The Threat of Identifying

“How do audiences identify with rights and individuals whose rights have been violated?” - Lyon and Olson
Arabella Lyon and Lester Olson believe that this question has the potential to be answered through the use of rhetorical analysis. Within Special Issue on Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing, they discuss how the reduction of human rights into its rhetorical forms has the potential to detract from the significance of the human rights. This question was not a focal point of their essay, but it left me desiring an answer.

I am a white American woman who was raised in a financially stable household. I struggle to relate to the pain of being dehumanized at the level of the Holocaust, or even the “Rhodes Must Fall” movement. My background is that of privilege in comparison to those who are unable to obtain what is presumed to be basic human rights. I am able to empathize, but not necessarily relate. Of course, the extent to which a right is violated varies. Understanding of what constitutes a right and violation is different depending on the cultural lens used to determine their definitions. I am able to dissect a human rights case study at the rhetorical level, regardless of my personal identity, as long as I have access to the associated texts. However, I am concerned with the extent to which the audience, who actively views human rights with a rhetorical lens, projects their own identity onto their understanding of the text(s). This may be done unintentionally, but I find it difficult to believe that when analyzing texts a person can completely disassociate themselves as an individual from their work.
  
It is understood that comprehension of language stems from pre-exposure and usage. Nothing that is said, heard or read is technically original, even if the sentence is strung together in a unique way. There is a constant comparison that takes place within the mind in order to piece together meaning when actively participating in a conversation or playing with a text. Stanley Fish further supports this notion stating that, “the obviousness of the utterance’s meaning is not a function of the values its words have in a linguistic system that is independent of context; rather, it is because the words are heard as already embedded in a context” (Fish, 309). Context situates individual understanding that allows for the continuation of communication. With this in mind it is difficult to not make the assumption that when analyzing human rights (in terms of violations or scrutinizing the undertones of the text itself) that the reader does not automatically attempt to create a connection. This connection that I refer to can be considered in terms of Burke’s  “identification”. 
“Put identification and division ambiguously together… and you have the characteristic invitation to rhetoric” (Burke, 184). 
It is important to understand Burke’s definition of “identification” is the desire to establish commonality despite the existence of difference. Within this difference there is room to analyze the reasons and implications behind texts that are embodied and put into action. Burke tells the reader that establishing identification is an action that requires a “transformation” in the way that a person conceptualizes him or herself in relation to another in order to establish “identification”.  The concept that a person can remain unique yet they share an aspect of oneself with another forces a separation of the individual identity.

People are capable of maintaining multiple identities in the sense that their presentation of themselves is contingent on the context in which they are present. However, this does not mean that other identities are not influencing decisions while embodying another context. For example, a human rights activist may serve the role as an oratory that gives speeches at rallies. They have the ability to pull from their own oppressive past in order to provide justification for their role as an orator within that moment. This oratory may have experienced oppression while in the role of a parent, civilian, student or combination of hundreds of possible identifications. The current “Me To” movement present within the United States provides plenty of present day examples of how identity shifts dependent on context, but the multitude of experiences a human encounters remains within their repertoire. Scarlet Johansson is an actress who is perceived highly in pop culture. During a 2018 Women’s March speech she references her experiences as an actress, and woman who has faced sexual assault in order to convey her message in the role of an orator. The point of this example is that an academic analyzing human rights texts with a rhetorical approach, despite their best efforts, has the potential to be influenced by their own identifications. These identifications assist in the human situating of personal identity. These experiences of identification are also not necessarily a bad thing to rely on when encountering text. However, it can lead to similar risks that would be experienced when attempting to remain completely unbiased when addressing texts. Some of these risks include limiting one’s understanding of the human rights language due to an inability to look beyond one’s previous understanding of the terminology.

This idea of personal identity holding value dependent on context can further be applied to Michel Foucault’s What is an Author? when he discusses “author–function” ("author-function refers to the way an author is evaluated/dealt with in the realm of discourse). Specifically, the idea that depending on context an author’s validity is derived from their name, or at least certain aspects of their lives, that those of authority determine to be significant to their work. For example, Foucault discussed how what we perceive to be the house of Shakespeare could be a lie, but it does not impact our understanding of him as an author since we are more concerned with his scripts (Foucault, 907). It is not supposed to impact our acceptance of Shakespeare, but then what constitutes a reason to question the validity of an author’s work? And who gave the supposed “they” the power to determine what the universal scale of what to place value on when evaluating text and authorship? This ties back into my concern of projection because it seems that the criteria established by various cultures controls the way in which individuals evaluate the validity of what they perceive. Thus meaning that perhaps in a different culture the location of Shakespeare’s home would be valued more heavily as an influencer of his work, and the legitimacy of him as a playwright. There must be leeway for a greater acceptance of context in order for human rights as text to be properly evaluated. 

There must also be the acknowledgment of individual identity projection placed on the evaluation of the rhetoric of the human rights texts, because at the very least what we believe to be important when interacting with the text may not be the same if we were raised in a different culture (and this culture would shift the way that the individual identifies him or herself). 





Comments