Critical-Rhetorical Ethnography: Rethinking the Place and Process of Rhetoric

Abstract

Rhetorical scholarship has relied upon textual criticism as a method of examining discourse. However, in the critical turn, rhetorical theory and praxis have been reconsidered, especially in regard to the types and locations worthy of rhetorical examination. Looking toward vernacular rhetorical discourses, rhetorical scholars examine locally situated discourses as they articulate against oppressive macrocontexts. In this essay, I offer critical-rhetorical ethnography as a method for exploring such discourses in the field of argumentation, using the concepts of invention, kairos, and phronesis. The method offers rhetorical scholars a set of theoretical and methodological guidelines for observing and participating within vernacular advocacy. Finally, I use my time with the health advocacy group, DanceSafe, as an exemplar of the method, illustrating its ability to gauge rhetorical effects, advocacy, and learned wisdom.

Keywords:

• Critical Rhetoric
• Ethnography
• Kairos
• Phronesis
• Vernacular Studies

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Drs. Cheree Carlson, Gray Cavender, and Linda Lederman for their excellent guidance on his dissertation committee. The author would also like to thank Karen Stewart for assistance on earlier drafts and DanceSafe for collaborating on the project.

Notes

In this sense, rhetorical ethnography reaches back into its ancient Greek roots. Sophists, as some of the earliest practitioners of rhetoric, spent considerable time in practicing their advocacy, learning firsthand knowledge about society (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001, pp. 22–26). Isocrates was known for applying the lessons of rhetoric in both everyday and government affairs, extolling the application of rhetoric in actual situations (Benoit, 1984; Gronbeck, 2004).

Of course, qualitative research and ethnography are not exactly the same activities. However, the tools of participant observation, interviewing, and ethnography are closely related. For a discussion of the differences and similarities of qualitative methods and ethnography, see Lindlof and Taylor (2002) or Denzin and Lincoln (2005).

This brings up one concern regarding rhetorical ethnography: Must the rhetorical ethnographer engage in an advocacy of change? The theoretical origin of this method is that of critical rhetoric, which has spent considerable amount of time locating discourses of change. As such, the method is primarily catered to that aim. In cases where a political organization supports maintaining a political reality or form of activism, the rhetorical ethnographer can still engage in the method to understand how that practice continues. However, further theorizing about how the method changes, if at all, are necessary. Looking even further, larger questions of ethics and reflexivity emerge from this discussion, especially about political activity from groups seeking to promote hate. While pertinent, they are beyond the scope and space of this article.

Phillips (1999) questions the study of outlaw discourses, and especially the idea of bringing them forth in concert with academia, which may infringe their outlaw or hidden status. Phronesis, as practical judgment from within the vernacular community in rhetorical ethnography, would assist in overcoming such a dilemma.

Such advocacy is parallel to many of the concerns of qualitative researchers in regard to ethics and reflexivity. Guillemin and Gillam (2004) see reflexivity in research as an ethical guide for practice to help navigate ethics-in-practice. They argue that reflexivity “involves critical reflection of how the researcher constructs knowledge from the research process—what sorts of factors influence the researcher's construction of knowledge and how these influences are revealed in the planning, conduct, and writing up of the research” (p. 275). Additionally, they argue that ethics in practice is distinct from rule-governed ethics, similar to the dispute between techne and phronesis. When considered in the context of rhetoric, the ethics of effective and appropriate advocacy are built through phronesis.

This article is drawn in part from his dissertation project and an earlier version of the article was presented at the National Communication Association national meeting in 2008.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aaron Hess

Aaron Hess (PhD, 2008, Arizona State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Indiana University–Purdue University, Fort Wayne.