I wasn't sure I was going to write about this. It seems a pretty contentious topic for a public blog, but it's on my mind and, from a detached standpoint, interesting.
A group called "Genocide Awareness Project" have been on my campus the last two days. It's a fascinating rhetorical strategy, really. I mean, who isn't against genocide? So the well-meaning social liberal gets off the shuttle or is walking by the display at the center of campus and thinks, hey, I'll stop by. I want to support an organization that's trying to raise awareness about the horrors of genocide. Our well-meaning social liberal heads toward the demonstration where she sees signs warning her of graphic images of genocide. She pauses, not sure she wants to see that, but wants to support the cause. So she continues on.
And is met with 15-20 feet tall full-color graphic images of aborted fetuses. And mass-graves from the holocaust. And corpses in Rwanda.
This, my friends, is in some regards about genocide but really it just uses genocide to make a pro-life argument. The Genocide Awareness Project, a national organization, equates abortion with genocide. So, of course, our well-meaning social liberal back-pedals it out of there.
It's probably pretty clear from many things I've said here and in the past that I'm pro-choice. That's not what I want to write about. I don't mind a pro-life organization demonstrating on campus. That's fine by me (and you know they were looking for my approval) [an aside: I'm in my office and there is a young woman waiting in the hallway for a conference with another instructor. She's hacking up a lung. A wet lung. I'm scared to breathe.] I do, however, have an issue with this group equating abortion with genocide.
I'm thinking about bringing it up in my persuasive writing class tomorrow. People tend to be nervous talking about race, class, or gender (particularly the first two) in writing courses. I'm mostly fine with that. But abortion? That's touchy territory. I don't want to talk about abortion per se, but about the argument of definition that's going on in this demonstration.
Of course the abortion debate centers around a few different arguments, one of which is the definition of life. Does life begin at conception or at birth? Now we add abortion as genocide to that mix. We could talk, then, about the definition of genocide and whether or not abortion fits that definition. And why this group might use that term in their demonstration.
But, again, tricky territory. I'm wary of this.
There are a group students, though, who are protesting the demonstration, and have been for the last two days. The GAP demonstration is in the center of the T-Hall lawn, a bit back from main street. The pro-choice demonstrators are lined up along main street, holding signs that say "abortion [does not equal] genocide" and "pro-love, pro-family, pro-choice." They're not yelling. They're not shouting. They're not saying anything. They're just standing out in the cold, holding signs, protesting. The rumor is that GAP has lawyers on site and are hoping that the pro-choice demonstrators will get into a physical confrontation so that GAP can sue the school. That's just a rumor though. It may be true, but it certainly may not be. I have no idea. But I sort of love this line of young women and men (and yes, there are men there), a silent line, protesting.
It seems to me that this could be a great way to talk more about invitational rhetoric, rhetorical listening, the rhetorics of silence, and arguments of definition. As an instructor of rhetoric and persuasion, I'm not sure I can resist.
2 comments:
Abby, this is fascinating stuff, both the unspoken assumptions in equating genocide and abortion (isn't there an unspoken postulate or whatever in that enthymeme?) and in the silent protest. Though I agree it's tricky, because everyone gets their knickers in a twist over these issues, this is a great way of showing how rhetoric and argument helps us look at real-life real-world debates and arguments. I'm not sure you can pass it up. Though perhaps in class you can perhaps preface the whole discussion in class by saying that you just want people to see what's being discussed, not to get in a debate about abortion itself. But to talk about how certain catastrophic images are getting used. . .I work in genocide studies and I can tell you that many scholars of the Holocaust, not to mention Holocaust survivors, must be outraged. Just outraged! Who owns those images is another fascinating discussion!
Sorry to monopolize your comments. You totally touched a nerve. Maybe we should backchannel. earnestenglish@gmail.com
I've been thinking this could be useful in class too, but I've decided not to touch it. Good for you if you do-- let me know if anything interesting comes of it.
There are a few items in Friday's and Tuesday's (today's) TNH that would be useful background (please pardon me if you've already seen these, but I figured they'd be helpful)-- in Friday's, there's a commentary called "GAP expectations" written by the Sr. Assistant VP for Student and Academic Services explaining that the event is happening and what the expectations are of the participants (no microphones or bullhorns is one condition). In today's paper, there's a letter from GAP where they directly explain what their goals are. There's also an interesting piece signed by several students (some pro-life, some pro-choice) who are members of different conservative groups on campus-- they're distancing themselves from the GAP business.
Post a Comment