Invitational rhetoric

Last updated October 29, 2023

Invitational rhetoric is a theory of rhetoric developed by Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin in 1995.^[1]

Invitational rhetoric is defined as “an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination.”^[1] The theory challenges the traditional definition of rhetoric as persuasion—the effort to change others—because the objective of invitational rhetoric is not to persuade but to gain an understanding of the perspectives of others.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

Invitational rhetoric is part of an effort to formulate alternative conceptions of rhetoric that are not “exploitative and oppressive but that contribute to a more respectful way of being a rhetor in the world.”^[4] A major assumption behind invitational rhetoric is that “the communication discipline, through its traditional constructs and theories, participates in this culture of domination,” and invitational rhetoric constitutes an effort to “contribute to the creation of more humane lives” for individuals.^[4]

Core elements

Invitational rhetoric is rooted in three feminist principles that “explicitly challenge the positive value the patriarchy accords to changing and thus dominating others”—equality, immanent value, and self-determination.^[1]

Equality: In contrast to the traditional rhetoric of persuasion, in which the rhetor is seen as superior to the audience, the rhetor and the audience are viewed as equal peers who share authority and expertise and contribute equally to an interaction.^[1]^[6]^[7]
Immanent value: Immanent value means that all individuals have unique, unrepeatable perspectives that should be appreciated for what they contribute to an interaction.^[1]^[3]
Self-determination: Self-determination is the principle that others are competent individuals who should be allowed to make their own decisions about their lives.^[1]^[6]^[3] Although change is not the objective of invitational rhetoric, change may occur as a result of an invitational interaction. Interacting with others inevitably produces changes of various kinds in interactants, but in the case of invitational rhetoric, both the rhetor and the audience may choose to change their perspectives as a result of the process of sharing perspectives. They do not, however, enter the interaction trying to impose their perspectives on and trying to change one another.^[3]^[1]^[2]^[8]

Participants in invitational rhetoric value diverse perspectives because they recognize that every perspective is partial; as a result, they seek multiple perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of an issue or situation. Invitational rhetors are particularly interested in exploring perspectives that are different from their own because they provide them with new information that enlarges their understanding.^[6] Because they are eager to engage different perspectives and to allow them to affect their own thinking, invitational participants enter an interaction willing to call into question their own perspectives.^[1]^[8]

In contrast to persuasive rhetoric, which involves power-over and an attempt to establish power over others by changing them, in invitational rhetoric, the kind of power involved is power-with.^[1] This type of power is shared among the audience members and the rhetor and is used by all participants together to come to an understanding, to make a decision, or to solve a problem.^[6]^[9]^[10]

Invitational rhetoric is one of many useful rhetorical options; it is not designed to be used in all situations.^[3]^[1] It is one of five modes of rhetoric available to rhetors:

In conquest rhetoric, rhetors try to establish their idea as the best among competing positions.
Conversion rhetoric is rhetoric that is designed to change the minds or behaviors of others by convincing them that another way is superior.
In benevolent rhetoric, the objective is to help individuals improve their lives and often involves providing useful information to others.
Advisory rhetoric is designed to provide assistance requested by others; it is a response to an implicit or explicit request for information or advice.^[6]^[11]

Rhetorical options in invitational rhetoric

There are two primary rhetorical options in invitational rhetoric: (1) offering perspectives; and (2) creating external conditions that encourage audience members to share their perspectives with the rhetor.^[1]

Offering perspectives

Offering perspectives is the way by which rhetors share their perspectives with audience members, explaining what they know or understand about an issue or idea without advocating for those perspectives.^[1] Offering occurs verbally through the use of words to explain a rhetor's perspective or nonverbally through wearing particular kinds of clothing or displaying symbols that suggest an individual's identification. Wearing a charity bracelet, for example, suggests that a rhetor is identified with a certain cause or issue. Wearers of the bracelets are not attempting to persuade others to support the cause but are simply offering a perspective so that those who are curious about the bracelet can choose to explore the perspective being offered.^[1]

Offering perspectives may be difficult to do in hostile situations when other interactants are not interested in hearing a different perspective or when conquest and conversion rhetorics are being used.^[2]^[1]^[6] In such cases, invitational rhetors may use re-sourcement so that they can offer their perspectives and continue to engage in invitational rhetoric. Re-sourcement is a term coined by Sally Miller Gearhart that means drawing energy from a new source—“a source other than the individual or system that provided the initial frame for the issue.”^[12]^[1]

Re-sourcement involves two basic processes. The first is disengaging from the frame of the precipitating message—stepping away from the frame in which the message is being offered and recognizing that the response does not have to be couched in that same frame.^[1]^[6] The second process is developing a message that “does not directly argue against or even address the message being offered. It presents a response addressed to a different exigence, need, or problem from the one implicit” in the initial message.^[6] The use of re-sourcement allows rhetors to value both themselves and their audience members and provides a space for more options for interaction in the future because it has not locked participants into an adversarial framework.^[1]

