Huett Allegory: The Spin 2010

There is something I must request of you before you continue on down the page reading, just that you
must be open for an alternative way of evaluation. The inability to pursue more than one method of
evaluation through rhetoric, cause oppression and only by using invitational logic (alternative evaluation)
can we solve

Foss and Griffen 1995 (Sonja, associate professor of Communication Studies at Ohio State, Cindy,
assistant professor of Speech Communication at Colorado State, “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for
Invitational Rhetoric, Communication Monographs, March)Professor of Speech Communication, University
of Denver, HC)
The introduction of invitational rhetoric to the array of rhetorical forms available also serves a greater
heuristic, Traditional theories of rhetoric occur within preimposed or preconceived
inventive function than rhetoric previously has allowed.

frameworks that are reflexive and reinforce the vocabularies and tenets of those frameworks. In rhetoric in which the rhetor

as a result, the idea stays lodged within the

seeks to impose change on others, an idea is adapted to the audience or is presented in ways that will be most persuasive to the audience;

confines of the rhetorical system in which it was framed. The Other may challenge the idea but only within the confines of the framework of the dispute already established.

inventive potential of rhetoric is restricted as the interaction converts the idea to the experience required
by the framework. Invitational rhetoric, on the other hand, aims at converting experience “to one of the
many views which are indeterminately possible” (Holmberg, 1977, p. 237). As a result, much is open in invitational
rhetoric that is not in traditional rhetorics— the potential of the audiences to contribute to the generation of ideas is enhanced, the means used to present ideas are not those that limit the ideas to what is

The privileging of inventions in

most persuasive for the audience, the view of the kind of environment that can be created in the interaction is expanded, and the ideas that can be considered multiply.

invitational rhetoric allows for the development of interpretations, perspectives, courses of actions, and
solutions to problems different from those allowed in traditional models of rhetoric. Rather than the discovery of how
to make a case, invitational rhetoric employs invention to discover more cases, a process Daly (1984) describes as one of
creating “an atmosphere in which further creativity may flourish … [w]e become breathers/creators of free space . We are windy, stirring the
stagnant spaces with life” (p. 18). The inclusion of an invitational rhetoric in the array of rhetorics available suggests the need to revise and expand rhetorical constructs of various kinds to take into account the nature and function of this form. Invitational rhetoric
suggests, for example, that the traditional view of the audience as an opponent ought to be questioned. It challenges the traditional conception of the notion of rhetorical strategies as means to particular ends in that in invitational rhetoric, the means constitute the

It suggests the need for a new schema of ethics to fit interactional goals other than inducement of
ends.

others to adherence to the rhetor’s own beliefs. Finally, invitational rhetoric provides a mode of communication for women and other marginalized groups to use in their efforts to transform
systems of domination and oppression. At first glance, invitational rhetoric may seem to be incapable of resisting and transforming oppressive systems such as patriarchy because the most it seems able to do is to create a space in which representatives of an
oppressive system understand a different—in this case, a feminist—perspective but do not adopt it. Although invitational rhetoric is not designed to create a specific change, such as the transformation of systems of oppression into ones that value and nurture

Invitational rhetoric may resist an oppressive system simply because it models an

individuals, it may produce such an outcome.

alternative to the system by being “itself an Other way of thinking/speaking” (Daly, 1978, p. xiii)—it presents an
alternative feminist vision rooted in affirmation and respect and thus shows how an alternative looks and
works. Invitational rhetoric thus may transform an oppressive system precisely because it does not engage
that system on its own terms, using arguments developed from the system’s framework or orientation.
Such arguments usually are co-opted by the dominant system (Ferguson, 1984) and provide the impetus “to strengthen, refine, and embellish the original edifice,”

Invitational rhetoric, in contrast, enables rhetors to disengage from the dominance and
entrenching the system further (Johnson, 1989, pp. 16-17).

mastery so common to a system of oppression and to create a reality of equality and mutuality in its place, allowing for

not available within the familiar, dominant framework.

options and possibilities

1. The assignment allows for an increase in disciplinary power, because it doesn’t performativly resist

A) School functions as a disciplinary society

Hardt and Negri elaborate (Empire)

Disciplinary society is that society in which social command is constructed through a diffuse network of
dispositifs or apparatuses that produce and regulate customs, habits, and productive practices. Putting this
society to work and ensuring obedience to its rule and its mechanisms of inclusion and/or exclusion are
accomplished through disciplinary institutions ( , the factory, the asylum, the hospital, the university, the school, and so forth)
the prison

that structure the social terrain and present logics adequate to the "reason" of discipline. Disciplinary
power rules in effect by structuring the parameters and limits of thought and practice, sanctioning and
prescribing normal and/or deviant behaviors. Foucault generally refers to the ancient régime and the classical age of French civilization to illustrate
the emergence of disciplinarily, but more generally we could say that the entire first phase of capitalist accumulation (in Europe and elsewhere) was conducted under this
paradigm of power. We should understand the society of control, in contrast, as that society (which develops at the far edge of modernity and opens toward the postmodern) in
. The
which mechanisms of Command become ever more "democratic," ever more immanent to the social field, distributed throughout the brains and bodies of the citizens
behaviors of social integration and exclusion proper to rule are thus increasingly interiorized within the
subjects themselves.

