Rhetorical Refusals: Defying Audiences' Expectations

by John Schilb

The first book to explore rhetorical refusals —instances in which speakers and writers deliberately flout the conventions of rhetoric and defy their audiences’ expectations— Rhetorical Refusals: Defying Audiences’ Expectations challenges the reader to view these acts of academic rebellion as worthy of deeper analysis than they are commonly accorded, as rhetorical refusals can simultaneously reveal unspoken assumptions behind the very conventions they challenge, while also presenting new rhetorical strategies. Through a series of case studies, John Schilb demonstrates the deeper meanings contained within rhetorical refusals: when dance critic Arlene Croce refused to see a production that she wrote about; when historian Deborah Lipstadt declined to debate Holocaust deniers; when President Bill Clinton denied a grand jury answers to their questions; and when Frederick Douglass refused to praise Abraham Lincoln unequivocally. Each of these unexpected strategies revealed issues of much greater importance than the subjects at hand . By carefully laying out an underlying framework with which to evaluate these acts, Schilb shows that they can variously point to the undue privilege of authority; the ownership of truth; the illusory divide between public and private lives; and the subjectivity of honor. According to Schilb, rhetorical refusals have the potential to help political discourse become more inventive. To demonstrate this potential, Schilb looks at some notable cases in which invitations have led to unexpected results: comedian Stephen Colbert’s brazen performance at the White House Press Association dinner; poet Sharon Olds’s refusal to attend the White House Book Fair, and activist Cindy Sheehan’s display of an anti-war message at the 2006 State of the Union Address. Rhetorical Refusals explores rhetorical theories in accessible language without sacrificing complexity and nuance, revealing the unspoken implications of unexpected deviations from rhetorical norms for classic political concepts like free debate and national memory. With case studies taken from art, politics, literature, and history, this book will appeal to scholars and students of English, communication studies, and history.

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Rhetorical Refusals, Schilb argues that a certain type of rhetoric, which he calls "rhetorical refusals," has gone largely unstudied and argues that it merits further exploration. He defines a rhetorical refusal as "an act of writing or speaking in which the rhetor pointedly refuses to do what the audience considers rhetorically normal." (3) A rhetorical refusal can be quite explicit or more implicit (3-4) and has three general criteria: it "challenges audience expectations" (4), its "break with protocol is clearly deliberate" (4), and the rhetor "suggests that a higher principle trumps common rhetorical decorum" (5). Though "refusal" often evokes a leftist or progressive politics in the minds of readers, Schilb is clear that rhetorical refusals are used in all sorts of situations by rhetors of various political persuasions, and that each act must be judged in its own context.

Schilb spends Part 1 of his book outlining criteria for evaluating rhetorical refusals. Following Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Shilb sees rhetorical refusals as attempts to get your audience to judge another audience (44-46). In Chapter 2, Shilb outlines various criteria to use in evaluating rhetorical refusals, including style, ethos, genre negotiation, epistemology, and ontological claims. In Chapter 3, he applies these criteria to his test case, Arlene Croce's "review" of Still/Here. In this "review," Croce criticizes "victim art" as not art and states her refusals to see Still/Here, a performance about HIV/AIDS, which she "reviews," though claims she is not reviewing. Ultimately, Shilb finds her argument "dubious" (68) and compares it to successful works that are not rhetorical refusals. While I agree with Shilb's reading, and I think it's wonderfully done, at this point in the book I would have liked to see a more in-depth discussion of a rhetorical refusal that he finds "successful" or not "dubious." However, Part 2 of the book does focus more on successful rhetorical refusals.

Part 2 of the book (Chapters 4 to 7) contends with certain American traditions or ideals that rhetorical refusals help to question. Chapter 4 deals explicitly with the ideal of openness to debate by examining Deborah Lipstadt's refusal to be open to dialogue with Holocaust deniers in her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. In Chapter 5, Shilb takes up how a text travels into new and different contexts, noting that it's important to analyze and discuss texts (specifically rhetorical refusals) in contexts different from their initial debut. The texts he analyzes in this chapter also challenge commonplace distinctions between public and private. Chapter 6 focuses on Frederick Douglas's commemoration speech of Lincoln, in order to investigate how rhetorical refusals can be embedded within a text that also does other rhetorical work. Additionally, he uses this rhetorical refusal to discuss how refusals might question the notion of a united nation when used at memorials.

Schilb's last chapter turns to literature, focusing on Tim O'Brien's In the Lake of the Woods, which he sees as being a refusal to comply with they conventions of a mystery genre. After offering a nuanced reading of the book, Schilb compares the book's uncertainty with the certainty about Vietnam offered in Bob Kery's memoir, When I Was a Young Man. Schilb argues that rhetorical refusals in literature might help us to contend with our memory of war, and urges literary studies to take a rhetorical approach to literature.

Schilb concludes by offering up other rhetorical refusals that have been used by citizens, arguing that rhetorical refusals need further study and can be, when they are "good," helpful to our civic discourse.

I found Schilb's discussion interesting, and one that opens up avenues of scholarly research about rhetorical refusals. I think Schilb's discussion is pretty comprehensive about what constitutes rhetorical refusals, but I would have also liked to see more examples discussed in various other contexts. The book is a quick read and very approachable, and another 100 pages exploring more refusals might detract from its focus and make it less likely to be read. But it seems that there are such fruitful and obvious avenues for discussing this type of rhetoric, and putting his discussion in the context of more conversations. Particularly, it seems that gendered, classed, and sexual rhetorical refusals lend themselves quite well to Schilb's project.

However, as it stands, a great book.

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Frederick Douglas is both critical and lauditory of Abraham Lincoln in dedicating a statue in his memory. Bill Clinton refuses to answer the questions of the Grand Jury. Dance critic Arlene Croce reviews the dance piece, Still/Here without bothering to see it. These are just a few examples of rhetorical refusals. Author and adept analyst of popular culture and communication delves into instances where speakers and writers defy their audiences' expectations. Sometimes, the speaker or author (rhetor) even pit one audience against another (a la Fox News or Rush Limbaugh).

Schilb creates a fascinating, challenging argument. Perhaps encouraging the unexpected and examining the outrageous will move forward public discourse.

[Melody]

An interesting book about one particular rhetorical strategy: the refusal. Schilb characterizes refusals as deliberate rejections of an audiences expectation in an effort to make a point. The text is a provocative and enjoyable read about a rhetorical form that has become far more common since Schilb brought them to our attention. In this way, the book is a welcome contribution to current conversations about the exercise and limits of the first amendment through moments of rhetorical refusal, such as KellyAnne Conway's aversion to direct questioning or the Navy Seal's father refusing to speak with the President. Worth a read for folks interested in rhetoric or first amendment issues. Would love a revised edition in light of contemporary politics!