An example of re-sourcement is a response suggested by Suzette Haden Elgin to instances of sexual harassment. She offers what she calls the Boring Baroque Response to unwanted sexual proposals or sexually suggestive remarks. This strategy involves responding to such messages by telling a long story with many tedious details that is unrelated to and does not address the proposition offered by the instigator of the message.^[13]^[6]

Creating external conditions

The second primary rhetorical option in invitational rhetoric is creating external conditions. This option involves creating an environment that encourages audience members to share their perspectives with the rhetor.^[3]^[1] To accomplish this objective, the invitational rhetor attempts to create three conditions—safety, value, and freedom.^[1]^[2]

Safety: Safety is the creation of “a feeling of security and freedom from danger for the audience.”^[1] When safety is created in a rhetorical situation, audience members feel secure both physically and intellectually.^[6]^[14] They feel like they can safely share and question ideas and that the rhetor with whom they are sharing their perspectives will respect their ideas and will not degrade or belittle them.^[3]^[14]^[6]
Value: Value is acknowledgment by the rhetor that the audience members have intrinsic worth.^[3] Rhetors show that they value audience members when they treat them as unique individuals with worthwhile perspectives. They listen carefully to and seriously consider the perspectives audience members share. As a result, they encourage audience members to contribute in significant ways to the interaction.^[3]^[14]^[1]
Freedom: When rhetors give audience members freedom, they do not expect them to make the same choices they have made; they give them the freedom to believe and act as they themselves choose.^[14] Invitational rhetors allow any subjects to be introduced into the interaction and allow all assumptions to be questioned.^[1]^[6] Freedom also means that rhetors are not disappointed or angry if audience members choose not to adopt the perspectives they offer. The relationship between rhetor and audience will not be disrupted because of the difference in their perspectives.^[3]^[1]

Applications

Austenfeld, Anne Marie (2006). "The Revelatory Narrative Circle in Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible". Journal of Narrative Theory. 36 (2): 293–305. doi:10.1353/jnt.2007.0000. S2CID 161270744.
Bates, Benjamin R (2017). "Participatory Graffiti as Invitational Rhetoric: The Case of O Machismo". Qualitative Research Reports in Communication. 18: 1–9. doi:10.1080/17459435.2017.1330276. S2CID 148855019.
Bowers, Venessa A.; Buzzanell, Patrice M. (2002). "The Space Between: Using Peer Theater to Transcend Race, Class and Gender". Women and Language. 25: 29–40.
Cavin, Margaret (2006). "Elise Boulding's Rhetoric: An Invitation to Peace". Peace and Change. 31 (3): 390–412. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0130.2006.00380.x.
DeLaure, Marilyn Bordwell (2008). "Planting Seeds of Change: Ella Baker's Radical Rhetoric". Women's Studies in Communication. 31: 1–28. doi:10.1080/07491409.2008.10162520. S2CID 145561225.
Dutta-Bergman, Mohan J (2005). "Theory and Practice in Health Communication Campaigns: A Critical Interrogation". Health Communication. 18 (2): 103–22. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1802_1. PMID 16083406. S2CID 42214397.
Ellingson, Laura L.; Buzzanell, Patrice M. (1999). "Listening to Women's Narratives of Breast Cancer Treatment: A Feminist Approach to Patient Satisfaction With Physician-Patient Communication". Health Communication. 11 (2): 153–83. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1102_3. PMID 16370974.
Ellis, Donald G (2005). "Intercultural Communication in Intractable Ethnopolitical Conflicts". International and Intercultural Communication Annual. 28: 45–69.
Elmualim, Abbas Ali. “Culture and Leadership in Stakeholder Management.” In Construction Stakeholder Management, edited by Ezekiel Chinyio and Paul Olomolaiye, 175–90. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley, 2007.
Hess, Aaron (2007). "In Digital Remembrance: Vernacular Memory and the Rhetorical Construction of Web Memorials". Media, Culture & Society. 29 (5): 812–30. doi:10.1177/0163443707080539. S2CID 145622599.
McMillan, Gloria (2002). "Keeping the Conversation Going: Jane Addams' Rhetorical Strategies in 'A Modern Lear.'". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 32 (3): 61–75. doi:10.1080/02773940209391234. S2CID 29473399.
Pedrioli, Carlo A (2004). "A New Image in the Looking Glass: Faculty Mentoring, Invitational Rhetoric, and the Second-Class Status of Women in U. S. Academia". Hastings Women's Law Journal. 16: 185–215.
Petre, Elizabeth A (2007). "Understanding Epideictic Purpose as Invitational Rhetoric in Women's Political Convention Speeches". Kaleidoscope. 6: 21–37.
Riley, Jeannette E.; Torrens, Kathleen M.; Krumholz, Susan T. (2005). "Contemporary Feminist Writers: Envisioning a Just World". Contemporary Justice Review. 8: 91–106. doi:10.1080/10282580500044127. S2CID 143013973.
Scott, David K (2003). "The Eisenhower/Khrushchev Rhetorical Compact: Toward a Model of Cooperative Public Discourse". Southern Communication Journal. 68 (4): 287–307. doi:10.1080/10417940309373268. S2CID 151775839.
Sharf, Barbara F (1995). "Poster Art as Women's Rhetoric: Raising Awareness about Breast Cancer". Literature and Medicine. 14 (1): 72–86. doi:10.1353/lm.1995.0011. PMID 7541094. S2CID 40181496.
Stroud, Scott R (2005). "Ontological Orientation and the Practice of Rhetoric: A Perspective from the Bhagavad Gita". Southern Communication Journal. 70 (2): 146–60. doi:10.1080/10417940509373320. S2CID 147021273.
Taylor, Karen, Rita Durant, and David Boje. “Telling the Story, Hearing the Story: Narrative Co-Construction and Crisis Research.” American Communication Journal 9 (2007), online.
Wei, Zhang; Kramarae, Cheris (2008). "Feminist Invitational Collaboration in a Digital Age: Looking Over Disciplinary and National Borders". Women and Language. 31: 8–19.

