MT Rhetoric Project Draft - The Vigilantes

Link: http://mtrhetoricprojectvigilantes.blogspot.com/

Knowledge is...Liability?

Anyone else depressed about our global financial and moral state after reading the Panama Papers?

Well, I was.  It seems, our social imagination maintains the idea that global business is not so corrupt, that people generally make upright choices...then, when you see small groups of people making incredibly immoral choices to shield world leaders from civic responsibility and accountability, with far-reaching global effects...the social imagination breaks down, and this background concept of “basically good” people loses some of its mojo.

I am still fixated on the idea of hegemony.  How do you defeat those with unjust power, when the dominant control the means of argumentation?  It is like trying to fight a fire, when the only available tool is dry brush.  For example, even with 11.5 million leaked documents incriminating hundreds...power is still in play.  Mossack-Fonseca can use the concept of “client protection” to shield their shady dealings, money can be transferred out, and individuals can plan their financial escape routes all before investigation catches up with them.

Exposed communication is not the only strike needed to bring down hegemonic power.  What types of action need follow?

I also noticed the value in data representation.  If any of you watched the data visualization of the leaked documents, you can recognize how the meaning changes when the papers are represented in that fashioned, rather than columns and rows.  It builds a whole new type of connectivity.  What is being said become intricately connected to how one communicates it.

Finally, I recognized that running beneath the entire scandal was the implicit value and belief that knowledge creates responsibility-- that those with knowledge are obligated to handle their communication ethically (reporting suspicious or illegal activity, in this case.)  Mossack-Fonseca has a nice escape route by saying they do not support illegal shell company dealings by their clients; one assumes this “not supporting” implies mandatory reporting, but...not so much.

Knowledge comes at risk.  The journalists who exposed these documents, the lawyers involved with Mossack-Fonseca--  all used their knowledge differently, and the public interpreted their behavior using different criteria.  So, even though my head and heart are fiery with social-justice passion, I am encouraged to witness a collaborative effort on writers and reporters, to bring down a giant, reckless, global force.  

Power & Control

I appreciated the pragmatic approach of Kuebrich’s piece. Much of what we’ve read so far on publics, counterpublics, discourse, and power has been theoretically-based, so reading something which outlined a community putting the theories into play was revealing.

Early in, Kuebrich writes, “Cops, historically, have been a problem for composition” (568). The line and idea reminded me of my initial blog-post assessment that “Public opinion... is the direct act of refusing to be governed.” Not quite the marching around waving flags singing “Red!” style of refusing to be governed, but a more subtle form of resistance that confirms and cements the people as worthy and able to formulate different opinions and courses of action from the ruling power.

The author also brought in the concept of the false consciousness: “many marginalized, working-class, or oppressed groups actively value the ideologies and narratives that “justify their own subordination” (572). In Classic Sociological Theory, my class has been discussing Fannon, a black Caribbean man who wrote on the racism stemming from French colonization. He wrote, “Every colonized people-- in other words, every people in whose soul an inferiority complex has been created by the death and burial of its local cultural originality-- finds itself face to face with the language of the civilizing nation; that is, with the culture of the mother country” (Black Skin, White Masks). American ideology of the hardworking citizen who raises himself/herself (usually himself) up the sociological ladder, achieving capitalist success is preached by Western culture. Goals of achieving white possession, power, and authority were (and are) glorified throughout civil right’s movements, to encourage African Americans to “pick themselves up by their bootstraps,” so to speak. But this message is rife with embedded value. For example, the American dream discounts the importance of family life and collectivist culture, idolizing individuality, professionalism, and acceptance of American culture as the greatest achievement. When someone like the Oakland School District said they wanted to integrate Ebonics into their curriculum, recognizing it as a legitimate dialect, educators went crazy. Our culture may say it values equality, and “black lives matter,” but what it really values is conforming people to white standards. Black is then valuable only as it achieves whiteness.

