ABSTRACT
The turn to Latin American rhetoric has broadly been galvanized by the need for a politics of difference. Critics have drawn from Latinamericanist theories of decoloniality to mobilize epistemological alternatives to Western forms of knowledge production and to critique the representations of alterity in the Western rhetorical tradition, posing variations of a common question: how to proceed from merely tolerating difference in the Western paradigm of rhetoric to actually theorizing rhetoric from the locus of non-Western (that is, non-logocentric) space? In this essay, we analyze the aporia dredged up by Latinamericanist theories of decoloniality as a prism through which to renew and rethink the terms and conditions of comparativist inquiry. We conclude by setting to work on preparing the non-nostalgic grounds for an alterity yet to arrive under the heading of the X.
Acknowledgments
We thank LuMing Mao and anonymous reviewers for reading this essay and providing thoughtful and critical feedback. Also, we thank RSQ editor, Jacqueline Rhodes, for welcoming the essay and for offering support throughout the entire process.
Notes
1 According to Quijano, coloniality brought together previous structures of control of labor, slavery, and serfdom “around and upon the basis of capital and the world market” (“Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America” 534) for a “control of a specific form of labor could be, at the same time, the control of a specific group of dominated people” (“Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America” 537).
2 “Delinking,” Mignolo argues, “cannot be performed … within the frame of the theo and the ego-logical politics of knowledge and understanding” (“CitationDelinking” 461).
7 When we use this term throughout this essay, we invoke Latinamericanist critic Abraham CitationAcosta’s claim that “orality cannot serve as the grounds upon which to critique or resist the West, for orality already lies at the heart of the former” (73).
9 A “nostalgia for the lost origin,” Gayatri Spivak reminds us, “can be detrimental to the exploration of social realities within the critique of imperialism” (“CitationCan the Subaltern Speak” 87).
11 CitationQuijano extends this conversation to race in “Coloniality of Power,” where he writes, “the ‘inferior’ ‘races’ are ‘inferior’ because they are ‘objects’ of study or of domination/exploitation/discrimination, they are not ‘subjects’, and most of all, they are not ‘rational subjects’” (221).
12 It is important to elaborate here that the sign anthropoi, in the humanitas/anthropoi binary, can be understood analogously to CitationGiorgio Agamben’s articulation of “bare life”: the domain of life common to all living beings, whose exclusion founds the domain of politically qualified life (polis, the community) (8).
16 If language is a form of signification, then intent or motive can be divorced from rhetoric. Mignolo argues, “The enunciation [of the anthropos] doesn’t name an existing entity, but invents it. The enunciation needs an enunciator (agent), an institution (not everyone can invent the anthropos), but to impose the anthropos as ‘the other’ in the collective imaginary, it is necessary to be in a position of managing the discourse (verbal, visual, audial) by which you name and describe the entity (the anthropos or ‘the other’) and succeed in making believe that it exists” (“CitationGeopolitics of Sensing” 134). Here, he is describing a telos. We are interested in how this telos emerges in a reversal of a system: us/them | them/us.
17 Grosfoguel echoes this when he writes, “The fact that one is socially located in the oppressed side of power relations, does not automatically mean that he/she is epistemically thinking from a subaltern epistemic location,” and continues by saying, “the success of the modern/colonial world system consists in making subjects … to think epistemically like the ones of the dominant positions” (“CitationThe Epistemic Decolonial Turn” 213). His misstep, like Mignolo’s, is naming exteriority under the heading of the proper name, “the subaltern.”
19 “These oppositions have meaning only after the possibility of the trace. … The trace must be thought before the entity” (CitationOf Grammatology 46–47).
Mignolo, Walter D. “Delinking.” Cultural Studies, vol. 21, no. 2, 2007, pp. 449–514. doi:10.1080/09502380601162647. Baca, Damián. Mestiz@ Scripts, Digital Migrations, and the Territories of Writing. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Bokser, Julie. “Sor Juana’s Divine Narcissus: A New World Rhetoric of Listening.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 3, 2010, pp. 224–46. doi:10.1080/02773941003617418. Delgado, Fernando. “When the Silenced Speak: The Textualization and Complications of Latina/o Identity.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 62, 1998, pp. 420–38. doi:10.1080/10570319809374618. Kennedy, George A. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction. Oxford UP, 1998. Noe, Mark. “The Corrido: A Border Rhetoric.” College English, vol. 71, no. 6, 2009, pp. 596–605. Olson, Christa J., and Rubén Casas. “Felipe Guaman Poma De Ayala’s Primer Nueva Corónica Y Buen Gobierno and the Practice of Rhetorical Theory in Colonial Peru.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 101, no. 3, 2015, pp. 459–84. doi:10.1080/00335630.2015.1056747. Olson, Christa, and René Agustín De Los Santos. “Expanding the Idea of América.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 3, 2015, pp. 193–98. doi:10.1080/02773945.2015.1032848. Romano, Susan. “‘Grand Convergence’ in the Mexican Colonial Mundane: The Matter of Introductories.