Both Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin have applied the theory of invitational rhetoric to public speaking and have written textbooks on the subject rooted in invitational rhetoric:

Foss, Sonja K., and Karen A. Foss. Inviting Transformation: Presentational Speaking for a Changing World. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 1994; 2nd edition, 2003; 3rd edition, 2012. ( ISBN 978-1-57766-721-6)
Griffin, Cindy L. Invitation to Public Speaking. Boston: Cengage, 2003; 2nd edition, 2006; 3rd edition, 2009; 4th edition, 2012; 5th edition, 2015; 6th edition, 2018. 247–265. ( ISBN 978-1-305-94808-2)

Critiques of the theory

Following are the major critiques that have been offered of the theory of invitational rhetoric. Some of the criticisms of invitational rhetoric concern conceptions of the nature and function of persuasion:

Persuasion is not violent, as invitational rhetoric suggests that it is.^[2]^[15] Some critics suggest that Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin's view that rhetoric constitutes violence because it represents an attempt to violate another person's belief system is a flawed perspective.^[2]^[16] These critics note that those who engage in persuasion are not always trying to impose their will on audience members.^[16] In addition, such a view ignores the nature of audiences. Audience members may refuse to listen to persuasive messages and “have substantial power to resist messages with which they do not agree.”^[16]^[17] As a result, their individual belief systems are not being violated. These critics believe that “the impulse to persuade others is a constructive and valuable aspect of human symbolic interaction.”^[17]
Democracy will be undermined if persuasion is disallowed. The intent to change minds and situations is at the root of the deliberative process that takes place in a democracy. If persuasion is not seen as legitimate, democracy cannot be sustained.^[17]
Invitational rhetoric necessarily involves persuasion. Rhetors cannot help but be involved in persuasion when they offer their perspectives because the definition of rhetoric is persuasion; thus, persuasion or influence is an integral part of every symbolic interaction.^[15]^[2] Some critics use as support for this claim Foss and Griffin's initial article on invitational rhetoric. Although Foss and Griffin explain in this article that they are attempting to use the features of invitational rhetoric as they describe the theory, some critics suggest that, when they write about invitational rhetoric, they themselves are arguing that others should share their views.^[1] Thus, even Foss and Griffin cannot help but be engaged in persuasion, even when they are describing invitational rhetoric.^[18]^[11]
Invitational rhetoric cannot involve agency because the enactment of agency is only possible through an effort to persuade others. Although agency has many different definitions, some scholars limit the definition to the effort to change others—unless rhetors are working to get others to change their positions, they are not enacting agency.^[2] In such a view, agency does not involve the kinds of activities involved in invitational rhetoric such as understanding, listening, exploring, and sharing. Perspectives are exchanged, but because the rhetors do not take action in the form of attempting to persuade, they do not enact agency.^[18]^[5]

Other critiques of the theory of invitational rhetoric are concerned with the nature of rhetoric and rhetorical theory:

