Tomlinsons Trope of the Angry Feminist - Assignment Example

Rhetoric of Response to Question In Tomlinson’s trope of the angry feminist, the demonstrates that feminism has further been engendered with negative connotations against feminists. She observes that although there is a need for societies to be sensitive to gender issues, feminists have continued to be labeled negatively. The characteristics of the trope is that feminists rather than being seen as the voice of the muffled and oppressed voices they represent, it is otherwise. What they stand for has been twisted to paint their pursuits through the prism of hate and dislike for the male species. The trope that goes around is that apart from seeking gender equality and sensitivity, feminists are hell-bent on reversing the societal order to a female dominated and run society (Tomlinson, 2010). The trope has been characterized by subjectivity rather than objectivity. Rather than accept that issues raised by feminists are real issues affecting women socially, economically and politically, anti-feminists have argued through a shallow prism of tone. Given that many feminist have always driven their point home with a serious tone and, anti-feminists have labeled such champions of gender equality as arguing with emotions rather than logic. Whether feminist issues are presented with a condescending tone should not be the issue (Griffin, 2012). Points are derived from the message, not from the speaker’s approach alone. In fact, such characteristic of the trope serves to demonstrate a lack of logic on the side of those who think that gender issues are a trope (Tomlinson, 2010). The trope of the angry feminist functions to shift the burden of proof to feminists as a public shaming by adopting hasty generalizations. Anti-feminists that make feminist issues be treated with anger, betrayal, ridicule and contempt are quick to generalize that. Yes feminists are justifiably angry about the status quo that seems not to change. However, labels such as the “angry feminist” are seen as intentions to thwart both gains and progress being made. Feminist are not angry with men or against men. Rather, they are not happy with the status quo. Their right to push for equal recognition and treatment should not be perceived as antiestablishment (White, 2013). In this context, the trope of the angry feminist means that although anti-feminists know that feminists are justified to demand more, they deflect this truth by introducing negative connotations in the feminists’ pursuits. It is a trope in the sense that the inequality in the society is reason enough for one to be angry, but they brush it aside with claims that the anger is born out of emotions and hatred. By painting it that way, they make the understanding of the concern for feminists’ issues a trope associated with anger as opposed to logic and reason. Other terms used are misogyny (contempt against women); ridicule (mockery) and betrayal (go against an agreement). An example from a popular culture media was the Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2008 elections. Many people believed that the American culture was not yet ready for a woman president. A lot seem to have changed since then. In this case, Hillary Clinton handled her loss humbly as she came second behind Obama. She did not complain then. Right now in her campaigns, some Republicans have dismissed her bid under the guise of having been part of the Obama administration. They may be fearful to attribute gender connotations publicly against her. She is lucky that her public profile allows her rhetoric to be respected, but silently, there could be “tropes of the angry feminist” being leveled against her as unfit to be commander in chief. In this case, the trope does not function to support the feminist voice. That is because in the public eye, everyone wants to appear to be gender sensitive. No candidate is likely to rise against her from a feminist trope perspective. Even if they are dying to play that card of “the trope of the incapable feminist”, they coil silently. The reason is obvious. Any sensible person will see their lack of logic. Hillary’s success, therefore, may mark the end of such tropes of the angry, emotional, incapable, and unreasoning or man-hater feminists. It is time for a change. Response to Question 2 Foremost, the subject of power, as advanced by Foucault, is centralized on the ideologies of power relations. It can also be generally regarded as self-creating. With this regard, the subject of power in Foucault’s notion is composed of several elements. These elements include power, biopower, governmentality, resistance and specific intellectuals (Prado, 2009). Regarding the notion of power, Foucault argues that power is a productive relation as opposed to something that is simply repressive. It is not state property, neither is it an ideology that is entirely centralized in the State or government. Instead, it is localized entirely in the social body. This ideology points out that power is present in each level of social bodies. Some example of power includes sovereign power, which simply refers to respect to the central figure of authority (Tui’tahi, 2012). Another example is pastoral power. Pastoral powers entail convergence practices, rationalities and techniques formulated to govern the behaviors of people in a given population. Pastoral power organizes members of a community as a civil and political collective. According to Foucault, bio-power represents technological invention that emerged in towards the end of eighteen century. Foucault coined the term bio-power to refer to the ideologies of fostering life to the point of death. Bio-power is quite distinct from the influences of one sovereign. It is significantly associated with inventions related to sovereign power of the apparatus of the legal laws of ancient. If characterized in the sense of sovereignty, bio-power can be perceived as letting live and making die. In essence, it is the power of control exercised on bodies (Tui’tahi, 2012). Foucault first brought the concept of governmentality into limelight during last years of his life. The concept refers to the methodologies or mechanisms employed by governments to sources citizens that are competent to fulfill government policies. It can be understood in terms of the rationalities, mentalities and technique that define practices, which govern subjects. From this point of view, governmentality simply refers to the mode of governance. Foucault acknowledges the fact that the existence of power can be challenged or resisted. Resistance can be defined as concept of contesting particular objects and forms of power that has been imposed on subjects. An example of resistance is objecting the rule of governance. A specific intellectual is a relatively new concept that emerged after the Second World War. It refers to the one that has mastered the art of combining practice and theory. This implies that when such individual is placed in a particular context they are typically aware of the struggles specific to that particular contest. Michel Foucault made notions that significantly shaped the philosophical understanding of ethics. In contrast to the existing philosophies of the subject, Foucault’s arguments do not portray ethics in terms of moral philosophy. Rather, he