Crowley 1
It seems that the carnival has started.
What follows will sound critical of Sharon Crowley’s new book Toward a Civil Discourse. Since I find Crowley to be one of the best critics of composition studies, and since I have much respect and admiration for her work, I note that this is not a critique, but a type of response. I’m not dismissive of an important look at fundamentalism, but I’m troubled by some of the text’s generalizations, inability to move outside of a very aggressive distaste for the object of study, and weak conclusion.
One problem is the conflation of religious zeal and what I call “celebritacy.” Crowley showcases many of the dominant figures in American Christian fundamentalism; as she should - they proliferate the appeal under discussion. Still, there is a distinction between someone who believes in a fundamentalism (i.e. someone who is interpellated into that state) and someone who passes on that belief. Whether Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or LaHaye and Jenkens (the writers of the Left Behind books) believe in this zeal or not is never clear. What is clear is that the entertainment aspect of fundamentalism is profitable. Unlike Islamic fundamentalism’s entertainment-ish side (which differs greatly from its American cousin), Christian fundamentalism - and the conservative right it aligns with - have dominant entertainment figures. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity make a very good living. So does Jerry Falwell (including his role as a TV star). What does it matter if they believe what they say or not? Others follow their words! Understood. But the issue then is with the rhetorical production generated via the celebrity figure, not the celebrity figure. The process, in other words, is more important than the fetish figure who participates in this process. The same for religious production. To place emphasis on Left Behind is only important in the sense that the series generates “mythic roles” (as McLuhan notes) for people to live out. To quote the writers of these books as de facto adherents to the fundamentalism can be problematic if we don’t recognize that the writers are entertainers. The affective nature of the writing matters greatly, particularly for how it is generated out of entertainment culture. I worry at times, though, that Crowley places too much emphasis on the figures. I would say the same for Fox News or whatever “conservative” red herring is thrown out there. Conservativism, too, has become celebrity-based in American politics, but that is another discussion.
As I read through the text, I also wanted to hear more about how fundamentalism has learned how to turn “liberalism” and multiculturalism back on itself. If multiculturalism’s argument is to allow divergent views and beliefs, then it has to allow for fundamentalism. Oops! Inclusivity is dangerous. This is what intelligent design has done so well. Advocates for intelligent design are using the language of multiculturalism to justify the idea’s teaching.
The same for democracy, right? Aren’t the fundamentalists merely taking advantage of the democratic opportunities afforded them? That they will undermine this system later on shouldn’t matter; they are enjoying the rights to run for office like any other group. They get elected. They can change the laws. Isn’t that what we allow? The principle of democracy as opposed to its specifics?
Well, no. Neither case is that simple. And this is why the election of Hamas (an Islamic fundamentalism) is equally problematic. Hamas, on the other hand, has been apologized for by the American and European Left (”Hamas is the legitimate winner of the election and thus the world must deal with the organization. In a democracy you have to allow for the bad as well as the good.”) Not exactly. And Crowley does not accept that premise when it comes to the rise of the Christian right. In Crowley’s disgust with the rise of fundamentalism in American politics, I think she doesn’t spend time complicating this issue in terms of the larger arguments at stake regarding the rhetoric of democracy or equality. Winning an election to then undermine democracy cannot be valued as is. Ethics are not generalized situations. They must be put into context (and by context, I think I mean what Latour calls the social more than what cultural studies might call context). To do that for only one group (Christian fundamentalists) and to not note the phenomenon and problem overall does weaken the text. I say that because I want to think more about fundamentalism within an overall network of relationships.
Regarding the text’s heavy-handed lament over fundamentalist influence, I agree. These people are scary. But so is just about every other fundamentalist group in the world (and by that, I mean more than religion). What is so unique about the Christians? If there are unique features, I think they might be found in economic and political conditions which gave rise to a type of fundamentalism in this country; one that differs and resembles other intolerant movements around the globe (Wahabism, Hamas, Iranian global revolution, etc - though these also differ from another in terms of how they came to be). There is an aside early in the text (I think) that seems to discount the resemblance factor. I do not agree with Crowley on that point. Fundamentalist movements share a lot in common. The conditions which generate the movements often differ; and the exact belief systems differ. But the general patterns of intolerance, the reading of so-called “moral values,” the racism, the desire for global conquest, the promise of a better afterlife, etc. are very similar. What I yearn for here is a discussion regarding the conditions and less an attack on Christian fundamentalism (which is one flavor of a big meal). I found myself questioning the attack - though I share the fears Crowley discusses - because it came off as hatred and not as an unpacking of a rhetorical issue.