The theory of invitational rhetoric is based on a simplistic, reductive account of rhetorical theory and practice. The rhetorical traditional is not characterized by a patriarchal bias because many definitions of rhetoric focus on interaction rather than coercion.^[16]^[4] The interaction of gender with rhetoric has been complicated and varied throughout the rhetorical tradition.^[16]
The appropriate objective for rhetorical engagement is social change, and it cannot be accomplished through invitational rhetoric.^[15] Invitational rhetoric valorizes non-confrontational and civil modes of interaction and thus cannot resist injustice and inequality; consequently, invitational rhetoric is “disabling to the oppressed.”^[15]^[19]
Invitational rhetoric replaces rhetoric with communication studies and thus does a disservice to the field of rhetoric. Foss and Griffin see the terms as synonymous, but they are not.^[4] The term rhetoric means public persuasion, so invitational rhetoric situates rhetoric in a different realm—the realm of private, non-persuasive interaction.^[4]^[16] This is not an appropriate realm for rhetoric, and the status of rhetoric is devalued as a result of invitational rhetoric.^[4]

Other critiques of invitational rhetoric have to do with a variety of other aspects of the theory:

A key tenet of invitational rhetoric is that all individuals have value; however, not all opinions or views have value. Invitational rhetors see others’ perspectives as significant and as providing important input into an interaction.^[1] Critics suggest, however, that not all perspectives are equally valuable. Those that cause harm, suffering, and death—such as those of wife abusers and rapists—should not be granted unconditional value and should not be appreciated and included in invitational dialogues.^[20]^[18]
The principles of immanent value and self-determination contradict the dialogic goal of understanding at the heart of invitational rhetoric. Immanent value and self-determination imply a focus on the solitary self and suggest that individuals should close themselves off from other perspectives and privilege their own perspectives.^[8]^[16]^[4] But the invitational practices of offering and willingness to yield are dependent upon interrelationships with others and require knowing and interacting with other people.^[8] Mutual enlargement can only happen in interaction, and such interaction contradicts key practices of invitational rhetoric.^[8]
Invitational rhetoric must include all of the ideas espoused by the theorists who influenced the development of invitational rhetoric. Ideas of theorists on which invitational rhetoric is based that were not a part of the theory of invitational rhetoric—such as Sally Miller Gearhart's biologism and Sonia Johnson's separatism—are imported into and considered part of the theory of invitational rhetoric.^[21] Critiques of any aspect of theories developed by those who have contributed to invitational rhetoric are applicable to invitational rhetoric.^[21]

Two of the common criticisms of invitational rhetoric are misreadings of the theory. They attribute claims to invitational rhetoric that are the opposite of what Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin explain in their original article on invitational rhetoric:^[1]

Invitational rhetoric is not appropriate in every situation. Although Foss and Griffin state that “invitational rhetoric is one of many useful and legitimate rhetorics, including persuasion, in which rhetors will want to be skilled,” some critics see them as calling for the use of invitational rhetoric on all occasions. These critics argue that there are times when persuasion should be used, such as in fighting fascism or trying to talk a friend out of committing suicide.^[1]^[16]^[2]^[22]
Because invitational rhetoric is a form of rhetoric appropriate only for women, it reifies the gender binary and essentializes women.^[23]^[20]^[2] Although Foss and Griffin state that invitational rhetoric is not confined to “a particular population of rhetors” and is “used at various times by some women and some men, some feminists and some non-feminists,” some critics see invitational rhetoric as appropriate for women only.^[1]^[16] These critics equate patriarchy with the masculine gender, and because Foss and Griffin label traditional rhetoric as patriarchal, these critics see the alternative—invitational rhetoric—as linked exclusively to the feminine gender.^[21]^[23]^[2]

Related Research Articles

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, which along with grammar and logic, is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. Rhetoric aims to study the techniques writers or speakers use to inform, persuade, or motivate their audiences.

Communication theory is a proposed description of communication phenomena, the relationships among them, a storyline describing these relationships, and an argument for these three elements. Communication theory provides a way of talking about and analyzing key events, processes, and commitments that together form communication. Theory can be seen as a way to map the world and make it navigable; communication theory gives us tools to answer empirical, conceptual, or practical communication questions.

Kairos is an ancient Greek word meaning 'the right, critical, or opportune moment'. In modern Greek, kairos also means 'weather' or 'time'.

Rhetorical criticism analyzes the symbolic artifacts of discourse—the words, phrases, images, gestures, performances, texts, films, etc. that people use to communicate. Rhetorical analysis shows how the artifacts work, how well they work, and how the artifacts, as discourse, inform and instruct, entertain and arouse, and convince and persuade the audience; as such, discourse includes the possibility of morally improving the reader, the viewer, and the listener. Rhetorical criticism studies and analyzes the purpose of the words, sights, and sounds that are the symbolic artifacts used for communications among people.

An audience is a group of people who participate in a show or encounter a work of art, literature, theatre, music, video games, or academics in any medium. Audience members participate in different ways in different kinds of art. Some events invite overt audience participation and others allow only modest clapping and criticism and reception.

