Feminist Historiography As If: Performativity and Representation in Feminist Histories of Rhetoric

Abstract

The recently diagnosed “broadening imperative” in revisionary historiography is of special concern to feminist historians, for whom critique of traditional methodological presuppositions has been central to the feminist revisionary project. By examining the performative and figurative elements of feminist historiographical discourse, feminist historians and historiographers can both identify sites of feminist rhetorical resistance to traditional presuppositions, and gain an understanding of how feminist revisionary methodologies have been re-assimilated into traditional methodological and rhetorical paradigms.

Notes

¹ I would like to express my gratitude to RR reviewers Richard Leo Enos and Michelle Ballif, whose feedback and encouragement were invaluable to me during the preparation of this manuscript. I would also like to thank Theresa Enos, who initially received this manuscript, and Elise Verzosa Hurley, who has guided me through its preparation and publication.

² Janet M. Atwill has described traditional historiography’s constative dimension in terms of the “semantic” genre of historiography (“Contingencies”).

³ While these three examples do not represent an exhaustive catalogue of feminist methodological figures, they do represent the most discussed (see L’Eplattenier “Questioning”; Woods; Skinnell).

⁴ Richard Leo Enos has helpfully pointed out that, in fact, the existence of such historical evidence is not yet (and may never be) a settled question; nevertheless, any representations of Aspasia, as such, that might arise from new historical evidence would owe themselves to the performative contributions of earlier revisionary scholars.

⁵ While there is not space here to provide an exhaustive review of contemporary revisionary scholarship, I would direct readers to the September 2012 issue of College Composition and Communication for research in support of this claim.

⁶ For a more comprehensive view of the interdependence of feminist histories and revisionary methodologies, see Tasker and Holt-Underwood; Rawson; Enoch (“Releasing,” “Octolog”).

⁷ This strategy is proposed by feminist historians Barbara L’Eplattenier and Carly S. Woods, both of whom suggest that we might develop a more inclusive feminist framework by interrogating, and ultimately replacing, the methodological figure of mapping.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sarah Noble Frank

Sarah Noble Frank is a doctoral candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, where she also serves as the Assistant Director of the Digital Writing & Research Lab. Her current research is located at the intersection of histories of rhetoric, feminist rhetorical theory, and deconstruction. She is currently completing her dissertation on performative and figurative discourse in feminist histories of rhetoric. She can be reached via email at [email protected].