But Asen would disagree. To him, imaginations are mental constructs that allow us to process and make sense of the world. Most importantly, they are collectively, rhetorically, and politically constructed. A given individual's rhetorical imagination is no neutral free-spirited force, either; it was shaped and formed by images, language, representation, and political powers, all with intention and conflicts of interest. Suddenly, my idea of imagination is less romantic. Color swirls and towering castles give way to grey images of disabled groups, purposefully portrayed by public media, government, etc., with the intention of diminishing disadvantaged publics.
I liked my psychedelic butterflies and towering mushroom forests, but something tells me this view of imagination is crucially important.
Asen demonstrates how no communicate mode is "neutral." On page 349, he writes:
"Collective imagining does not emerge through the aggregation of individual thoughts and perceptions. Rather, collective imagining takes shape through discursive engagement among interlocutors in contexts of varying structure, scope, and formality. Discourse functions in this process not as a vehicle for transmitting information and beliefs but as a constitutive force."
One could argue that public discourse would benefit from a mode of communication that was truly "neutral," in that no particular individuals' or publics' ulterior interests were present, but in reality no such communication schema exists. As a social construction, language will always reflect the priorities of certain groups and peoples. Importantly, Asen notes collective imaginations did not come to exist through some Utopian-esque language, but rather through discourse always slanted and shaded by various motives.
In Rhetoric in Civil Life, the authors discuss the concept "public memory." Just like imagination, memory is never a static, unchanging, shared understanding. Rather, "Memory is the product of rhetorical action even as it constrains the rhetorical actions of those who would challenge dominant memory." Further, "Collective remembering is always intimately linked to collective forgetting" (21). Imagination, memory, both are parts of a whole. Public conversation, it seems, does not lend itself to holistic interpretations, but rather representations (that is, re-presenting something) of certain concepts, historical events, people, etc. Public conversation is constantly considering different aspects of social life under varying filters. Certain filters dominate, and the task of those initiating counter-discourse is both to expose the negative representations which have constrained them thus far (as Asen notes), and attempt to communicate in new ways not shaded by these dominant discourse filters, yet perhaps similar enough so their argument bears a sense of continuance with the larger conversation.
My question is, then, must counter discourse always built off a foundation of the previously-existing constrictive/pejorative discourse regarding marginalized groups? If not, from what foundation would counter discourse arise?
Hi Anjeli, I think if you go back and read pages 348-349 in Asen's piece, you'll be relieved to discover that he doesn't necessarily disagree with your conception of imagination; instead, he focuses on a specific *type* of imagination--that is, collective imagining. :-) The color swirls and psychedelic butterflies aren't barred from individual imagination, but you make a good point: even THAT kind of imagination may be rhetorically constructed by cultural, societal, and political influences.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you bring up a great question at the end. I'm not sure what exactly the answer would be to this, but here are some considerations: First, Asen says that "Recognition of exclusion is crucial for the formation and investigation of counterpublics" (358). He seems to say that counterpublics aren't counterpublics if they don't recognize their exclusion and act to overcome that exclusion. So in one sense, the discourse of an opposing, dominant public would *have* to form part of the foundation of the counterpublic's discourse if one of the aims of counterpublics is to surmount exclusionary obstacles. Second, counterpublic agents "may need to counteract negative images representing counterpublics" (Asen 360). I think it would be difficult to counteract a negative image if you don't reference the pejorative, opposing discourse when defending yourself! And I guess this point is tied to the first regarding a goal of counterpublics...Perhaps this is one possible response to your question!
And of course, behind your question, I think, is that larger one about the rhetorical constraints that a counterpublic faces, perhaps always: Is the representation of a counterpublic in a larger public, even its own self-representation, always determined in part by the collectively imagined concepts of that larger sphere? And if so, how does counterpublic move beyond that formulation? It's a heady rhetorical issue at the heart of meaningful social change.
ReplyDelete