Ethos is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, nation, or ideology; and the balance between caution, and passion. The Greeks also used this word to refer to the power of music to influence emotions, behaviors, and even morals. Early Greek stories of Orpheus exhibit this idea in a compelling way. The word's use in rhetoric is closely based on the Greek terminology used by Aristotle in his concept of the three artistic proofs or modes of persuasion alongside pathos and logos. It gives credit to the speaker, or the speaker is taking credit.

Pathos appeals to the emotions and ideals of the audience and elicits feelings that already reside in them. Pathos is a term used most often in rhetoric, as well as in literature, film and other narrative art.

Narrative paradigm is a communication theory conceptualized by 20th-century communication scholar Walter Fisher. The paradigm claims that all meaningful communication occurs via storytelling or reporting of events. Humans participate as storytellers and observers of narratives. This theory further claims that stories are more persuasive than arguments. Essentially the narrative paradigm helps us to explain how humans are able to understand complex information through narrative.

Rhetoric of science is a body of scholarly literature exploring the notion that the practice of science is a rhetorical activity. It emerged after a number of similarly-oriented topics of research and discussion during the late 20th century, including the sociology of scientific knowledge, history of science, and philosophy of science, but it is practiced most typically by rhetoricians in academic departments of English, speech, and communication.

Dramatism, a communication studies theory, was developed by Kenneth Burke as a tool for analyzing human relationships through the use of language. Burke viewed dramatism from the lens of logology, which studies how people's ways of speaking shape their attitudes towards the world. According to this theory, the world is a stage where all the people present are actors and their actions parallel a drama. Burke then correlates dramatism with motivation, saying that people are "motivated" to behave in response to certain situations, similar to how actors in a play are motivated to behave or function. Burke discusses two important ideas – that life is drama, and the ultimate motive of rhetoric is the purging of guilt. Burke recognized guilt as the base of human emotions and motivations for action. As cited in "A Note on Burke on "Motive"", the author recognized the importance of "motive" in Burke's work. In "Kenneth Burke's concept of motives in rhetorical theory", the authors mentioned that Burke believes that guilt, "combined with other constructs, describes the totality of the compelling force within an event which explains why the event took place."

Symbolic convergence theory (SCT) is a communication theory developed by Ernest Bormann proposing that the holding of fantasies in common transforms collections of individuals into cohesive groups. SCT offers an explanation for the appearance of a group's cohesiveness, consisting of shared emotions, motives, and meanings. Through SCT, individuals can build a community or a group consciousness which grows stronger if they share a cluster of fantasy themes. Symbolic convergence theory provides a description of the dynamic tendencies within systems of social interaction that cause communicative practices and forms to evolve. This theory allows theorists and practitioners to anticipate or predict what will happen and explain what did happen. One thing SCT does not do is allow for control of human communication. It attempts to explain how communication can create and sustain group consciousness through the sharing of narratives or fantasies.

Neo-Aristotelianism is a view of literature and rhetorical criticism propagated by the Chicago School — Ronald S. Crane, Elder Olson, Richard McKeon, Wayne Booth, and others — which means.

"A view of literature and criticism which takes a pluralistic attitude toward the history of literature and seeks to view literary works and critical theories intrinsically"

Feminist theory in composition studies examines how gender, language, and cultural studies affect the teaching and practice of writing. It challenges the traditional assumptions and methods of composition studies and proposes alternative approaches that are informed by feminist perspectives. Feminist theory in composition studies covers a range of topics, such as the history and development of women’s writing, the role of gender in rhetorical situations, the representation and identity of writers, and the pedagogical implications of feminist theory for writing instruction. Feminist theory in composition studies also explores how writing can be used as a tool for empowerment, resistance, and social change. Feminist theory in composition studies emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a response to the male-dominated field of composition and rhetoric. It has been influenced by various feminist movements and disciplines, such as second-wave feminism, poststructuralism, psychoanalysis, critical race theory, and queer theory. Feminist theory in composition studies has contributed to the revision of traditional rhetorical concepts, the recognition of diverse voices and genres, the promotion of collaborative and ethical communication, and the integration of personal and political issues in writing.

The rhetorical situation is an event that consists of an issue, an audience, and a set of constraints. A rhetorical situation arises from a given context or exigence. An article by Lloyd Bitzer introduced the model of the rhetorical situation in 1968, which was later challenged and modified by Richard E. Vatz (1973) and Scott Consigny (1974). More recent scholarship has further redefined the model to include more expansive views of rhetorical operations and ecologies.

Cultural contracts refer to the degree that cultural values are exchanged between groups. They are the agreements made between two groups of people regarding how they will modify their identities in unison. Cultural contract theory investigates how identities shift and are negotiated through cross-cultural interaction. It extends identity negotiation theory and uncertainty reduction theory by focusing defining the negotiation experience from the perspective of minority groups when dealing with cultural norms set by the majority groups. Relationally coordinating with others is the main objective of a cultural contract. The three fundamental premises of the cultural contracts theory are that identities are contractual, continually transferred, and requirement for validation.