Kuebrich goes on, “Speaking truth to power requires either significant risk or a certain degree of privilege. For this reason, it is important for scholars who are outsiders to participate by taking direction from neighborhood residents, not pushing them with academic prescriptions or notions of popular outrage” (579). For a marginalized person or persons to speak out, risk is inherently involved. The scholar may think that doing x, y, and z, organizing this and saying that will solve racial injustice, but again the scholar usually speaks from a position of white privilege and power. While the white citizen may believe the black person “puts up” or “tolerates” such mistreatment from police officers, they often fail to recognize that such tolerance is learned survival to avoid handcuffs. He goes on, “‘People who are thought not to have power’ in society are mistreated because people in power ‘don’t have to suffer consequences when [they] mess with powerless people’” (587). The stakes are much higher when the power-disadvantaged mess with the power-enabled.

Finally, Kuebrich quotes Flower saying,

“Because they speak from a marginalized position, urban teenagers, neighborhood advocates, and the poor often resort to a rhetoric of complaint and blame—a vigorous rehearsal of the wrongs by others in a context they (the speakers) do not control. Standing out of power, the discourse of complaint and blame takes little responsibility for positive change; it finds its strength in pressure, exposure, disruption and advocacy (250)” (576).

One way a power-refused people can regain agency is by choosing routes of disruption and downward leveling norms. Tell inner-city black teenagers they are all predisposed to become criminals, and the gang-mentality becomes one they take on as their own. A group with no identity has no privilege; it seems that claiming even an identity with negative repercussions (like a gang member) affords some level of character norms and agency around which one can act. But, if “power...is about controlling public representation,” then this creates a negative-reinforcing cycle, where black teens may choose disruption because it offers agency and an anti-establishment standing, but only reinforces racial stereotypes (573).

Representation post-Katrina...

I do not have all the solutions, but I appreciated Eubrich’s note that “Rhetorical forms would be best judged on how well they lead to productive, collective action that might alter existing power dynamics and social structures, not how they align with prescriptive notions of civility and propriety” (576). We would do good to examine where in rhetorical theory, racial bias is implicit. Embedded in rhetorical expectations and commonly used styles are assumptions about power, identity, and culture. And I am sure if we looked, we would find them, and could work to change them and make power-challenging discourse more accepting of alternate forms.

Recap & Looking Forward

Going Public Assignment - 

For this project, I created a promotional and advisory text/presentation which aimed to answer the questions, "Why should I become an English-Writing major?" and "How can I maximize my degree in English-Writing?"  The idea spawned after I was asked to volunteer at MSU's "Major Madness," a speed-dating style event where undeclared or curious students could learn about other majors through seven-minute conversations with degree representatives.  As I thought through potential questions and answers for the event, I realized that 1.) there are a ton of stereotypical misconceptions about majoring in Writing, and 2.) English-Writing needs better public representation and advocation.

Thinking back to Asen's concept of the public imagination, English-Writing is often framed, through media and prominent representations, as the idyllic scene of a solitary writer typing away on his computer (or typewriter, for that matter), and essentially, writing novels.  Or, the same writer, perhaps begrudgingly, is imagined as teaching writing in a classroom setting.  Most often, when I share my major with strangers, the immediate question I receive is, "Oh, so you want to teach?"  For me the answer is yes, but importantly that is not the whole answer.  A degree in English-Writing can propel you into a plethora of careers; writing and teaching being only two.  So, going into the project I was considering how I could expose the possibilities and opportunities that pursuing an English major allows, how I could work to debunk public myths and misconceptions, and also wondering how this limited public imagination came about and is too often sustained.  Finally, I was thinking about what I wished someone had told me coming into the major.  What have I learned on my own, that could benefit others?  As a public of English-majors, our best interest in recruiting more majors is to create both specific and general dialogue; writing and speaking that can connect with a large audience, but still bear marks of distinction and class that makes individuals want to join the adventure of an English-Writing education. 

So what did I write and talk about?