B) Performative resistance solves

Only by performativly resisting, can we reconstitute the power enacted over us

Kulynych 97 [Professor of Political Science at Winthrop University, Performing Politics: Foucault,

Habermas, and Postmodern Participation, 1997, Vol. 30, Number 2, http://www.jstor.org/pss/3235221]
Huett Allegory: The Spin 2010
Performative resistance does not eliminate power and it is not effected in the name of some subjugated
agency, but rather its purpose is disruption and re-creation. It is a reoccurring disruption that ensures an
endless reconstitution of power. Disciplinary technologies effect the internalization of norms—a removal
from view of the mechanisms that create us as subjects, making our identities self-evident. Resistance
brings those norms back into an arena of contestation. By its very existence resistance ensures
resistibility, which is the very thing internalized norms are designed to suppress. In other words, resistance
is not undertaken as a protest against the subjugation of a reified ideal subject, but rather resistance, as
the action of thoroughly constructed subjects, reveals the contingency of both subjectivity and subjection

C) Written language in modern linguistics is seen as the end game of study, what we say has meaning, but
as Chomsky has noted, written language is the start of it all. Therefore, the best way to performativly
resist isn’t via discourse, though this is a way to do this, but rather is via written language. The allegory
assignment bites into the harms of this criticism, meaning you reject its weighing. This is because the
assignment searched for some kind of ‘truth’, but by adding rules it fails

Johnston 99 (Ian, Research Associate, Vancouver Island U, "There's Nothing Nietzsche Couldn't Teach Ya About the Raising of the Wrist".
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/nietzs.htm)SLS
Aristotle maintains that there is a way of discovering and appealing to some authority outside any particular game in order to
In other words,
adjudicate moral and knowledge claims which arise in particular games or in conflicts between different games. Plato, of course, also believed in the existence of such a standard, but proposed a different route to discovering it. Now Nietzsche emphatically denies this

Anyone who tries to do what Aristotle recommends is simply inventing another game (we can call it Super-sport) and is not discovering
possibility.

anything true about the real nature of games because reality (that's the wilderness surrounding us) isn't organized as a game. In fact, he
argues, that we have created this recreational complex and all the activities which go on in it to protect ourselves from nature (which is indifferent
to what we do with our lives), not to copy some recreational rule book which that wilderness reveals. Human culture exists as an affirmation of our opposition to or contrast with nature, not as an extension of rules which
If we think of the wilderness as
include both human culture and nature. That's why falsehoods about nature might well be a lot more useful than truths, if they enable us to live more fully human lives.
a text about reality, as the truth about nature, then, Nietzsche claims, we have no access whatsoever to that text. What we do have is access to conflicting

There is
interpretations, none of them based on privileged access to a "true" text. Thus, the soccer players may think they and their game is superior to rugby and the rugby players, because soccer more closely represents the surrounding wilderness, but such statements about better and worse are irrelevant.

nothing rule bound outside the games themselves. Hence, all dogmatic claims about the truth of all games or any particular game are
false.

D) The analysis from Johnston said that appealing to an authority outside of the game is the creation of a new game, but I’m
appealing to one inside the game. I am doing this because we are obligated to critique social institution, so if you disregard all of
this, you justify Otherization, because no checks on displinary power is hell

Foucault gives us the burden

The real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent,
to criticize and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself
obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them. This critique and this fight seem essential to
me for different reasons: firstly, because political power goes much deeper than one suspects; there are
centres and invisible, little-known points of support; its true resistance, its true solidity is perhaps where
one doesn’t expect it.. And second, because this domination is not simply the expression in political
terms of exploitation, it is its instrument and, to a large extent, the condition which makes it possible; the
suppression of the one is achieved through the exhaustive discernment of the other.

E) The grade: At this point, the writing style, and the logical outlay of this assignment, justify a high
grade, because I have met the purpose of the assignment. The purpose, through my extensive
interpretation, was to allow us to creatively anyalize and associate Classical Rome to something we can
understand. I have critically analyzed the assignment, meaning that you evaluate the weighing coming
off of this, before you substantively analyze the core of the assignment

Answer To: This is ridiculous/No way I’m going to take it seriously/How can this change
anything/You just want to get a good grade

1. This isn’t ridiculous, there is no way people that are professers at Harvard and Yale would spend their
time talking about something that is dumb
2. You choosing not to evaluate this, is unfair to education. Think how long it took me to find all of this
evidence to support, I have an extensive knowledge of everything I wrote, and I feel passionately about it
3. It will change something
Purchase 1990 writes . (Graham, Teaches in the Department of Traditional and modem Philosophy at
the University of Sydney. "Anarchist Society & Its Practical Realization P. Electronic)
Huett Allegory: The Spin 2010
Revolution is a complex social phenomenon that is born of the people and which is a natural part of the
biological and social evolution. Although centuries of oppression, injustice and stupidity have slowly
prepared the ground for revolution, revolution represents an accelerated social evolutionary process and
involves the rapid modification of outdated social, political, economic, and ecological structures.
Revolution is nessicary only for a spark from one person, to light the blaze the follow

4. Non-unique, even if I want a good grade I still change things which means I never bite into the harms
‘