In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Introduction Redefining Rhetorical Success Rhetoricians have always made great claims for the possibilities of rhetoric. Cicero describes it as “the alternative to violence” and I. A. Richards posits that it is the “art of removing misunderstanding.” The West­ ern rhe­ tori­ cal tradition also champions rheto­ ric as not just an analytic art but also a­ practical and productive one. Kenneth Burke contends that rheto­ ric provides “equipment for living”;Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-­ Tyteca argue that it enables “practical reasoning”; and Wayne Booth maintains that “listening rhetoric” can help “build community.” Yet none of these rhe­ tori­ cal theorists offers a precise method for attaining these goals or intervening in conflicts where the parties cannot agree on the basic terms of the argument . This lacuna is particularly noticeable when identity is precisely the issue at stake. What happens, for example, when two groups use the same terms for an identity but mean radically different things? No sooner does identity enter the scene than reason and rational debate seem to flee.While such disputes seem to be most in need of rhetoric’s help, there is strikingly little that contemporary rhe­ tori­ cal theory recommends to rhetors who wish to bridge these seemingly incommensurable chasms that of­ ten result from conflicting identity claims. But are these arguments about identity always doomed to fail? The answer to that question depends, in part, on how one defines success. Typically the criteria for measuring rhe­ tori­ cal success are grounded in expectations for changes that are immediately noticed and accepted. In other cases, rheto­ ric is imagined as a contest where the winner takes all and the “successful” interlocutor is the one who persuades the audience to accept his or her side. In both cases, the assumption is that “total” success is possible , that anything less is a failure, and that once such an argument is “won” it does not need to be revisited. As defined in the scenarios outlined above, “real” rhe­ tori­ cal success is of­ ten difficult to achieve and may very well be beyond the scope of imme- 4 / Introduction diate outcomes for rhetors who enter the scene with the rhe­ tori­ cal card deck stacked against them. In such cases where rhetors are not already part of the dominant group or do not share the same ideas or values as the audiences they address or where they argue about identity, immediate and complete success may be outside the realm of feasible rhe­ tori­ cal possibilities. However , even in these cases where power is unequally distributed among participants and where definitions, identity, and values are at stake, I argue that rhetors are not doomed to failure.To make this argument and recognize the important, albeit partial, work these rhetors can accomplish requires a new definition of success and a shift outside the traditional bounds of contemporary rhe­tori­cal history. In this book, I set forth a theory of interruptive invention,1 which introduces a new model for rhe­ tori­ cal success by recognizing the types of partial achievements that can result from incremental steps, of­ ten taken over long periods of time. Interruptive invention describes and articulates the very acts that many groups, especially those who are not part of the dominant discourse, engage in when they attempt to interact with and change what appear to be impervious, hegemonic norms in the common ground they seek to reform. Even when the stated goals of a particular interruption are not fully achieved (in that they are not fully accepted or recognized by the group with whom the interrupters are engaged), they still do important rhe­ tori­ cal work by creating the space for dialogue to continue (of­ ten in spite of disagreement). This space, which I call an inventional opportunity, provides the necessary degree of engagement for further invention and perhaps more equitable deliberation to occur, even if only at a much later date. The term interruptive invention is meant to better account for the important work an in­ di­ vidual or group may begin to do simply by articulating and advocating for a new or revised concept, term, identity, definition, or idea, thus creating the inventional opportunity for it to be further developed or more broadly accepted by wider audiences in the future. Such interruptive inventions may delay final judgment until a time when the potential for more just deliberation may be stronger, or they may simply begin to rupture what otherwise appears to be an...

Share