I started by saying that English-Writing is not a predetermined-career choice.  People under-realize how much work is writing-centric.  Few big things happen in the world without talented writers throughout the process.  Besides journalism, PR work, editing, and so forth, jobs like running an outdoor program that works with troubled youth, organizing grassroots movements, or starting a new small business all require writing.  I recognized that part of re-imagining writing for the public is by transforming certain skills, like being able to articulate a sentence, into popularly-valued traits, like critical thinking or organization.  When someone is learning how to write well, they are also learning how to think well.  When someone is learning to communicate, they are also learning people skills, how to read a situation, and how to maximize speaker/listener interaction.  It seems that re-framing the public imagination is often a process of translation; showing how a skill or concept converts to contemporary values or popular understandings.

Second, I was realizing that when I began English, no one hyped me up or got me stoked.  And we should be!  The current generation of English majors is witness to revolutionary change in communication, media, and writing as we know it.  The invention of the Internet, digital media, smartphones, multimodality...the list goes on.  Writing is become more and more complex and multi-faceted, and available.  With conventions like texting, writing is becoming less the art of the bourgeoisie and the mass amount of circulating text today through online writing, blogging, emailing, and so forth reflects the laymen more and more.  This is why earning an education in writing is phenomenal-- because writing is the tool of the people, and capable of empowering individuals and groups to accomplish great things (not unlike the concept of a public.)

It was exciting to think through the opportunities I sought out and those which were offered to me, and all the outlets to share and circulate one's writing.  It was exciting to think about public discourse (versus classroom discourse) and how writers can tailor assignments towards a public portfolio and public recognition.  During the actual event, it was thrilling to speak with students and share my enthusiasm; I felt that many of the students considering English-Writing never had anyone just get excited  with them, and because of that they were going the popular path and choosing a STEM major.  No offense to STEM, of course, but getting students psyched up about something that others had perhaps only responded with the proverbial "You want to teach?" response made me feel enthused for our generation of humanities, while also realizing that we need new, current, representation.  We need spokespersons for the Humanities that are not just old men.

Looking forward, I hope my thought process, my compilation of opportunities and strategies for navigating the major, and my general excitement can be implemented in promoting English-Writing in the future.

Montana Rhetoric Project -

For this project, my team is researching the vigilante era in Montana.  I am most interested in considering different conceptions and public imaginations of "justice," and looking at the controversial discourse in which some found the vigilantes justified in their acts, and others found them representative of the same law-breaking they claimed to oppose.  

The situation is fascinating-- a time of huge gold rushes but incredibly rural locales with miles between homesteads or claims, and law enforcement.  In the same vein as the Rushmore Effect, I find intriguing how geography can shape public ethos.

For the assignment, it would be neat to compile short bios of various vigilantes, analyze their style of justice, and also include public reactions/newspaper stories and letters that represented the public response to these individuals.  Our team is hoping to visit the archives in Virginia City and leaf through documents to gain a sense of public attitude and the types of conversations that went on around the topic.  Like most concepts, justice is not a single, uncontested idea, but rather an ideology that unites or divides people groups as they agree or disagree on its limits and tenets.  I am interested in how public conceptions of justice have changed, and thinking through the implications of law-breaking law-enforcement (which is essentially what vigilantes were).  What about the public climate made this an acceptable alternative?  

Vigilantes created public change.  Obviously, that change at some point led to their unpopularity or unneeded-ness as law enforcement; did their very presence inspire police to step up their game?  Were all vigilantes working themselves out of a job?  In the end, I think our project will reveal the complicated-ness of justice, while also considering how fear and money drive public action.

I'll see y'all Monday.





       

Trump vs. Bill O'Reilly: Personal v. Public?

On Being Heard: The Movement of Sexual Assault Survivors

“I tell my stories louder all the time,” Dorothy Allison, sexual assault survivor, feminist author, and storyteller writes, “Mean and ugly stories; funny, almost bitter stories; passionate, desperate stories—all of them have to be told in order not to tell the one the world wants” (Allison 451). 

