Rhetorical Crossover: The Black Presence in White Culture

IF 1.1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Rhetoric Society Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.1080/02773945.2023.2185016
Raven Maragh-Lloyd
{"title":"Rhetorical Crossover: The Black Presence in White Culture","authors":"Raven Maragh-Lloyd","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2185016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Strange’: When Presidents Apologize for Genocide” because, in so many cases, the apology appears to be merely an image management ploy rather than an authentic gesture of remorse. Thoughtful skepticism and cautions like the above wind through The Rhetoric of Official Apologies, working through varying perspectives and approaches, and serving as tributaries for future theorizations of what official responses to moral wrongs can possibly be authentic, sufficient, and mindful of past and present. I’m hopeful that forthcoming rhetorical criticism of public and official apologies will take particular note of the preceding rhetoric that tips the scales of kairos and exigence to compel an official statement. Accusations, calls for apology, and other advocacy by victims and witnesses create a unique lens through which to observe and assess official apologies. Likewise, both official and unofficial responses by the recipient(s) ought to be considered in conjunction with official apology. These reactions inform future rhetorical action and criticism as they contribute to the public record and shine a light on the impact of apology rather than the speaker’s ostensible intent. Taken together, these essays and the bookending commentaries by both editors invite the reader to consider historical events and their more recent apologies as heuristics for careful and critical reflection of how citizens can work toward more just, humane, and inclusive futures in their corporations, communities, and nations. Editors Villadsen and Edwards take an optimistic approach: “Official apologies have the potential to serve as lessons on proper civic interaction and reflections on the values that undergird a community and how they are honored, and not” (223–24). Thoughtful inquiry into apologies and other rhetorical responses to wrongdoing can spur public discourse about national identities, intersubjectivities, vulnerability, accountability, self-determination, and more as we grapple with both historical and present-day wrongs perpetrated by those and to those who might be a lot like us.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2185016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Strange’: When Presidents Apologize for Genocide” because, in so many cases, the apology appears to be merely an image management ploy rather than an authentic gesture of remorse. Thoughtful skepticism and cautions like the above wind through The Rhetoric of Official Apologies, working through varying perspectives and approaches, and serving as tributaries for future theorizations of what official responses to moral wrongs can possibly be authentic, sufficient, and mindful of past and present. I’m hopeful that forthcoming rhetorical criticism of public and official apologies will take particular note of the preceding rhetoric that tips the scales of kairos and exigence to compel an official statement. Accusations, calls for apology, and other advocacy by victims and witnesses create a unique lens through which to observe and assess official apologies. Likewise, both official and unofficial responses by the recipient(s) ought to be considered in conjunction with official apology. These reactions inform future rhetorical action and criticism as they contribute to the public record and shine a light on the impact of apology rather than the speaker’s ostensible intent. Taken together, these essays and the bookending commentaries by both editors invite the reader to consider historical events and their more recent apologies as heuristics for careful and critical reflection of how citizens can work toward more just, humane, and inclusive futures in their corporations, communities, and nations. Editors Villadsen and Edwards take an optimistic approach: “Official apologies have the potential to serve as lessons on proper civic interaction and reflections on the values that undergird a community and how they are honored, and not” (223–24). Thoughtful inquiry into apologies and other rhetorical responses to wrongdoing can spur public discourse about national identities, intersubjectivities, vulnerability, accountability, self-determination, and more as we grapple with both historical and present-day wrongs perpetrated by those and to those who might be a lot like us.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
修辞交叉:白人文化中的黑人存在
奇怪:当总统为种族灭绝道歉时”,因为在很多情况下,道歉似乎只是一种形象管理策略,而不是一种真正的悔恨姿态。像上面这样深思熟虑的怀疑和警告贯穿于《官方道歉的修辞》,通过不同的视角和方法,并作为未来理论的支流,即官方对道德错误的反应可能是真实的、充分的,并铭记过去和现在。我希望,即将到来的对公开和官方道歉的修辞批评将特别注意到之前的修辞,这些修辞颠覆了凯罗斯和迫使官方发表声明的紧迫性。受害者和证人的指控、道歉呼吁以及其他倡导为观察和评估官方道歉创造了一个独特的视角。同样,接收者的官方和非官方回应都应与官方道歉一并考虑。这些反应为未来的修辞行动和批评提供了信息,因为它们有助于公开记录,并揭示道歉的影响,而不是演讲者表面上的意图。总之,这些文章和两位编辑的书尾评论邀请读者将历史事件及其最近的道歉视为启发,仔细而批判性地思考公民如何在其公司、社区和国家中努力实现更公正、人道和包容的未来。编辑维拉德森和爱德华兹采取了乐观的态度:“官方道歉有可能成为正确的公民互动的教训,并反思支撑社区的价值观,以及他们是如何受到尊重的”(223-24)。对道歉和其他对不法行为的修辞回应进行深思熟虑的调查,可以激发公众对国家身份、主体间性、脆弱性、问责制、自决权等的讨论,因为我们正在努力应对那些人和那些可能与我们非常相似的人犯下的历史和当今错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
What Can a Body Do?: How We Meet the Built World Nestwork: New Material Rhetorics for Precarious Species Ambient Engineering: Hyper-Nudging, Hyper-Relevance, and Rhetorics of Nearness and Farness in a Post-AI Algorithmic World Conspiracy Theater of the Absurd: “Birds Aren’t Real” as Parodic Hypermimesis Rhetoric of/with AI: An Introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1