Interesting that it took Rhetoric studies took almost 30 years to even attempt defining cultural rhetoric. What does this delay say about who gets to define terms in the field?
5 Matching Annotations
- Last 7 days
-
texastechuniversity-my.sharepoint.com texastechuniversity-my.sharepoint.com
-
enculturation.net enculturation.net
-
One of the ways we see that happening in rhetoric studies is through a tendency to fetishize texts, to turn everything into a text that can be read
To go back to my first annotation: If I write about New Mexican food as a lineage, am I reducing it to textual analysis? Cultural rhetorics seems to push me to honor it as lived, embodied, relational practice (cooking, memory, story) and not just history-as-text. That being said, how can scholars write about it without flattening it?
-
For us the general term "rhetorics" refers both to the study of meaning-making systems and to the practices that constitute those systems.
Rhetoric isn’t just speeches and writing; it’s cultural practice itself. So rhetoric is study and practice. But what are the boundaries of calling practice “rhetorical”?
-
The practice of constellating gives us a visual metaphor for those relationships that honor all possible realities.
What I gather from scene 1 and scene 2 is that storytelling is not strictly academic and not strictly everyday but instead a method that recognizes both as valid and interconnected.
-
if you're not practicing story, you're doing it wrong.
Is this because story functions as method, research, teaching? In other words, storytelling = how knowledge circulates? This reminds me of my grandma teaching me how to make New Mexican food. She’s not just giving a recipe. Through her stories and methods, I learn family history (research), skills (method), and culture (teaching). Is this the kind of everyday practice they mean, or are they pointing more toward academic contexts?
-