Anjeli Doty

WRIT 376-001

Kirk Branch

18 February 2016

On Being Heard: The Movement of Sexual Assault Survivors

    Introduction

In the United States, one in five women will be raped in her lifetime. Half of those assaults are perpetrated by a close friend or family member, and 80% know their perpetrators. Less than one-third of survivors report their assault, making rape the highest underreported crime. According to research, that equals over 200,000 incidents of sexual assault yearly that never see justice (National Sexual Violence Research Center, n.p.). Although the 1970s brought a surge of crime victim movements garnering national attention and legislative change, from the founding of RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) to the 1984 Victims of Crime Act, arguably, the stronger movement combating rape culture and the effects of sexual assault is the growing group of individual survivors joining together and publicly speaking out.

The topic of sexual assault and recovery presents an enormous field of study. For the purposes of this project I intend to discuss how survivors of sexual assault are emerging as a counterpublic, and empowering their mobility and identity by speaking against traditional beliefs and preconceptions of dominant discourse. As a historically silenced group, I will consider what social and discursive elements act to support and constrain their emergence, and question how building a survivor public enables abilities, support, and rights that individual survivors may not access as readily. Finally, I will conclude by analyzing how public discourse which counters negative representations and understandings of sexual assault is crucial for enabling survivors to form affirmative identities.

Defining Terms

To begin, a few definitions. In Rhetoric in Civic Life, Palczewski et. al write, “...a public is formed by people coming together to discuss common concerns, including concerns about who they are and what they should do, and as a result constructing social reality together” (236). They put forth a relatively unproblematic definition, but we cannot assume the phrase “common concerns” goes uncontended. How society determines what concerns are common public interest decides which topics merit national attention, and which are reserved for support groups and gossip circles. When the “common concerns” are debated, society experiences the emergence of counterpublics. Nancy Fraser defines, in Rethinking the Public Sphere, counterpublics as “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (67). Counterdiscourse not only re-presents and re-prioritizes specific issues, but in doing so, enables different forms of action and identity for individuals affected by those issues. Finally, Palczewski et. al define “The Public Screen” as “the constant circulation of symbolic action enabled by the relatively new media technologies of television, computers, photography, film, Internet, and smartphones that is ‘characteristic of contemporary communication’” (261). The public screen emphasizes and deemphasizes, creates public conceptions and representations, and operates in a variety of ways to constrain and empower different modes of communication and behavior. Here we will begin our discussion of the survivor public, by considering in what arenas are survivors circulating discourse, and how their modes of communication work to challenge preconceptions and enable changing public representations.

The Public Screen: Legal vs. Survivor-Driven Forums

Traditionally, sexual assault survivors are represented by criminal justice attorneys. The process of public communication for survivors includes answering questions in front of juries, often with their perpetrator present, and attempting to convince the audience of their attacker’s guilt. Therefore, the Criminal Justice System with its “innocent before proven guilty” protocol puts survivors in an incredibly difficult situation where, in an intense post-traumatic time, their validity is inherently questioned, and survivors are responsible for giving convincing enough testimonies to convict their offender. Today, scientific advances such as DNA evidence alleviate the burden of proof from resting solely on the survivor, but traditional courtrooms as public discursive spheres still disadvantage sexual assault survivors. A major way this constraint occurs is through the dominant discourse definition of evidence. Jurgen Habermaus wrote, “public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed” (50). The reasoning public, by nature, assumes “rational” discourse as the most valid. That is, discourse that follows logical progressions, avoids overt displays of emotion, and maintains a sense of distance from the topic in order to enable an “objective” perspective. Last year in commemoration of sexual awareness month The Huffington Post published a video interviewing sexual assault survivors. Speaking on their experiences, numerous interviewees admitted that their memory was fragmented and spotty, some explained their minds blocked out much of the incident in order to keep functioning (The Huffington Post, n.p.). Post-trauma, survivors of sexual assault experience a variety of emotions, from fear to anger to memory loss, all which contribute to a decreased presentation of ethos and credibility. Further, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice estimate that from all reported sexual assaults (which again, equals less than one-third) only six percent lead to felony convictions or incarceration (“Reporting Rates” n.p). An article on sexual assault conviction in The Guardian writes, “...rape is unique because in no other crimes were victims subject to such scrutiny in court or was the defendant so likely to claim the victim had consented to the attack. Between half and two-thirds of all cases are dropped before they come to court” (Travis n.p.). Another article in BBC News wrote, “Public perception is affected by the way rape is treated by the justice system. You see it in the press, you hear it from other people. One third of people think that [a woman is partly to blame for rape if she is flirtatious, and a quarter if she is drunk or wears revealing clothing] and that includes the judges…” (“Police Disbelieve Women” n.p.) Palczewski et. al note that a characteristic feature of counterpublics is to “...expand discursive space…[to] develop alternative norms for public argument and what counts as evidence” (243). In order to be heard, the survivor public needed to expand their sphere of discourse beyond the court of law, which indirectly excluded them, and also change what counted as credible evidence. And they did so, by creating non-state organizations and public screens which made space for personal narratives to emerge as alternative forms of evidence.