Identification is a key theme in the works of Kenneth Burke as part of the New Rhetoric movement. Contemporary rhetoric focuses on cultural contexts and general structures of rhetoric structures. Burke was a notable contemporary U.S. rhetorician who made major contributions to the rhetoric of identification. James A. Herrick describes one of Burke's foundational ideas with identification is that “rhetoric makes human unity possible, that language use is symbolic action, and that rhetoric is symbolic inducement.” For Burke, words were Terministic screens through which people see the world and interact with each other. Herrick, further explains that identification in rhetoric is crucial to persuasion, and thus to cooperation, consensus, compromise, and action. Burke believed that the most serious human problem was to be alienated or separated, and rhetoric was to be that problem's only solution. Much of his work was based on bringing people back together. However, Burke argues that “Identification is affirmed with earnestness precisely because there is division; Identification is compensatory to division.” Rhetoric's goal, in regards to identification, is to bring people together of whom have been separated by estrangement or opposition. Those who feel isolated or separate from others may identify joint interests with others or become part of an institution -- "‘Belonging’ in this sense is rhetoric."

Karma R. Chávez is a rhetorical critic who utilizes textual and field-based methods and studies the rhetorical practices of people marginalized within existing power structures. She has published numerous scholarly articles and books, including Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities, as well as co-founding the Queer Migration Research Network. She works with social justice organizations and her scholarship is informed by queer of color theory, women of color feminism, poststructuralism, and cultural studies.

Karen A. Foss is a rhetorical scholar and educator in the discipline of communication. Her research and teaching interests include contemporary rhetorical theory and criticism, feminist perspectives on communication, the incorporation of marginalized voices into rhetorical theory and practice, and the reconceptualization of communication theories and constructs.

Sonja K. Foss is a rhetorical scholar and educator in the discipline of communication. Her research and teaching interests are in contemporary rhetorical theory and criticism, feminist perspectives on communication, the incorporation of marginalized voices into rhetorical theory and practice, and visual rhetoric.

