So while I am glad that we are to the point in the
Rhetorical Tradition where the mix of rhetors becomes a little more
heterogeneous, I still have to note the overwhelming power structures that
facilitate male domination—most notably those borrowed from the Bible (namely
St. Paul). But in defying this type of oppression, I also see a return to a
more classical dialectic. The women, in their disadvantaged positions within
the royal court and/or theocratic government, were forced to dialogue with
their oppressors in order to share power. (I am seeing their quest for equality
as a vying for power here—even if the power is simply to be allowed the freedom
of some restricted speech.)
Christine
de Pizan, for example, frames her argument in The Book of the City of Ladies as
a conversation, refuting disembodied claims that women should not be educated.
The conversation in the next excerpted piece, The Treasure of the City of
Ladies, forms a dialogue by engaging with the power structures of the royal
court. De Pizan still converses with an ambiguous entity, but in this case the
entity is collectively gendered as male. Similarly, de la Cruz has to engage in
dialogues with certain disembodied voices (the open letters to the re-gendered
Sor Filotea) and governmental structures (the Catholic Church) in order to
further her own standing. (This, I should note, acts like the precursor to the
scientific method wherein a theory—and its theorist—gain reputability by
testing the status quo.)
Of course
there is a lot that is problematic with this type of approach. Most notably, it
reinforces gender roles. In de Pizan especially, the role of the woman is
defined in relation to that of the man. The princess, servant, and proletariat
woman are instructed to act in preservation of their male counterparts as well
as those women who are societally elevated. This, of course, is a direct
historical reflection of the patronage system that de Pizan benefited from and
was servant to. A more striking example comes in de la Cruz when she refers to
herself as an “ignorant woman” (RT 785)—a sort of linguistic hedging used to
gain entry into a conversation. By referring to herself in the pejorative, she
empowers the men and at the same time, takes a slice of the created power for
herself. The irony of this rhetorical move is revealed in her litany of
allusions on page 787.
But out of
the problematic dynamic created by the differentiation of the gender of the
rhetor comes some benefits that further Humanism (and help push rhetoric into
the age of the Enlightenment). One of the key notions comes from turning the
rhetoric of silence into a rhetoric of listening. De Pizan opens the segment in
Treasure by advocating for women to give “comfort by speech and advice” (546)
and to “listen patiently” (547). In the right moment, it is also suggested that
the counselor (for that is what we are talking about here) offers some guidance
or help—in this context that is done through prayer (granted, to a patriarchal God).
What is significant here is the role of silence is turned into actively
listening and advocating to the Big Guy. Though women are banned from the
pulpit (as de la Cruz concludes), they are able to perform as rhetors. At the
same time, I’m intrigued—is this the beginning of counseling as a branch of
psychology?
There was so much of Christine de Pizan I wanted to cling to. I liked how she advocated for deep reflection before action. I liked how she advocated for empathy. However, I often wanted to omit the bits about women serving men--"always preserving the honor of her husband" (RT 547). But as you mention, given women's position in society, de Pizan smartly enters the male-dominated, hegemonic conversation. In the end, then, I have to wonder about my discomfort with her positioning. In my post on her, I use quite a bit of ellipsis (perhaps my wanting to disrupt the themes of patriarchy found in de Pizan). But maybe that does her work as a rhetorician a disservice? Importantly, she gained access and power by working within this system. As such, I find her an astonishing rhetorician. Anyway, thanks for your post. It has me thinking quite a bit... <-- these are "good" ellipsis.
ReplyDeleteI think you have to judge rhetors like de Pizan in terms of the context of her times: given who she was, where she was, what opportunities were afforded her (and what not), she was a brilliant, innovative rhetorician … and also a feminist (for her times).
ReplyDeleteI think you have to judge rhetors like de Pizan in terms of the context of her times: given who she was, where she was, what opportunities were afforded her (and what not), she was a brilliant, innovative rhetorician … and also a feminist (for her times).
ReplyDeleteI wasn't really troubled by some of the would-be problematic areas of Christine de Pizan or Sor Juanes' works because of the historical context. As you're mentioning, this was an attempt at getting some sort of power within a system, and it's power of the system that these women have usually no right to be in, as you described as "their disadvantaged positions." I'm less worried about the reinforced gender roles because the women didn't have much to work with, and so I'm pretty pleased with how Pizan used the system to gain some sort of power. I thought it was pretty crazy to see how she actually positioned herself in relation to men (as you mentioned in the mediator role)--this role could be seen as very submissive and consoling, but she positions it as a place of power.
ReplyDelete