perceives ethics as the relation of a body to the body itself with regard to its own moral agencies. A philosophical analysis of ethics from Foucault’s point of view can be viewed along the following concepts. The ethical substance is a component of individual’s ethical work that is associated with moral deviance. MR observes that Foucault regards ethical substance as the state of self, which is problematic morally. It is significantly associated with Greek sexual ethics of the ancient times (McNay, 2009). Mode of objection connotes the relation between individuals and moral code. It can be argued that it is the mechanism through which individuals enhance such relation. For example, one could be obliged to help another person who is in need. Telos is an element of ethics, which refers to the ideal state of existence that inspire individual’s ethical works. In this case, one can argue that people control their desires in the expression of political and domestic metaphors. For example, someone can control or deny the desires for pleasure to maintain order and sober rule over his subordinates and household (McNay, 2009). The facets asceticism is mainly centralized on religious fundamentals. It is a form of extreme disciplines that individuals or member of a community exercise to avoid every form of indulgence. Following this further, it is arguably true that the reason for such avoidance is to conform to religious ideologies (Valverde, 2004). The metaphors of game play are widely researched by various philosophers. Foucault perceptive the concepts of game play in the parameters of ascetical practice. That implies that the concept of game in this case refers to the practice of self-formation and is significantly deviating from coercive practices. Care of self is one of the major themes that emerges Foucault’s last works and lectures. It is an element of ethical relation that views self-care as the basis of moral rationality, at least in the ancient conception of the concept. Care for self is politics and freedom of self. It is one the major formation of self-regarding the relation between three related force, which include subjectivity, truth, and power. The facets of self-care require one to be aware of one’s environment and oneself (Foucault, 1997). Response to Question 3 The notion of universality of the audience as presented by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca provide an ideology that all arguments should be in terms of the value of the audience. In essence, these arguments point out that universal audience are imagined audiences, which serve as argumentative and ethical test for rhetoric arguments. In this instance, the orator should be able to discern the ability of the rhetorical speech to appeal to individual members of the audience. This calls on the speaker to be conscious of the composition of the audience diversity point of view. According to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca stress that the content of speech that is addressed to the universal audience should prove the compelling nature of the reasons deduced. Understanding the universality of the universal audience provide significant development in understanding Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of universal and private audience (Heyes, 2006). Oksala (2005) observes that Perelman gives particular centrality to the audience and that informal logicians have a negative attitude to rhetoric. These aspects explain the reasons why Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca approach to the argument of the universality of their audience as rhetoric rather than informal logic. For this reason too, defining the concept of the universality of the audience is nearly impossible without acknowledging the particular concepts of rhetoric and informal logic that surround the ideology. In this context, rhetoric implies avoidance of compulsion. It simply refers to the practice of persuasion. Informal logic, on the other hand, refers to the development of logic that that examine day-to-day arguments and reasoning in the realm of practical, political or social issues. The degree of the significance of the audience is not dependent on the informal logic. Removal of personal and religious exemption for a universal audience can generate serious negative implications. This implies that orators must treat the issue regarding the diversity of a universal audience should be treated with utmost care and avoid potential strife. For instance, ignoring personal or religious exemption may generate a sense of discrimination along religious lines or individual’s background. This may attract unwanted reaction from the audience. The following rhetoric argument was designed to lecture first-year high school student. The topic of the argument is World War 2 (WWII). Today we acknowledge the deadliest and most widespread war in history. WWII began in 1939 and lasted through 1945, taking nearly six years. This period marks the most devastating moments with catastrophic impacts, which some communities still grapple with, to the present times. Though the conflicts that triggered the war did not start in 1939, it was until the German invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 that the war began, on official terms. A number of factors influence such speech. Such include the attitude of the audience towards the topic of discussion, their knowledge of the topic, their expectations, and the size of the audience, the setting of the environment and the demographic composition of the audience. Not only do these aspects shape the argument, they determine its flexibility. The demographic composition of the audience is very critical. The religion and ethnic background are some of the demographic factors that play significant roles in this case. This is partly due to the fact the WWII was channeled along ethnic backgrounds. References Foucault, M. (1997). “What is Enlightenment?” Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press. Griffin, R. A. (2012). I Am an Angry Black Woman: Black feminist autoethnography, voice, and resistance. Womens Studies in Communication, (2), 138. Heyes, C.J. (2006). Foucault goes to weight watchers. Hypatia, Vol. 21(2), 126-149. McNay, L. (2009). “Self as Enterprise: Dilemmas of Control and Resistance in Foucaults The Birth of Biopolitics” in Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 26(6), 55- 77. Oksala, J. (2005). Foucault on Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prado, C.G. (2009). Foucault’s Legacy. New York: Cornel University Press. Tomlinson, B. (2010). Feminism and Affect at the Scene of Argument: Beyond the Trope of the Angry Feminist. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Tui’tahi, S. (2012). Foucault and Bio-power: An Outline of Foucault’s Bio-power in Application to Our Contemporary World. Accessed on May 7, 2015, from http://www.academia.edu/2491797/Foucault_and_Bio-power Valverde, M. (2004). “Experience and truth-telling in a post-humanist world: A Foucaultian contribution to feminist ethical reflections”. In Feminism and the final Foucault, ed. Dianna Taylor and Karen Vintges. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. White, R. (2013). Women Are Angry! Lizzie and Sarah as Feminist Critique. Feminist Media Studies, 13(3), 415-426. Read More