Feminist rhetoric emphasizes the narratives of all demographics, including women and other marginalized groups, into the consideration or practice of rhetoric. Feminist rhetoric does not focus exclusively on the rhetoric of women or feminists, but instead prioritizes the feminist principles of inclusivity, community, and equality over the classic, patriarchal model of persuasion that ultimately separates people from their own experience. Seen as the act of producing or the study of feminist discourses, feminist rhetoric emphasizes and supports the lived experiences and histories of all human beings in all manner of experiences. It also redefines traditional delivery sites to include non-traditional locations such as demonstrations, letter writing, and digital processes, and alternative practices such as rhetorical listening and productive silence. According to author and rhetorical feminist Cheryl Glenn in her book Rhetorical Feminism and This Thing Called Hope (2018), "rhetorical feminism is a set of tactics that multiplies rhetorical opportunities in terms of who counts as a rhetor, who can inhabit an audience, and what those audiences can do." Rhetorical feminism is a strategy that counters traditional forms of rhetoric, favoring dialogue over monologue and seeking to redefine the way audiences view rhetorical appeals.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Foss, Sonja K.; Griffin, Cindy (March 1995). "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric". Communication Monographs. 62: 2–18. doi:10.1080/03637759509376345.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Emerling Bone, Jennifer; Griffin, Cindy L.; Scholz, T. M. Linda (October–December 2008). "Beyond Traditional Conceptualizations of Rhetoric: Invitational Rhetoric and a Move Toward Civility". Western Journal of Communication. 72 (4): 434–447. doi:10.1080/10570310802446098. S2CID 144343478.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Foss, Sonja K. (2009-08-18). "Invitational Rhetoric". In Foss, Karen A.; Littlejohn, Stephen W. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, Vol. 1. Los Angeles: SAGE. pp. 569–70. ISBN 978-1-4129-5937-7.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Foss, Sonja K.; Griffin, Cindy L.; Foss, Karen A. (Fall 1997). "Transforming Rhetoric Through Feminist Reconstruction: A Response to the Gender Diversity Perspective". Women's Studies in Communication. 20 (2): 117–136. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162406.
1 2 Meyer, Michaela D. E. (2007). "Women Speak(ing): Forty Years of Feminist Contributions to Rhetoric and an Agenda for Feminist Rhetorical Studies". Communication Quarterly. 55: 1–17. doi:10.1080/01463370600998293. S2CID 145353886.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Foss, Sonja K.; Foss, Karen A. (2012). Inviting Transformation: Presentational Speaking for a Changing World (3 ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-57766-721-6.
↑ Makau, Josina M. (Spring–Summer 1996). "Notes on Communication Education and Social Justice". Communication Studies. 47 (1–2): 135–141. doi:10.1080/10510979609368469.
1 2 3 4 5 Ryan, Kathleen J.; Natalle, Elizabeth J. (2001). "Fusing Horizons: Standpoint Hermeneutics and Invitational Rhetoric". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 21 (2): 71–80. doi:10.1080/02773940109391200. S2CID 28663745.
↑ Starhawk (1990). Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority, and Mystery. San Francisco: Harper & Row. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-06-250816-4.
↑ Foss, Karen A.; Foss, Sonja K.; Griffin, Cindy L. (1999). Feminist Rhetorical Theories. Long Grove, IL: Waveland. pp. 182–83. ISBN 978-1-57766-496-3.
1 2 Lloyd, Keith (Spring 2014). "Feminist Challenges to 'Academic Writing' Writ Larger: Changing the Argumentative Metaphor from War to Perception to Address the Problem of Argument Culture". Intertexts. 18: 29–46. doi:10.1353/itx.2014.0004. S2CID 145640489.
↑ Miller Gearhart, Sally (1982). "Womanpower: Energy Re-Sourcement". In Spretnak, Charlene (ed.). The Politics of Women's Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual Power within the Feminist Movement. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. p. 95.
↑ Haden Elgin, Suzette (1997). How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable: Getting Your Point Across with the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. New York: John Wiley. pp. 145–46. ISBN 978-0-471-15705-2.
1 2 3 4 Griffin, Cindy L. (2018). Invitation to Public Speaking. Boston: Cengage. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-305-94808-2.
1 2 3 4 Lozano-Reich, Nina M.; Cloud, Dana L. (April–June 2009). "The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality". Western Journal of Communication. 73 (2): 220–226. doi:10.1080/10570310902856105. S2CID 145803372.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Condit, Celeste Michelle (Fall 1997). "In Praise of Eloquent Diversity: Gender and Rhetoric as Public Persuasion". Women's Studies in Communication. 20 (2): 92–98, 101–107. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162405.
1 2 3 Jørgensen, Charlotte (2007). "The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation". Argumentation. 21 (2): 165–6. doi:10.1007/s10503-007-9044-0. S2CID 91171164.
1 2 3 Fulkerson, Richard (Spring 1996). "Transcending Our Conception of Argument in Light of Feminist Critiques". Argumentation and Advocacy. 32 (4): 204–5. doi:10.1080/00028533.1996.11977995.
↑ Lloyd, Keith (2016). "Beyond 'Dichotonegative' Rhetoric: Interpreting Field Reactions to Feminist Critiques of Academic Rhetoric through an Alternate Multivalent Rhetoric". Rhetorica. 34: 78–105. doi:10.1525/rh.2016.34.1.78. S2CID 147736745.
1 2 Mathison, Maureen A. (May 1997). "The Complicity of Essentializing Difference: Complicity as Epistemology: Reinscribing the Historical Categories of 'Woman' Through Standpoint Feminism". Communication Theory. 7 (2): 149–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1997.tb00146.x.
1 2 3 Dow, Bonnie J. (Spring–Summer 1995). "Feminism, Difference(s), and Rhetorical Studies". Communication Studies. 46 (1–2): 110–11, 113. doi:10.1080/10510979509368442.
↑ Pollock, Mark; Artz, Lee; Frey, Lawrence R.; Pearce, W. Barnett; Murphy, Bren A. O. (Spring–Summer 1996). "Navigating Between Scylla and Charybdis: Continuing the Dialogue on Communication and Social Justice". Communication Studies. 47 (1–2): 142–151. doi:10.1080/10510979609368470.
1 2 Bruner, M. Lane (Spring 1996). "Producing Identities: Gender Problematization and Feminist Argumentation". Argumentation and Advocacy. 32 (4): 185–198. doi:10.1080/00028533.1996.11977994.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:0-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Foss, Sonja K.; Griffin, Cindy (March 1995). "Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric". Communication Monographs. 62: 2–18. doi:10.1080/03637759509376345.

[:1-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Emerling Bone, Jennifer; Griffin, Cindy L.; Scholz, T. M. Linda (October–December 2008). "Beyond Traditional Conceptualizations of Rhetoric: Invitational Rhetoric and a Move Toward Civility". Western Journal of Communication. 72 (4): 434–447. doi:10.1080/10570310802446098. S2CID 144343478.

[:2-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Foss, Sonja K. (2009-08-18). "Invitational Rhetoric". In Foss, Karen A.; Littlejohn, Stephen W. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, Vol. 1. Los Angeles: SAGE. pp. 569–70. ISBN 978-1-4129-5937-7.

[:3-4] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Foss, Sonja K.; Griffin, Cindy L.; Foss, Karen A. (Fall 1997). "Transforming Rhetoric Through Feminist Reconstruction: A Response to the Gender Diversity Perspective". Women's Studies in Communication. 20 (2): 117–136. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162406.