Alternative Discursive Arenas

Project Unbreakable is one such public sphere. This Tumblr site sources user submissions for its content; the “text” is pictures of survivors holding pieces of paper that tell everything from the story of their assault, to quotes their attacker, friends, or the police said, to how they treated themselves post-assault. Because of the repost-ability of Tumblr, Project Unbreakable constantly circulates counterdiscourse as more submissions come in, and more viewers share the stories. The site does not question credibility or validity; rather, it provides a forum for survivors to communicate in a variety of discursive forms. Some of the submitters include their faces in the photos, but many hide behind the paper or off-screen, reflecting the continuing sense of shame and fear which surrounds sexual assault. Although Project Unbreakable does not work legislatively to change law, it creates a counterpublic where survivors support and believe each other, and encourages the two-thirds who never reported to speak out, even if anonymously. This type of organization, although it could be termed an enclave public, generates larger public notice and attention, which can function to support oscillating public support and initiative to change policy to better protect survivors and serve justice. A similar movement was the widely-publicized Twitter #whyistayed campaign. After the Ray Rice incident where security footage recorded the 200+ pound football player punching his then-fiancee in an elevator who proceeded to marry him, a landslide of victim blaming around abuse survivors began, where the public criticized and questioned her choice to stay. The #whyistayed movement was started by writer Beverly Gooden, to encourage survivors to share their reasons for staying with abusers. The tweets included everything from, “He told me ‘no one will ever love you like I do’” to “Everything was in his name. I had no credit rating. Nobody’d rent to me” to “Because I thought if I loved him enough he would stop being abusive” (“14 Tweets” n.p.) Although the campaign focused more on domestic violence than sexual assault, the movement showed how a changing public sphere of communication enabled a changed public conception. Strangers gathered together to create counterdiscourse which united them through a common cause while also highlighted the plethora of complicated and heartbreaking reasons for staying with abusers.

Recasting: Language Shifts

Aside from creating counterdiscourse arenas, the language around sexual assault needed to change for survivors to emerge as a counterpublic. One of the largest discursive shifts was the change from victim to survivor. This labeling shift redistributed power. When someone is a victim, the perpetrator retains their dominance and power. Victims are weak, helpless, unable to save themselves or protect themselves in the future. Survivors are strong; they are resilient and larger than what attacked them. Survivors have agency and power to fight back. Fraser discusses the importance of recasting terms, writing “...feminist women have invented new terms for describing social reality, including "sexism," "the double shift," sexual harassment," and "marital, date, and acquaintance rape." Armed with such language, we have recast our needs and identities…” (67) Changing from victim to survivor reframes situations to advantage the survivor and not the perpetrator, and was a crucial rhetorical shift both for discourse and identity. Further, contemporary literature and research focus on sexual assault as an issue of power and control, rather than sexual drive. This reframing further enables survivors to gather together and speak out because it invalidates victim blaming patterns which accuse survivors of dressing sexually, acting promiscuously or flirtatiously, etc. When an issue is recast as revolving around power and control, how an individual dressed becomes less consequential. That said, victim blaming is still a detrimental and widespread response. However, changing the issue from sexual to power/control related makes the survivor counterpublic more inclusive to male survivors, who are often laughed at or not believed. One Project Unbreakable photo reads, “Real men can’t be raped by women” as quoted from the Spokane, WA Police Department.  
                               