A final problem is in the text’s ending. The final appeal sounds like one to reason and rationality. To turn the argument back on the fundamentalists (”if you are against murder, how can you be for capital punishment”) feels weak. If reason was at the heart of the problem of fundamentalism, if logic was the answer, suicide bombings and abortion clinic bombings would not be a reality (Take the term “resistance” as rationale for a suicide bombing. Really? How successful is this resistance then? Forty years? Has it brought positive results for those who suffer? Who is sent to do this work, the uneducated, the young, the least regarded, or the leaders? What are the consequences? etc. Logic can have no affect on the act) .
Indeed, a movement - regarding American fundamentalism - which is based on the entertainment value of celebrity preachers and TV pundits is not going to be swayed by logic (just as the poor and uneducated are not either). Logic is not what drives people to fundamentalism. Affect is (and, of course, the text identifies the role of affect in persuasion). Network theory - or some of its variations in marketing or maybe Latour’s work - seems to show how affect is a continuing process of relationships, not only a persuasive, single moment. While Crowley points to affect in terms of emotional reasoning, the overall conclusions she draws seem shy of the complex relationships which act upon one another in fundamentalism. To emphasize “destabilizing” as the objective seems to minimize the rhetorical complexity at stake.
I’ll leave it at that for now. I’ll jump back in when I can riff off of other participants in the carnival, adjusting and fleshing out my responses more along the way.
[…] (I’m writing this before surfing over to others (Rice, Debbie for start who have started posting. I just wanted to get some basic ideas out before jumping into the mix.) […]
Pingback by Working Blue — April 22, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
[…] These comp/rhet reading carnival things always seem to crop up at the worst time for me. For example, at least Jenny, Jeff, and Debbie Hawhee are into reading Sharon Crowley’s latest book, Towards a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. And of course, they pick now, the end of the term, tons of grading and other last minute projects, to attend to. Sheesh. Well, judging from what they are saying here, it looks like it will be something worth looking at later. […]
Pingback by Steven D. Krause’s Official Blog » Blog Archive » Crowley Carnival, The Wealth of Networks — April 23, 2006 @ 6:43 am
Jeff;
Your post on Crowley’s book brings up a lot of interesting issues. I haven’t read the book, so I am not sure what else is discussed therein. But coincidentally, I read an article recently that reminded me about how Christian Fundamentalism has intervened in medical discourse - especially in the area of women’s health, which is linked to liberal feminist practices. That might be one major place where fundamentalism has turned liberalism back on itself - in large part through the deployment of the “family” (and although I use Foucault’s concept, I don’t mean necessarily to bring Foucault into it). In terms of contemporary American society, your astute observation that ” Ethics are not generalized situations. They must be put into context (and by context, I think I mean what Latour calls the social more than what cultural studies might call context)” seems like it could be especially relevant here. Also, I have recently been working on a paper on AIDS art activism, I have been reading a lot of texts that attempt to deconstruct just how fundamentalism has “used” liberalism and multi-culturalism against themselves. It’s a fascinating - if scary - contemporary (and, I think, uniquely Western) situation.
