My brain is convulsing...

I
Jarratt quotes Bruner as saying, “one way we can do the public work of rhetoric is by mapping the distance between history and memory, understanding how far those imaginaries are from historical fact, and with what consequence.” My questions here are partially fueled up by the work I did in Malea’s class last semester and partially by the readings done for this class early on in the semester: First of all, how can we consider history as “fact,” and are “facts” always true. I believe that if we call “facts” into question, then this whole argument becomes upset. Now, from this reading, I see that Bruner is discussing “large-scale public memories of war,” so it seems that we are talking about perception vs. fact. Hmmm…this brings up all sorts of questions and ideas…

II
Reading Cintron’s piece was a bit depressing. (God, I hope he doesn’t happen to stumble upon this blog posting…) As he de-essentializes democracy, and calls into question the very meaning of democracy. When he states “’democracy’” is a concept open to inquiry, a rhetoric whose substance and meaning are opaque until the motives behind its deployment are understood,” my brain kind of shuddered. Not because I disagree with him, or think his ideas evil, but, rather, because being able to use the word “democracy and all its attendant terms as “quintessential topoi that exhibit sufficient malleability to mobilize the most disparate collective desires and actions,” makes things a bit more handleable. On the other hand, if we continue with wrong/faulty assumptions about a situation/challenge/idea/etc., then we can never ask the right questions, thus disallowing valid and workable solutions.

For example, Cintron states: “Perceived need or real need, perceived fear or real fear—when people feel subject to these lacks, they assume that material conditions are the causes of their woe, and from that base rhetors search for the available arguments that have the power to win what is needed or defeat what is feared.” Honestly, this totally freaks me out. Umm…yes, I do assume that material conditions are the causes of my (and others’) woe. It would be so much easier to just blame it on the lack itself…but, I realize that it is much deeper than that. What about the substance (Locke) of that material condition…it cannot be itself, so there is definitely a reason for the material condition. I suppose that is what I’m interested in finding/researching, and then discovering answers to in my own work: what ideologies/assumptions/political philosophies are causing/contributing to that material lack and how can rhetoric be utilized to cause changes.