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 1, 2010, pp. 71–93. doi:10.1080/02773940903413407. Serviss, Tricia. “Femicide and Rhetorics of Coadyuvante in Ciudad Juarez: Valuing Rhetorical Traditions in the Americas.” College English, vol. 75, no. 6, 2013, pp. 608–28. Soto Vega, Karrieann, and Karma R. Chávez. “Latinx Rhetoric and Intersectionality in Racial Rhetorical Criticism.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 4, 2018, pp. 319–25. doi:10.1080/14791420.2018.1533642. Villanueva, Victor. “Maybe a Colony: And Still Another Critique of the Comp Community.” JAC, vol. 17, no. 2, 1997, pp. 183–90. Walsh, Lynda. “Accountability: Towards a Definition of Hybridity for Scholars of Transnational Rhetorics.” Rhetorica, vol. 30, no. 4, 2012, pp. 392–431. Acosta, Abraham. Thresholds of Illiteracy: Theory, Latin America, and the Crisis of Resistance. Fordham UP, 2014. Beasley-Murray, Jon. Posthegemony: Political Theory and Latin America. U of Minnesota P, 2010. Beverley, John. Subalternity and Representation: Arguments in Cultural Theory. Duke UP, 1999. Hatfield, Charles. The Limits of Identity: Politics and Poetics in Latin America. U of Texas P, 2015. Moreiras, Alberto. The Exhaustion of Difference: The Politics of Latin American Cultural Studies. Duke UP, 2001. Pérez, Emma. The Decolonial Imaginary: Writing Chicanas into History. Indiana UP, 1999. Williams, Gareth. The Other Side of the Popular: Neoliberalism and Subalternity in Latin America. Duke UP, 2002. Yúdice, George. “Civil Society, Consumption, and Governmentality in an Age of Global Restructuring.” Social Text, vol. 45, 1995, pp. 1–25. De Los Santos, René Agustín. “La Ola Latina: Recent Scholarship in Latina/o and Latin American Rhetorics.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 98, no. 3, 2012, pp. 320–36. doi:10.1080/00335630.2012.692166. Medina, Cruz. Reclaiming Poch@ Pop: Examining the Rhetoric of Cultural Deficiency. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Ramírez, Cristina. Occupying Our Space: The Mestiza Rhetorics of Mexican Women Journalists and Activists, 1875-1942. U of Arizona P, 2015. Romney, Abraham. “Rhetoric from the Margins: Juan Francisco Manzano’s Autobiografía De Un Esclavo.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 3, 2015, pp. 237–49. doi:10.1080/02773945.2015.1032855. Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. U of California P, 1968. Acosta, Abraham. Thresholds of Illiteracy: Theory, Latin America, and the Crisis of Resistance. Fordham UP, 2014. Abbott, Don P. “The Ancient Word: Rhetoric in Aztec Culture.” Rhetorica, vol. 5, no. 3, 1987, pp. 251–64. doi:10.1525/rh.1987.5.3.251. Kennedy, George A. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction. Oxford UP, 1998. Murphy, James, et al. “The Politics of Historiography.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 7, no. 1, 1988, pp. 5–49. doi:10.1080/07350198809388839. Romano, Susan. “Orality and Presence: Relational Rhetorics in Latin American Contexts.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 3, 2015, pp. 212–24. doi:10.1080/02773945.2015.1032853. Spivak, Gayatri. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, Macmillan Education, 1988, pp. 271–313. Moreiras, Alberto. “The Fatality of (My) Subalternism: A Response to John Beverley.” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 12.2, 2012, pp. 217–46. Web. doi:10.1353/ncr.2012.0057. Quijano, Anibal. “Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America.” International Sociology, vol. 15, no. 2, 2000, pp. 215–32. doi:10.1177/0268580900015002005. Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated By. Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford UP, 1998. Olson, Christa J. Constitutive Visions: Indigeneity and Commonplaces of National Identity in Republican Ecuador. The Pennsylvania State UP, 2014. Acosta, Abraham. Thresholds of Illiteracy: Theory, Latin America, and the Crisis of Resistance. Fordham UP, 2014. García, Romeo, and Damián Baca, editors. Rhetorics Elsewhere and Otherwise: Contested Modernities, Decolonial Visions. NCTE/SWR, 2019. Mignolo, Walter D. “Geopolitics of Sensing and Knowing: On (De)coloniality, Border Thinking, and Epistemic Disobedience.” Confero, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013, pp. 129–50. doi:10.3384/confero.2001-4562. Grosfoguel, Ramon. “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn.” Cultural Studies, vol. 21, no. 2, 2007, pp. 211–23. doi:10.1080/09502380601162514. Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated By. Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford UP, 1998. Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994. Galli, Carlo. Political Spaces and Global War. Translated by Elisabeth Fay. U of Minnesota P, 2010. Guidotti-Hernández, Nicole M. Unspeakable Violence: Remapping U.S. and Mexican National Imaginaries. Duke UP, 2011. Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political. Translated by George Schwab. U of Chicago P, 2007. Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Johns Hopkins UP, 1976. Mao, LuMing. “Doing Comparative Rhetoric Responsibly.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, 2011, pp. 64–69. doi:10.1080/02773945.2010.533149. Stroud, Scott R. “Pragmatism and the Methodology of Comparative Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, 2009, pp. 353–79. doi:10.1080/02773940903196614. Swearingen, C. Jan. “Tao Trek: One and Other in Comparative Rhetoric, A Response.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 3, 2013, pp. 300–09. doi:10.1080/02773945.2013.792701. Wang, Bo. “Comparative Rhetoric, Postcolonial Studies, and Transnational Feminisms: A Geopolitical Approach.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 3, 2013, pp. 226–42. doi:10.1080/02773945.2013.792692.