/Sarah
Comment by sarah — April 24, 2006 @ 7:04 am
Wow. This must be how it feels to be reviewed in the New York Times. Three points in rebuttal to your interesting post: I agree that all voices must be heard in a democracy; this is precisely why I worry about the the widely published agenda of the Christian Right, which if successful electorally will deny free speech to many Americans. This is also why I never argue in the book that fundamentalist rhetoric should be censored or silenced, as your post may imply. Rather, I hope that those who oppose this agenda can find civil means of dissuading those who carry it out. Please note as well that I oppose the political agenda rather than the theology. Second: I agree that academics’ distaste for fundamentalist theology and politics is a class issue in part; beliefs are absorbed from the communities with which a believer identifies. But as a rhetorician I have to believe that people can gain different perspectives on the world when they join different communities; this is NOT to say that people lose their native beliefs wholly or in part when they begin to identify with new communities. I was born and raised in a red state and now live and teach in another red state; theoretically, then, I can identify with, or, minimally, can be aware of, several belief systems as I encounter these, say, in conversations with my students. Skeptics are less viscerally identified with the belief systems they do accept than are fundamentalists, although notable exceptions to this are probably liberalism and class affinity. Finally: I do not hate fundamentalists. I AM afraid of the agenda mounted by their leaders, and, celebrities or not, those leaders have been extrememely successful in gaining adherents who are willing to vote their candidates and their proposals into office and into law. So here’s a question for you: how does celebrity status disqualify someone, say, James Dobson, as an effective rhetor? Or am I misreading your argument?
Aspasia
Comment by Aspasia — April 24, 2006 @ 10:23 am
In a recent an interview appearing
Deleted because this comment was already posted here.
Please don’t replicate comments as if they were spam.
Comment by gvcarterw — April 24, 2006 @ 10:34 am
Hi Sharon
What I mean by the “hatred” point is that I feel that your distaste for the fundamentalists (which, btw, I share) overpowers parts of the argument you are building. What that does is limit an exploration of the specific rhetorical conditions that give rise to the American version of fundamentalism. Instead, there is a repeated refrain of how awful these folks are.
To one other point (for now):
“celebrities or not, those leaders have been extremely successful in gaining adherents” and, of course, agreed. They are successful; I don’t debate that. What I am trying to work with, however, is instead of placing the focus on the rhetor (the celebrity, let’s say) whose so-called rhetorical stance is being shaped by conditions and practices dictated by entertainment culture more than by belief or position, I want to work to understand those very conditions and practices and the roles they play in rhetorical exchange. I think that is different from the argument you are presenting in the book, which is more of a warning and then plea to fix the situation than an exploration. Again, that is not to say I disagree with you (I don’t) but I am trying to further think through a situation I find more complex than merely theological persuasion.
Comment by jrice — April 24, 2006 @ 10:55 am
[…] I continue to think about Sharon’s argument about the relationships among belief, affect, identity, and affinity. It’s this last topos that I started thinking about when reading Sharon’s response to Jeff’s post. She writes: “[A]s a rhetorician I have to believe that people can gain different perspectives on the world when they join different communities; this is NOT to say that people lose their native beliefs wholly or in part when they begin to identify with new communities. I was born and raised in a red state and now live and teach in another red state; theoretically, then, I can identify with, or, minimally, can be aware of, several belief systems as I encounter these, say, in conversations with my students. Skeptics are less viscerally identified with the belief systems they do accept than are fundamentalists, although notable exceptions to this are probably liberalism and class affinity.” […]
Pingback by Working Blue — April 24, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
Thanks for the response and the elaborations, Jeff. I get your point about celebrity, now (duh). And your point about tone is well taken. You should have seen some earlier drafts. No, on second thought . . .
Aspasia
Comment by Aspasia — April 24, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Wondering if anyone has read The Book of Jerry Falwell, written by anthropologist Susan Harding. I have not read Crowley’s book, so I don’t know if this text is cited or present in the bibliography, but I’m just curious how much interdisciplinary research and cross-reading is going on…
Comment by RL — April 24, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
I’ve read SH’s book, and it’s terrific. All about affect and rhetoric, though she never uses either term. I see harding’s book in the works cited. i also believe i heard sharon say that she had read it. First thing that came to my mind, too! Harding’s book is just great.
Comment by jenny — April 24, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Cool! Thanks for confirmation. Yes, great book, and the subtitle does emphasize language,which is one of the the things that drew my attention, but you’re right, affect and rhetoric are not mentioned.
Comment by RL — April 26, 2006 @ 10:25 am
I’m really late joining the carnival, but if anyone is still interested, my comments are here.
Comment by Chris Geyer — May 2, 2006 @ 9:49 am