Discussion Question for Maldonado’s “Rhetorical Rumors, Hauntology in International Feminicidio Discourse” (Kelci Barton)
Maldonado focuses on the consecutive murders of two bus drivers in Ciudad Juárez and even more specifically on a fake confession to them by Dianalacazadoradechoferes (henceforth referred to as “Diana”). He covers Gloria Castrillón’s recontextualization of the rumor of Diana, coming to the conclusion that “the belief and credence that a hero is defending women’s lives has a rhetorical force that can emerge for several purposes – from raising the spirits of a public that has learned to live in the omnipresence of death to turning the public’s attention away from the fact that more women continue to face deadly rape culture” (393). Do you agree with this recontextualization? Would the belief of the presence of a hero really raise the spirits of that community – especially when it includes more death adding on top of that already “omnipresence of death”? Could it really turn the public’s attention away if the reasoning for that justice/defense is so explicitly tied to it?
Discussion Questions for Maldonado’s “Abject Bodies, Obsessive Desires, and the Normalization of Death and Violence” (Kelci Barton)
1. One of the major focuses of Maldonado’s essay is the “entanglement between suggestive images of women’s bodies and disgusting images of murdered, mutilated men,” which repeatedly connects pleasure and pain to make pain more pleasurable/palatable, but also to make pleasure more painful by perpetuating rape culture. Do you think that this is relatively exclusive to Latin America (specifically regarding Mexican tabloids given the circumstances of the country at the time this was written), or do you think it’s a wider-spread?
a. Here in America, mainstream media will often not show such graphic images; rather, if we do choose to consume them, it is often mostly voluntarily through social media or personal searching. Do you think this means that we’re exempt from these sorts of connections between pleasure and pain? (Note: I don’t necessarily mean the contribution to the normalization of military and paramilitary violence in public life since it is much less prevalent in the U.S.; rather, we could focus more on other types of violence, such as rape culture, police brutality, public shootings, etc.)
2. Maldonado cites Jennifer Rome as arguing that “the injured male body reveals certain social truths,” which includes “male bodies that are at risk…precarious…[and] abject. These bodies violate society’s expectations of what a ‘normal’ and ‘able’ man looks like, demonstrating a purported crisis in masculinity.” He revisits the idea of “male bodies that are abject” in his Findings section, where he cites Julia Kristeva as saying “the corpse…is the utmost abjection.” This is easily drawn to the corpses that are shown on the Mexican tabloids, but do you see any connection here to the two murdered bus drivers from Maldonado’s other piece – even if they aren’t visually seen as the ones on the tabloids are? (I couldn’t find any evidence of whether or not their pictures had been shown.)
Discussion Questions for Mudiwa & VanHaitsma Dissertations (Al Blanchard)
1. What are the key features that make a “history of rhetoric” distinctively a rhetorical work rather than a work from some other field (e.g., cultural studies, literature, feminism, anthropology, or even a straightforward work of history)? Since rhetoric exists in all disciplines, is it perhaps a key feature of a history of rhetoric dissertation that it can be easily transformed into a work from another discipline with minimal editing? How easily could Mudiwa’s and VanHaitsma’s dissertations become works from another discipline?
2. In a technical dissertation, there’s typically a section called “nomenclature” where variables are defined (the nomenclature section for my technical dissertation is on page viii here: https://alanblanchardphd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Blanchard-Dissertation-1996.pdf ). Generally speaking, the nomenclature section is intended to help the reader with new terms – it’s an aid that removes confusion. With a dissertation such as Mudiwa’s that’s rich with African terms, should her dissertation have had a “nomenclature-like” section that defined these terms, perhaps a glossary at the end? Would that have helped you as a reader? Should most non-tech dissertations (and non-tech research in general) have such an element? Why or why not? Or was VanHaitsma’s approach in Chap 1 of grouping definitions in a narrative format sufficient?
3. In Mudiwa’s dissertation, fragments of theory are distributed throughout her work similar to assembly line parts delivered in a “just in time” logistical system; i.e., theory fragments (Bakhtin, Ahmed, Jasinksi, etc.) are delivered to support the analysis at specific, germane points in the assembly of her dissertation. What are the advantages/disadvantages of this approach? Do you prefer this approach or a more in-depth, dedicated “theory section” that consolidates theories and discusses their advantages/limitations and interplay a la Chap 1 of VanHaitsma?
4. Returning to the comparison with a technical dissertation (sorry, not sorry – I find the parallels intriguing), there’s typically an “error analysis” section in a tech dissertation that tells the reader how good the data/conclusions are and potential issues with the experimental apparatus that gathered/produced the data (this is Chap 6 “Experimental Sensitivities” in my dissertation). In a history of rhetoric dissertation, the author is the experimental apparatus selecting and rejecting data – a filtering process that reflects bias/positionality. There’s a duality of the non-tech researcher as both experimental apparatus (data filter) and analyst that’s not as dominant with tech research. Graphically, it looks something like this:
With respect to the “data filter” role, is simply stating an author’s position sufficient to define the “error” in a history of rhetoric dissertation (Mudiwa positions herself as a ‘dutiful daughter’ [24-5])? Should a discussion of the data/sources rejected also be included somehow so the reader can understand how the author’s bias/position manifests itself? Should the author also offer alternative interpretations of the data presented and why those interpretations were rejected? Bottom line: what is the ethical duty of an author to define how “good” their research/narrative/conclusions are, and should this be a part of a history of rhetoric dissertation?
5. From a methods standpoint, Mudiwa covers a lot of ground: from archival research to interviews to anthropologist Gregory Bateson’s “thick descriptions” based on her immersion in the market/club scenes to close reading of cultural texts. Which methods were the most/least successful for you and why? Is weaving a multi-method approach something that you’d consider for your own research? Why or why not? If so, what methods appeal to you?