid. Accessed 18 September 2019.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.” The Norton Anthology of

English Literature, edited by Stephen Greenblatt, W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2012,

pp. 211-239.