Many individuals cannot imagine a woman’s sex drive would be strong enough to rape a man, but when the act is recast as operating from power and control dynamics, females are less easily excluded as perpetrators.

Legal definitions also directly exclude certain individuals. In 2012, the DOJ changed their definition of rape from “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” to “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” (FBI, n.p.). The new definition discursively included men as potential rape survivors, as well as included sexual assaults with objects, and assault towards incapacitated individuals. As the language changed, the FBI changed their manner of crime reporting, and survivors who were previously excluded on legal terms could now speak out, given their legal backing. Further, The Washington Post writes, “College sexual assault, a long-hidden problem, emerged as an issue in the 1980s along with the term “date rape,” describing a certain kind of sexual crime involving friends or acquaintances. The date rapist — someone who ignored a “no” or never sought a “yes” — contrasted with the stereotype of the rapist as a predator lurking in the dark” (Anderson & Clement n.p.) As terms are recast, the public imagination changes to include previously marginalized individuals, and change the perception of sexual assault.

The Private to Public Switch
Nancy Fraser writes, “...counterpublics stand in a contestatory relationship to dominant publics. One important object of such interpublic contestation is the appropriate boundaries of the public sphere. Here the central questions are, what counts as a public matter and what, in contrast, is private?” (70). The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) writes on sexual assault, in a history of crime victim movements, “...[the] issue was one that society didn’t want to think about, didn’t want to hear about. The individual survivors felt incredible isolation” (“History of the Crime Victims’ Movement” n.p.). When people are kept in isolation, there is no possibility of forming a public or counterpublic. Thus, a crucial component to enabling the survivor counterpublic and bringing survivor stories to public attention was changing sexual assault from a private concern to a public one. Research advances partly enabled this; one in five women is hardly a “private” matter anymore. The progression of the feminist movement also helped to reframe sexual assault as a public issue, as similar previously privatized issues such as motherhood expectations and the glass ceiling were made public. In this way, the emerging counterpublic of sexual assault survivors was able to ride the wave of a larger counterpublic of feminism. Counterpublics can thus "nest" within each other, cooperate and be in agreement, although working towards different agendas and issues. The circulation of personal narratives also played an active role in publicizing sexual assault. As survivors shared their stories in safe discursive spaces (like Project Unbreakable or a number of other web-based forums), they changed public conceptions of who can perpetrate, and who can be assaulted. Asen writes, “...collective imagination constitutes a constellation of shared assumptions, values, perceptions, and beliefs for matters identified explicitly as topics of discussion” (351); he further concludes that counterpublics cannot ignore negative representations if they want to advance positive ones (361). The Washington Post published a piece on sexual assault survivor stories, which advanced numerous stories, many of which are “non-typical” to the public imagination of rape. These included stories of women forcibly coming on to men, situations that started out consensual but ended non-consensual, complicated situations where both individuals were both intoxicated (one wrote, “it’s like we’re both raping each other”), one woman said “I’m a good muslim girl...never took a sip of alcohol and certainly didn’t know about men,” another woman reported she was sexually active with her boyfriend then decided she wanted to stop and wait for marriage but he pushed sex even after she said “no,” and many other narratives which reframe sexual assault from an act of lust, intoxication, or recklessness into one that any individual, regardless of dress or gender or religion, can experience (Anderson et. al n.p.). Further, dominant political public discourse around sexual assault is often sterile or unemotional, striving again for that highly-valued objectivity. Circulating personal narratives invalidates these sterile renditions of sexual assault, and reminds the public that this issue is both highly personal and relevant publically. Fraser writes, “ the terms "private" and "public"...are not simply straightforward designations of societal spheres; they are cultural classifications and rhetorical labels. In political discourse, they are powerful terms that are frequently deployed to delegitimate some interests, views, and topics, and to valorize others” (73). Making sexual assault a public issue both increased its importance and created spaces for survivors to be heard outside enclave support groups.

