Is There Anybody Out There?

Rhetoric does not—and, indeed, cannot—exist in a vacuum.  Rhetoric is parasitic in two key ways: first, rhetoric depends for its existence on another medium (e.g. politics); second, rhetoric sustains itself dialectically through the relationships between speaker/listener and writer/reader.  Without a listener and/or reader, the rhetorician’s speech and/or writing is meaningless.  As I read Royster’s “When the First Voice You Hear Is Not Your Own,” I contemplated the age-old unanswered question, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?”  By “adopting subjectivity as a defining value,” Royster appears to argue that a lonely tree falling in the woods would not make a sound since no subjective entity would be listening (118).  The same could be said for a politician’s speech or any persuasive text: if no one is listening, rhetoric—ever codependent—perishes.  Without an equal and opposite reaction, any initial action dissipates into the void and might as well have not existed in the first place.

            If this sounds decidedly bleak (and I think it does), Royster goes on to complicate matters further by introducing racial relations and the notion of Otherness to the rhetorical picture before offering a solution.  Citing many African American texts and writers, Royster seemingly adds race to the key ingredients that comprise an individual’s “subject-position.”  At a time in U.S. history when the phrase “echo chamber” is being sprinkled like confetti across the political landscape, Royster’s words ring all too true; indeed, when a group of similarly subject-positioned individuals communicate only with one another, an “echo chamber” is formed.  Even an echo chamber, however, implies an audience of some sort, and excises the countless voices of those that go unheard.  This blog post, for example, might never reach the eyes of another human being.  My last post only got 1 view, which I think it was my own, and none of my posts have gotten any comments yet!  Sad!  Compare that to Trump’s millions of supporters, readers and listeners on a daily basis, and you have the foundation for what is truly “messed up” in modern, constantly and socially mediated society.

            Royster’s pseudo-remedy for this problem exists in the (ideally) manageable environment of the classroom where, as a teacher, one can guarantee that each and every student’s voice is heard.  Furthermore, Royster argues that, if one ultimately does gain a wider audience (whether outside or inside their “echo chamber”), it’s imperative to:

 [Keep] our boundaries fluid, our discourse invigorated with multiple perspectives, and our policies and practices well-tuned toward a clearer respect for human potential and achievement from whatever their source and a clearer understanding that voicing at its best is not just well-spoken but also well-heard. (1126)

This quotation highlights just how opposite today’s political rhetoric has become, and that, at an individual level, the possibility for change is always just that: possible.  Furthermore, in order for “interpretation to be richly informed by the converging of dialectical perspectives” as Royster advocates, rhetoricians must actively escape their echo chambers without self-victimization (i.e. self-Othering) (1117).