This art icle was downloaded by: [ Dr Erin J. Rand] On: 25 August 2013, At : 06: 33 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Western Journal of Communication Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion informat ion: ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ rwj c20 Queer Critical Rhetoric Bites Back Erin J. Rand a a Depart ment of Communicat ion and Rhet orical St udies , Syracuse Universit y To cite this article: Erin J. Rand (2013) Queer Crit ical Rhet oric Bit es Back, West ern Journal of Communicat ion, 77:5, 533-537 To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 10570314.2013.799285 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Western Journal of Communication Vol. 77, No. 5, October–December 2013, pp. 533–537 Queer Critical Rhetoric Bites Back Downloaded by [Dr Erin J. Rand] at 06:33 25 August 2013 Erin J. Rand Queer critical rhetoric queers rhetorical theory, disrupting easy delineations of theory, criticism, and the archive. Privileging the unpredictable innovation of queer movement, queer critical rhetoric builds upon rhetorical traditions even as it challenges the normative logics by which the rhetorical canon is assembled, preserved, and deployed. Keywords: Archive; Critical Rhetoric; Queer; Rhetorical Theory My approach to the question that drives this special issue takes a queer path. That is, rather than coming at it head on, I want to move obliquely, suggesting that our response to this inquiry ultimately depends on how we choose to define and enforce theory’s penetrability, where we draw the boundaries of the criticism that critical rhetoric can do, and how we understand the role of the archive in relation to both theory and criticism. The phrasing of our prompt—‘‘What is the theory-building obligation of critical rhetoric?’’—already presumes the separation of the critical from the theoretical, wherein critical work may draw from, apply, and perhaps (‘‘perhaps’’ being the operative word) build upon existing theory. Thus, according to this formulation, practices of criticism may—and, depending on how we answer the question, may even be obliged to—investigate or alter their own theoretical bases or the archives from which they arise, but they do not necessarily or inherently do so. In the interest of advocating for queer critical rhetoric’s crucial theoretical implications, then, I suggest that how we delineate the proper terrains of theory, criticism, and the archive can and does influence our perceptions of critical rhetoric’s contributions to theory. I want to emphasize that the inclusions and exclusions of theory, the separation of criticism from theory, and the maintenance of the contours of the archive are never politically disinterested or neutral, but rather all serve Erin J. Rand (PhD, University of Iowa) is an Assistant Professor of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Syracuse University. The author thanks Bill Eadie, Valerie Renegar, and all the forum participants for making this conversation possible. Correspondence to: Erin J. Rand, Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, Syracuse University, 100 Sims Hall, Bldg. V, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA. E-mail: ejrand@syr.edu ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) # 2013 Western States Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2013.799285 Downloaded by [Dr Erin J. Rand] at 06:33 25 August 2013 534 E. J. Rand normative functions for the field. And like all things normative, rhetorical theory maintains its flexible and consistent power precisely by not announcing, and at times by explicitly denying, its heteronormative foundations—by taking on the guise of the noncontroversial, the nonpolitical, the self-evident. Thus, I propose that for queer rhetorical scholars, the most pressing question may not be whether our work is obligated to build theory, but whether the theory-building work of our critical scholarship will be recognized as such. That is, can queer rhetorical studies appear to the various gatekeepers of the field as making potentially radical theoretical interventions, or must it always be contained as ‘‘merely’’ queer criticism, caricatured by the most hackneyed lamentations of homophobic discourse that are as self-evident as they are easily ignored? And will the efforts of ‘‘archival queers’’ to transform and redeploy the archive consistently be defanged when they are read as merely supplementing the limitations of the traditional canon (Morris, ‘‘Archival Queer’’ 147)? This is not an apologia for a ‘‘pure’’ criticism that engages only in cultural critique, with no responsibility to contribute to theoretical conversations in the field; nor is it simply to claim that the critical and theoretical cannot or should not be distinguished. Instead, I am suggesting that certain practices of queer critical rhetoric necessarily also engage in theory-building. To turn the lens of one’s analysis toward those rhetors or those discourses that traditionally have been excluded from serious rhetorical attention or from which the queerness has been excised, is absolutely to make an intervention that is both critical and theoretical. It is additionally to suggest that marginalization is reproduced not just through our own cultural biases, but also through the norms and standards of our field. As Karlyn Kohrs Campbell contended, ‘‘alternative critical and theoretical frameworks’’ must be developed in order to account for the specific characteristics of discourses that have been discounted (her examples are feminist and Black protest rhetorics) within the dominant frame (51). In other words, queer critical rhetoric might examine previously overlooked queer objects, but in doing so, it also reveals the blind spots of analysis—both inadvertent and intentional—and forces a recalibration of theories that previously have rendered such objects invisible, inconsequential, or irrelevant. Importantly, such an approach has implications that extend beyond queer scholars and queer scholarship to the most basic rhetorical theories and tools of critical rhetoric. When we use those tools in a manner unforeseen or to examine an object unexpected, we may find that the tool itself is also perpetually transformed (read: bent, twisted, converted, recruited, revolutionized, queered) through the encounter. This is the queering of theory. But this is precisely the kind of intervention—where queer critical rhetoric not only enables us to see an object in a new light, but also forces us to reconfigure the very theory that had shaped our view in the first place—that is often denied to queer work. We see queer scholarship labeled and institutionalized through conferences, panels, journals, coursework, etc. as a solely critical rather than theoretical endeavor. For instance, the project of queer rhetorical studies is sometimes described in terms of the recovery of queer voices, just as the project of feminist rhetorical studies has been cast as the recovery of women’s voices, or Chicano=a studies or African American studies as the recovery of the voices of people of color.1 Certainly, Downloaded by [Dr Erin J. Rand] at 06:33 25 August 2013 Western Journal of Communication 535 recovery projects are crucially important, but what appears to be a benign—even complimentary—description of their work can also function as a velvet-gloved chokehold on their reach, allowing the rest of the field to continue blithely on with (heteronormative) business as usual.2 Alyssa Samek and Theresa Donofrio, borrowing a term from Patricia Hill Collins, referred to the ‘‘symbolic inclusion’’ and containment of queer scholarship that occurs in the graduate classroom, when a mere nod to issues of sexuality substitutes for a thorough engagement with the challenges posed by a queer critique (38). They recalled learning about queer work, but not being urged to adjust their own critical praxis to account for its insights; ‘‘under the guise of inclusion,’’ they concluded, ‘‘we engaged in avoidance’’ (40–41). Further, queer contributions to the expansion of the rhetorical archive are often greeted with a kind of well-meaning but stubborn nonrecognition of the stakes of recovery. By understanding the archive as a site only of representation—where what matters is whether all voices are given space and time proportionate to their demographics—we neglect to consider the archive as a space also of invention, a space of theory production (Biesecker, ‘‘Of Historicity’’ 124). As such, even the most ostensibly welcoming and accessible of forums often enact a stunning willingness to miss the point of queer rhetoric, to view its purpose as purely critical or its archival work as merely additive, thereby taking the teeth out of what might be a radically queer torsion of theory.3 The apparent warm embrace of difference in which this kind of dismissive gesture is often cloaked, what Barbara Biesecker has referred to as the ‘‘affirmative action agenda,’’ obscures the fact that queer inclusion in the rhetorical canon is contingent on maintaining heteronormative structures of exclusion at the level of theory (‘‘Coming to Terms’’ 143). It also casts those who would challenge its seeming generosity as ungrateful, angry and argumentative, or too sensitive and critical. Thus, as we consider queer critical rhetoric’s obligation to build theory, I want to end by emphasizing the archive’s rhetorical nature, and the responsibility that we all share in its assemblage and deployment. As Chuck Morris insisted, ‘‘Queer applications of consignation and genealogy are meant for rhetorical studies generally, not merely for those engaged in queer critical labor; or, put differently, all critics should be engaged in queer critical labor.’’ To do so, he suggested we ‘‘fan our wanderlust and hit the road,’’ since ‘‘the archive’s promise as an inventional wellspring is inextricably linked to queer movement’’ (‘‘Richard Halliburton’s Bearded Tales’’ 141–42; ‘‘Archival Queer’’ 147–48). The particular form, quality, and direction of queer movement is invigorated but not prescribed by the ‘‘(re)turn’’ to the archive. For instance, Dan Brouwer asked how we might ‘‘do more than remember the AIDS archive—how might we animate it, use it, participate in it?’’ and suggested that building relations to archives activates them as ‘‘sources for invention and action in the particular circumstances of our todays’’ (116). Similarly, Alexandra Juhasz described ‘‘queer archive activism’’ as ‘‘a practice that adds love and hope to time and technology’’ (326). For her, archival media is a means not just to remember images of AIDS and activism, but to live pieces of the past in the present, to ‘‘relodge those frozen memories in contemporary contexts so that they, and perhaps we, can be reanimated’’ (320). Meanwhile, other scholars queer the archive through its Downloaded by [Dr Erin J. Rand] at 06:33 25 August 2013 536 E. J. Rand very logics of inclusion. For example, one of the innovations of Lauren Berlant’s Queen of America is its analysis of the ‘‘silly objects’’ of everyday communication. As Marita Sturken explained, this alternative archive redefines national citizenship, and Berlant’s analysis ‘‘both takes these ‘silly’ objects seriously