Creating Affirmative Identities
Identity is the final topic I will discuss. Warner writes, “...the discourse of a public is a linguistic form from which the social conditions of its own possibility are in large part derived” (75). That is, how one speaks enables what they can do. Participation in publics makes one feel decisive about their personality (Warner 62), and the inclusive discourse enables one to form an affirmative identity that reinforces their experiences as valid and deserving attention (Asen 346). As opposed to shame culture, the survivor counterpublic enables survivors to create self-representations that change from a victim status to a powerful individual status, with the ability to create social change. Further, Asen writes how traditionally marginalized people do not want access to the public conversation only within their “disabled” identity (260). In the Huffington Post video, the interviewer queried survivors about their reasons for speaking out. Sue Tilghman, who was assaulted as a child, said sharing her story gave her younger self a voice; “I felt whole,” she said (The Huffington Post n.p.). In saying that, she claimed her entire self-- both the raped child and her adult woman-self into one holistic being. She refused to let herself be entirely defined by the act, but also refused to let it be washed over or forgotten. Further, the Huffington Post video showed survivors dressed formally, articulating their experiences, both which counter dominant discourse of survivors as forever tainted or incapacitated. Many of The Washington Post narratives include similar stories; individuals who recognize their assault as worthy of public attention and communication but not composing the entirety of their identity. Some individuals also discussed how their survivor-status enabled them to create meaningful social change; that is, the identity which the public imagination often slates as disabled or broken was reframed as powerful and capable. In sharing stories, survivors have the opportunity to create cohesive identities that allow cathartic release, correct the public perception of sexual assault, and create an opportunity for affirmative identity construction where others believe and support them.

In Conclusion
Although much remains to be done around changing the discourse of rape culture, public perceptions, and legal policy, the counterpublic of survivors is steadily growing and creating change. Future work includes addressing the public communication practice of treating all men as potential perpetrators (with a high focus of masculine sex drive, competition over women, etc.) and all women as potential victims (warning women to dress modestly, marketing a variety of “must-have” products such as rape whistles, and creating fear culture), which sends the message “women should avoid getting raped” rather than “men should not rape women.” The prior message is reactive communication where the latter is proactive communication. To appreciate this issue, watch the humorous and dryly cynical "How to Not Get Raped." Greater change also needs to occur on the state-level. NCJRS wrote, “...the largest cause of prosecution failure was the loss of once-cooperative witnesses who simply stopped helping a justice system that was indifferent to their most basic needs” (“History of the Crime Victims’ Movement” n.p.). The legal response to sexual assault needs to change to better reflect how survivors experience post-trauma, to recognize that assault is not always violent or man-to-woman, and to believe survivors’ stories on default. The emerging counterpublic of sexual assault survivors, enabled through feminist discourse, changing definitions, and courageous personal narrative has the strength to create meaningful change for personal identities and self-conceptions, as well as for the public imagination and legal system at large.

Works Cited

“14 Tweets Answer ‘Why I Stayed.’ 11 Broke My Heart, But The Last 3 Gave Me Hope.”
                Upworthy. Cloud Tiger Media, 2014. Web. 18 February 2016.

Allison, Dorothy. “Two or Three Things I Know For Sure.” Available Means: An Anthology                 of Women’s Rhetoric(s). Ritchie, Joy, and Kate Ronald, eds. Pittsburgh: U of                         Pittsburgh P., 2001. 435­453. Print.Anderson, Nick and Scott Clement. “1In 5 College Women Say They Were Violated,” The
               Washington Post, 12 June 2015. Web. 18 February 2016.

Anderson, Nick et. al. “Sexual Assault Survivors Tell Their Stories.” The Washington Post,               12 June 2015. Web. 18 February 2016.

National Sexual Violence Research Center. “Statistics About Sexual Violence.” National                     Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2015. Web. 16 February 2016.

“Police Disbelieve Women On Rape.” BBC News, 22 November 2005. Web. 18 November                2016.

“Reporting Rates.” RAINN. Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, 2009. Web. 18                   February 2016.

