Here's What I Would Have Done...

I’ve enjoyed Crowley’s book. I can’t deny that she has her biases, but I’ll say that her biases don’t bother me much. For whatever reason, I found her final chapter particularly compelling with its distinction between epideictic and deliberative rhetoric and its nods toward invention. Still, there are a couple of things I would have liked to have seen more of in this chapter. The first would be a better discussion of cognitive dissonance, which she hints toward in her summary of Stanley Fish, and the second would be a more in-depth consideration of the potential counter-hegemonic practices.

I’m not necessarily a fan of social science theories, but I’m interested in cognitive dissonance as a strategy for persuasion. The idea is that you need to get the audience to realize that at least two of their own beliefs or experiences are in opposition to each other. You need to get an audience to recognize the contradiction and suggest a means by which they can reconcile the situation and reduce the anxieties brought about by that contradiction. Of course there is also a chance that instead of audience members simply getting defensive and finding ways to dismiss the information you are providing them, but ideally, you will have gotten them to question their own ideological assumptions. The Klansman example from the book is excellent. When I teach persuasion in public speaking class I sometimes discuss cognitive dissonance with my students and I’ll probably swipe that illustration for my own use.

The most obvious example of a counterhegemonic practice might be when disenfranchised groups appropriate the language of their oppressors – women who will call themselves and each other “bitches” or “whores” or when LGBT individuals use the word “faggot” or “dyke.” Similarly, Helene Shugart (1997) wrote an article in QJS that describes how particular pieces of discourse use appropriation to a counterhegemonic effect. Clearly, there are plenty of examples of how appropriation can be negative and only encourage hegemony, but it is precisely for this reason that I think appropriation as a means to a sort of emancipation is so interesting.

Basically, I think Crowley touches on some good strategies for both persuasion and resistance that deserve some more attention. Using cognitive dissonance as a persuasive method and using appropriation as a counterhegemonic act ought to be considered for whether they can make anything better or worse between groups that seem undeniably opposed to one another’s ideas.