and deploys them as elements of a deep critique of national culture’’ (361). Following Berlant’s lead, Judith Halberstam offered a ‘‘silly archive’’ constructed of ‘‘the small, the inconsequential, the antimonumental, the micro, the irrelevant’’ (21). These texts, Halberstam contended, ‘‘do not make us better people or liberate us from the culture industry, but they might offer strange and anticapitalist logics of being and acting and knowing, and they will harbor covert and overt queer worlds’’ (20–21). Significantly, one’s course through this archive is meandering and a bit off kilter; as Halberstam put it, ‘‘We will wander, improvise, fall short, and move in circles. We will lose our way, our cars, our agenda, and possibly our minds, but in losing we will find another way of making meaning . . . ’’ (25). I offer this example of the silly archive not because I think it is the only or even the most promising direction for queer rhetorical studies; rather, I suggest it because it represents a peculiar kind of movement—not forward, exactly, and certainly not straight ahead on a clear route, but movement into a place and time that is unfamiliar and unforeseeable. It disrupts easy delineations of theory, criticism, and the archive, and while it may build upon rhetorical traditions, it is disloyal to the preservation of the rhetorical canon. Acknowledging the bite of queer critical rhetoric, then, is to admit that queer scholarship is less likely to act as a patch on rhetorical studies’ mantel of inclusivity, and more likely to reveal the ‘‘remnants of alternative possibilities’’ that have been violently cut out of the field’s past and present (Halberstam 19). To truly speak of building theory through queer critical rhetoric means coming to terms not just with queer objects or queer criticism, but with the unpredictable innovation of queer movement. Notes [1] [2] [3] For one example relevant to this forum, see: Stephen John Hartnett’s ‘‘Communication, Social Justice, and Joyful Commitment,’’ in Western Journal of Communication. To be sure, Hartnett praises the efforts of scholars who have tried to ‘‘help readers to reimagine democracy by including forgotten or silenced voices in our national dialogue,’’ and he acknowledges that this project cannot be merely additive but must also ‘‘deconstruct existing paradigms’’ and reconsider ‘‘what kinds of documents we consider as evidence and what modes of analysis we use to address them’’ (77). Unfortunately, recovery projects are also notoriously inept at dealing with intersectionality; all too frequently the queer voices recovered are male, the women’s voices are middle class, and the voices of people of color are straight. Thus, offering up a set of recovered voices to correct for one kind of exclusion may inadvertently bolster another. Another variation of this problem occurs when conference panels, edited collections, syllabi, etc., are consistently organized in a manner that highlights queerness as a common topic but undercuts the potentially wide-ranging interventions of queer scholarship by isolating it from relevant theoretical conversations. Thus corralled (admittedly, amongst excellent company), queer scholars appear to be speaking only to one another, their insights seemingly inconsequential to scholarship that does not explicitly engage discourses of sexuality. Western Journal of Communication 537 As Samek and Donofrio explained, sometimes queer critical rhetoric is presented as just another lens of analysis, thus ‘‘position[ing] the choice to ignore queer scholarship as one of inventional preference.’’ The upshot of this ‘‘choice’’ is that ‘‘liberal scholars are able to avoid doing queer work while disavowing the political nature of such avoidance’’ (47). Downloaded by [Dr Erin J. Rand] at 06:33 25 August 2013 Works Cited Berlant, Lauren. The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex and Citizenship. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997. Biesecker, Barbara. ‘‘Coming to Terms with Recent Attempts to Write Women into the History of Rhetoric.’’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 25.2 (1992): 140–61. ———. ‘‘Of Historicity, Rhetoric: The Archive as Scene of Invention.’’ Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9.1 (2006): 124–31. Brouwer, Daniel C. ‘‘Activating the AIDS Archive.’’ Quarterly Journal of Speech 98.1 (2012): 109–17. Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. ‘‘Consciousness-Raising: Linking Theory, Criticism, and Practice.’’ RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly 32.1 (2002): 45–64. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, 2009. Halberstam, Judith. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011. Hartnett, Stephen John. ‘‘Communication, Social Justice, and Joyful Commitment.’’ Western Journal of Communication 74.1 (2010): 68–93. Juhasz, Alexandra. ‘‘Video Remains: Nostalgia, Technology, and Queer Archive Activism.’’ GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 12.2 (2006): 319–28. Morris, Charles E. III. ‘‘Archival Queer.’’ Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9.1 (2006): 145–51. ———. ‘‘Richard Halliburton’s Bearded Tales.’’ Quarterly Journal of Speech 95.2 (2009): 123–47. Samek, Alyssa A., and Theresa A. Donofrio. ‘‘ ‘Academic Drag’ and the Performance of the Critical Personae: An Exchange on Sexuality, Politics, and Identity in the Academy.’’ Women’s Studies in Communication 36.1 (2013): 28–55. Sturken, Marita. ‘‘Feeling the Nation, Mining the Archive: Reflections on Lauren Berlant’s Queen of America.’’ Communication and Critical=Cultural Studies 9.4 (2012): 353–64.