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.