Rethinking rhetorical ontology: an intersection between the work of James Arnt Aune and Bruno Latour in the field of rhetoric.
Author | Lockhart, Eleanor Amaranth |
"The Technocracy brethren were certainly very badly advised when they put no flavoring matter into their dose." H.L. Mencken (1933, p. 505)
"... the current 'poverty of strategy' on the Left has something to do with the rejection of a tradition [rhetoric] that emphasized the study and practice of strategic discourse." J.A. Aune (1994, p. 5)
When coming to terms with the legacy of James Amt Aune, I am struck by the extent to which Aune's thinking was almost constantly operating on multiple levels--the argumentative, the material, the practical. Aune engages economics in discussion of substantive questions in a way that rhetorical scholars rarely engage with texts. Aune's work breaks from the rhetorical mold in that it often engages directly with the material--one of the elements that marked Aune as a self-described "old fashioned Marxist" (Aune, 2001, xiii-xiv) or Marxist materialist. My contention in this paper will be that Aune's work reflects assumptions consistent with science studies and ANT's ontology, and that a similar ontological turn in rhetoric will help us make sense of Aune's writings about economics, as well as to better cope with topics including but not limited to economic theory and practice, climate science, gender, and anything else where empirical data and non-human objects are part of the conversation.
Before I critically address Aune's work, I want to clarify what I mean by an "ontological" project here. In political science and sociology, recent scholarship has undergone what has been called an "ontological turn," which is understood in reaction to a perceived division between political and "social" factors and factors related to non-human objects, which can be understood broadly to refer to anything existing in the physical world (including, potentially, the human body, or at least the parts of it which are not "thinking"). This turn is often grounded in the "actor-network theory" (ANT) of Bruno Latour, a scholar whose work is largely classified as part of "science studies," a branch of sociology interested primarily in observing the scientific method. However, scholars in the social sciences who focus on questions explicitly outside the scientific method--such as conventional political science, anthropology, and even rhetoric--have appropriated ANT's ontology to look at more conventional artifacts in a context that includes non-humans and scientific evidence.
In this essay I examine Aune's economic scholarship as an instance of two important divergences from the rhetorical norm: its focus upon non-human objects that are hard (unlike, for instance, speeches and other written/spoken texts) to describe as humanistic artifacts; and its use of an ontology which assumes extant, permanent physical reality that remains regardless of its mediation by discourse. I suggest that Aune's methods make similar assumptions and reach similar conclusions to that of "science students" such as Latour, and that when working with Aune's work and with work on similar topics, rhetorical scholars will be well served by acknowledging and working with ANT and with object-oriented ontologies.
AUNE'S MATERIALIST ECONOMICS: MORE THAN MARXIST MATERIALISM?
A trend in Aune's scholarship was the connection of seemingly disparate topics and ideas, having the function of creating histories of ideas at the same time that he was critiquing specific articles of discourse. In Selling the Free Market: the Rhetoric of Economic Correctness, Aune does not merely analyse the discursive strategies used by the American right wing to "sell" unbridled capitalism to the American people--the stated goal of the book--but rather takes readers on a tour de force that gives insight into the economic ontology of libertarians (which he does not believe to be as objective as its proponents would claim). Perhaps most dramatically, Aune makes the case that libertarian theories about "big government" and its effect on politics and discourse parallel similar claims about false consciousness in Marxism, despite libertarianism's frequent claim to reflect a common sense understanding of the world in contrast to the Left's "hermeneutics of suspicion," a trend which Aune critiqued in his previous book Rhetoric & Marxism (1994). This is one example of a pattern in Aune's work of using theories outside their intended context, to prove things other than what their progenitors intended to prove. Aune (2001) wrote that "the purpose of rhetorical criticism is to identify the contradictions in an ideology and thus show opponents of that ideology effective ways to target arguments" (pp. 121-22). While it is clear that Aune meant in part to endorse the goals and methods of materialist Marxism--an approach that he, like his colleague Dana Cloud, took very seriously--Aune's call for rhetoric to be engaged and strategic is both a general endorsement of activist scholarship and a deviation from conventional rhetorical doctrine on the purposes of our field.
Although Aune never wrote about it explicitly, I believe that the concept of technocracy is key to understanding both Aune's nuanced analysis of economic issues, as well as his advocacy for materialist Marxism and against poststructuralism. Specifically, while it would likely be inappropriate to term Aune a "technocrat," his work acknowledges the benefits of technocratic authority (Akin 1977; Stabile 1984), of which his peers in the rhetorical field have often been (justifiably) suspicious. Technocracy is an important rhetorical concept which is not sufficiently attended to in rhetoric, and is not consistently theorized by its proponents (few as they are). The best and most consistent definition of the phenomenon I wish to discuss is found in Stabile (1984): "the desire to sell society on their [experts'] expertise by providing plans for systematically organized devices for the transmission of power in production and in politics" (pp. 2-3). Technocracy is, as Stabile recognizes, both pejorative and a class structure that cannot be accounted for by orthodox Marxism, as technocratic experts--engineers, programmers, scientists, and, yes, to a great degree, career academics--are granted a sort of authority different from both the bourgeoise and the petit...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.