The Huffington Post. “Decades Later, Sexual Abuse Survivors Speak Out.” Online video                 clip. live.huffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 6 April 2015. Web. 16 February             2016.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Frequently Asked Questions about the Change in                  the UCR Definition of Rape,” 11 December 2015. Web. 18 February 2016.

Travis, Alan. “Rape Conviction Rate Falls To An Alltime Low.” The Washington Post, 24
           February 2005. Web. 18 February 2015.

Assignment One Draft: On Voices

Public Rhetorics and Writing Assignment One:

In lieu of a full draft, I offer my outline.  By Saturday I aim to have posted something more word-filled, but I would love any feedback at this stage, as well.

Core Inquiry: How have survivors of sexual assault emerged as a public, and what was necessary for them to do so?  I want to consider how a marginalized and silenced public is currently finding a louder and louder voice, while also questioning how their status as a public is empowering them to cross the remaining hurdles in order to address this prevalent issue.

P1: Current overview of the survivor public.  Consider what are their arenas, what and how are they circulating discourse, what challenges are they facing, how are they encouraging public participation, and how they are raising awareness and support from strangers who cannot relate to their experiences.

1. Quote Dorothy Allison: "I tell my story louder and louder all the time;" the power of personal narratives when communicating publicly. Expanding what counts as evidence in public addresses (Ch. 9, p. 243).
2. The Public Screen" (Ch. 9, p. 261)  Websites devoted to letting survivors have a voice, support forums, etc.  Twitter #whyistayed (changing conceptions).
3. Shift from enclave to oscillating (from support groups to political power.)

P2: From victim to survivor.  How was the shift in language necessary to redistribute power?  How have emerging publics working towards similar language shifts (ex. the feminist movement) contribute to each other, and create overlapping public support?

1. Public communication often frames all men as potential perpetrators and all women as potential victims.  How do products sold (ex. rape whistles) constitute public address of sorts?
2. Who we're addressing: sexual assault warnings always aimed at women, rather than men.  Societal communication focuses on informing women how to protect themselves, rather than telling men not to hurt women.
3. Current literature focuses on how sexual assault is about power and control rather than sexual desire-- how has this re-terming changed public perception?  How does renaming the issue include/exclude certain peoples?

P3: Challenging dominant thought.  Towards the end of his piece, Warner speaks on the power of the dominant discourse, that counter-discourses must find access points rather than completely go against the current public communication, if they are to be heard.

1. What is the dominant discourse on sexual assault?  How is it treated politically? (Sterile, often without emotion or empathy).  How has the public of survivors combated this, and how has it restrained them?
2. Habermas differentiates between presenting (owning) and re-presenting (standing for) in public communication (p. 50).  How have survivors presented their stories, and encourage others to represent them?
3. Chapter nine in the book defined a public as "people coming together to discuss common concerns" (p. 236).  How has the survivor public made sexual assault a "common concern"?  I want to bring in Fraser's discussion of "private" to public problems here, and how certain issues were branded private and therefore not of concern of the larger public (touch on domestic abuse here, too.)  Fraser-- "Private and public aren't straightforward designations, but powerful terms to valorize and devalorize" (p. 73).
4. How does this relate to the traditionally dominant masculine bourgeois sphere? (Fraser, 62)
5. How do calls for "objectivity" illegitimize certain types of evidence and communication?

P4: Identity.  How has the emergence of the survivor public allowed survivors to foster a new identity?

1. “The discourse of a public is a linguistic form from which the social conditions of its own possibility are in large part derived” (Asen, 75). How a public speaks empowers what they can do.
2. Warner, how publics make us feel decisive about our personalities/rioles. (p. 62)
3. How have survivors made their "survivor" role not their entire identity, but a crucial one in regards to public communication and change? Asen, 360.
4. "Affirmative identities" (Asen, 346, 347.) As opposed to shame culture.

Conclusion: Discuss what works remain to be done, what challenges lie ahead, but how the process of survivors voicing their history and experiences and calling for meaningful change has not only led to raised awareness around a hugely detrimental social issue, but has also allowed the emergence of new identities for survivors, different from those society/their abusers gave them.