![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Debra Hawhee and Susan Zaeske for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Notes
1. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her, vol. 1, A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, 1830–1925 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1989), 1. See also Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, “Women Speaking: A Feminist Analysis of Rhetoric” (speech, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, 1985); Karen A. Foss and Sonja K. Foss, “Incorporating the Feminist Perspective in Communication Scholarship: A Research Commentary,” in Doing Research on Women's Communication: Perspectives on Theory and Method, ed. Kathryn Carter and Carole Spitzack (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1989), 65–94. Barbara Biesecker challenges these attempts to “insert” women's rhetoric into the canon without critiquing the canon itself, arguing that writing women into the traditional rhetorical canon forces a few exceptional women to speak for all women. Ultimately, however, she urges “feminists working within the discipline of Rhetoric to labor scrupulously on two fronts at once.” In other words, Biesecker concludes that scholars of women's rhetoric in history must continue studying the rhetorical discourses of women and critiquing the canon to which they contribute. See Barbara Biesecker, “Negotiating with our Tradition: Reflecting Again (Without Apologies) on the Feminization of Rhetoric,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 26 (1993): 236; Barbara Biesecker, “Coming to Terms with Recent Attempts to Write Women into the History of Rhetoric,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 25 (1992): 140–61.
2. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her, vol. 1; Man Cannot Speak for Her, vol. 2, Key Texts of Early Feminism, 1830–1925 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1989); Women Public Speakers in the United States, 1800–1925: A Bio-Critical Sourcebook (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993); Women Public Speakers in the United States, 1925–1993: A Bio-Critical Sourcebook (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994). For other anthologies of historical rhetoric by women, see Joy Ritchie and Kate Ronald, eds., Available Means: An Anthology of Women's Rhetoric(s) (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001); Molly Meijer Wertheimer, ed., Listening to Their Voices: The Rhetorical Activities of Historical Women (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997).
3. Andrea A. Lunsford, ed., Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995), 6. For a similar project, see Christine Mason Sutherland and Rebecca Sutcliffe, eds., The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of Rhetoric (Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 1999).
4. Carole Spitzack and Kathryn Carter provide a typology of communication scholarship as it conceptualizes women. The “great women speakers” model recognizes “female influence in the public domains” and dismantles “the assumption that only men are capable of greatness.” Carole Spitzack and Kathryn Carter, “Women in Communication Studies: A Typology for Revision,” in Reading Rhetorical Theory, ed. Barry Brummett (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers, 2000), 908.
5. Stephen Howard Browne, Angelina Grimké: Rhetoric, Identity, and the Radical Imagination (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1999); Mari Boor Tonn, “Militant Motherhood: Labor's Mary Harris ‘Mother’ Jones,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 1–21. For other examples of rhetorical scholarship that follow a “great women speakers” model, see Bonnie J. Dow, “The ‘Womanhood’ Rationale in the Woman Suffrage Rhetoric of Frances E. Willard,” Southern Communication Journal 56 (1991): 298–307; Cindy L. Griffin, “Rhetoricizing Alienation: Mary Wollstonecraft and the Rhetorical Construction of Women's Oppression,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (1994): 293–312; Cindy L. Griffin and Barbara M. Gayle, “Mary Ashton Rice Livermore's Relational Feminist Discourse: A Rhetorically Successful Feminist Model,” Women's Studies in Communication 21 (1998): 55–76; Amy R. Slagell, “The Rhetorical Structure of Frances E. Willard's Campaign for Woman Suffrage, 1876–1896,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 4 (2001): 1–23.
6. Martha M. Solomon, ed., A Voice of Their Own: The Woman Suffrage Press, 1840–1910 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1991); Susan Zaeske, Signatures of Citizenship: Petitioning, Antislavery, and Women's Political Identity (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003). Other examples of studies of collective women's rhetoric in history, focusing on both the product and the process of rhetorical creation, include Nan Johnson, Gender and Rhetorical Space in American Life, 1866–1910 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002); Carol Mattingly, Appropriate[ing] Dress: Women's Rhetorical Style in Nineteenth-Century America (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002); Susan Wells, Out of the Dead House: Nineteenth-Century Women Physicians and the Writing of Medicine (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001).
7. Jason Edward Black, “Remembrances of Removal: Native Resistance to Allotment and the Unmasking of Paternal Benevolence,” Southern Communication Journal 72 (2007): 185–203. Black finds that some Native Americans argued against allotment policies by drawing from collective memories of governmental removal acts from over 50 years earlier.
8. The references to rhetorical product and process are mine, not Sharer's.
9. Debra Hawhee, Bodily Arts: Rhetoric and Athletics in Ancient Greece (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004), 190.
10. Kathleen J. Turner, “Rhetorical History as Social Construction: The Challenge and the Promise,” in Doing Rhetorical History: Concepts and Cases, ed. Kathleen J. Turner (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998), 4.
11. Bonnie J. Dow, “Feminism, Difference(s), and Rhetorical Studies,” Communication Studies 46 (1995): 113.
12. Susan Zaeske, “History, Theory, and Method in Feminist Scholarship on Early American Discourse,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 6 (2003): 578.
13. Elisabeth Croll, Changing Identities of Chinese Women: Rhetoric, Experience and Self-Perception in Twentieth-Century China (London: Zed Books, 1995); Cheryl Glenn, Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1997). Other examples of international scholarship on women's rhetoric in history are available in Lunsford, Reclaiming Rhetorica; and Sutherland and Sutcliffe, Changing Tradition.