[:9-5] 1 2 Meyer, Michaela D. E. (2007). "Women Speak(ing): Forty Years of Feminist Contributions to Rhetoric and an Agenda for Feminist Rhetorical Studies". Communication Quarterly. 55: 1–17. doi:10.1080/01463370600998293. S2CID 145353886.

[:4-6] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Foss, Sonja K.; Foss, Karen A. (2012). Inviting Transformation: Presentational Speaking for a Changing World (3 ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-57766-721-6.

[7] Makau, Josina M. (Spring–Summer 1996). "Notes on Communication Education and Social Justice". Communication Studies. 47 (1–2): 135–141. doi:10.1080/10510979609368469.

[:5-8] 1 2 3 4 5 Ryan, Kathleen J.; Natalle, Elizabeth J. (2001). "Fusing Horizons: Standpoint Hermeneutics and Invitational Rhetoric". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 21 (2): 71–80. doi:10.1080/02773940109391200. S2CID 28663745.

[9] Starhawk (1990). Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority, and Mystery. San Francisco: Harper & Row. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-06-250816-4.

[10] Foss, Karen A.; Foss, Sonja K.; Griffin, Cindy L. (1999). Feminist Rhetorical Theories. Long Grove, IL: Waveland. pp. 182–83. ISBN 978-1-57766-496-3.

[:10-11] 1 2 Lloyd, Keith (Spring 2014). "Feminist Challenges to 'Academic Writing' Writ Larger: Changing the Argumentative Metaphor from War to Perception to Address the Problem of Argument Culture". Intertexts. 18: 29–46. doi:10.1353/itx.2014.0004. S2CID 145640489.

[12] Miller Gearhart, Sally (1982). "Womanpower: Energy Re-Sourcement". In Spretnak, Charlene (ed.). The Politics of Women's Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual Power within the Feminist Movement. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. p. 95.

[13] Haden Elgin, Suzette (1997). How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable: Getting Your Point Across with the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. New York: John Wiley. pp. 145–46. ISBN 978-0-471-15705-2.

[:6-14] 1 2 3 4 Griffin, Cindy L. (2018). Invitation to Public Speaking. Boston: Cengage. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-305-94808-2.

[:11-15] 1 2 3 4 Lozano-Reich, Nina M.; Cloud, Dana L. (April–June 2009). "The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality". Western Journal of Communication. 73 (2): 220–226. doi:10.1080/10570310902856105. S2CID 145803372.

[:7-16] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Condit, Celeste Michelle (Fall 1997). "In Praise of Eloquent Diversity: Gender and Rhetoric as Public Persuasion". Women's Studies in Communication. 20 (2): 92–98, 101–107. doi:10.1080/07491409.1997.10162405.

[:8-17] 1 2 3 Jørgensen, Charlotte (2007). "The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation". Argumentation. 21 (2): 165–6. doi:10.1007/s10503-007-9044-0. S2CID 91171164.

[:12-18] 1 2 3 Fulkerson, Richard (Spring 1996). "Transcending Our Conception of Argument in Light of Feminist Critiques". Argumentation and Advocacy. 32 (4): 204–5. doi:10.1080/00028533.1996.11977995.

[19] Lloyd, Keith (2016). "Beyond 'Dichotonegative' Rhetoric: Interpreting Field Reactions to Feminist Critiques of Academic Rhetoric through an Alternate Multivalent Rhetoric". Rhetorica. 34: 78–105. doi:10.1525/rh.2016.34.1.78. S2CID 147736745.

[:14-20] 1 2 Mathison, Maureen A. (May 1997). "The Complicity of Essentializing Difference: Complicity as Epistemology: Reinscribing the Historical Categories of 'Woman' Through Standpoint Feminism". Communication Theory. 7 (2): 149–161. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1997.tb00146.x.

[:13-21] 1 2 3 Dow, Bonnie J. (Spring–Summer 1995). "Feminism, Difference(s), and Rhetorical Studies". Communication Studies. 46 (1–2): 110–11, 113. doi:10.1080/10510979509368442.

[22] Pollock, Mark; Artz, Lee; Frey, Lawrence R.; Pearce, W. Barnett; Murphy, Bren A. O. (Spring–Summer 1996). "Navigating Between Scylla and Charybdis: Continuing the Dialogue on Communication and Social Justice". Communication Studies. 47 (1–2): 142–151. doi:10.1080/10510979609368470.

[:15-23] 1 2 Bruner, M. Lane (Spring 1996). "Producing Identities: Gender Problematization and Feminist Argumentation". Argumentation and Advocacy. 32 (4): 185–198. doi:10.1080/00028533.1996.11977994.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]