This artifact uses corporate documents about diversity and inclusion campaigns to explore how the language we use illustrates the way we think and feel about our values and our identities.
“Language does not mirror an objective ‘reality’ but rather creates it by organizing meaningful perceptions abstracted from a complex, bewildering world.”
(Carter & Edelman)
We rhetors understand that language is symbolic. Every text is rich with meaning; those meanings are reinforced by, and reinforce in turn, the things that we believe. Even mundane language, from ordinary rhetorical objects, betray how we think and feel. If our beliefs about rhetoric are true, and rhetoric is a device to influence how humans think, that means that the language we use and the words that we choose have material effects on reality. This is an incredible power. How can we rhetoricians use it for good? By defining certain beliefs shared by rhetorical scholars, I hope to show that mundane written objects can be used to affect societal change.
Humans are “symbol-using animals.” (Hauser) We understand that, due to the metaphorical nature of language, even mundane written objects have symbolic meaning. Every step of the writing process involves imbuing our texts with meanings that transcend the literal written text, even before we begin to write. Johnstone explained that “Linguists who take cognitive approaches to discourse start from the assumption that language emerges from and reflects general principles of human cognition. Cognitive metaphor theory sees all language use as figurative, stemming from metaphorical extensions of the basic ways of categorizing things that are learned very early in life.”
We approach our texts by first deciding what we want and need to say. The messages we send are informed not just by the words on the page – they are formed by our thoughts, and they are transmitted by the decisions me make when we write. Even the decisions about medium and genre carry symbolic meaning. Eisenhart & Roscoe said “Genres typify many things beyond textual form. They are part of the way that humans give shape to social activity,” and Miller took this thought further, two years after Eisenhart and Roscoe’s article. She stated:
“No matter what we do here, they will be here too – genres invoked, avoided, honored, remembered, resisted, echoed, imitated, ridiculed, transcend ed…They are baggage we acquire along with language itself, along with rhetorical consciousness. The forms and intentions and effects of prior scholarship, of manifestations, position papers, literature reviews, commentaries, editorials, and more – they haunt our symbolic actions below.” (Miller et al)
Here, we can extend the though from merely ‘genre’ to include any deliberate decision we make about a text. Each of those decisions (for example, which genre conventions to adhere to) ‘invoke’ meanings that cannot easily be divorced from the language. Every text produced comes with ‘baggage’, and the ‘forms and intentions’ of writers who came before us ‘haunt’ us now. Clearly, it is not possible to create a rhetorical document without this baggage. We believe, then, that texts come with symbolic baggage. If we are unable to present a ‘meaning-neutral’ document, responsible rhetors must look at the meanings we are propagating.
Rhetorical scholars who engage with the meanings hidden in texts, especially in the context of historical texts, are able to identify the norms and values of a given society via the language of the text alone. Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca explore this phenomenon, and found that “…the particular culture of a given audience shows so strongly through the speeches addressed to it that we feel we can rely on them to a considerable extent for our knowledge of the character of past civilizations.” They argued that this can be done through observing how the rhetor ‘adapts’ themselves to their audience. If a rhetor must adjust their argument to persuade a group of people, they must have an understanding of what will be persuasive to them. This involves understanding that group’s values, norms, beliefs, and then attempting to craft a message to appeal to those values. Therefore, a successful rhetor’s analysis of audience will be like a sewing pattern, to be laid on top of their message, in order to construct an argument that fits properly.
Texts therefore betray our beliefs, and rhetorical analysis of audience considerations tell us this by “placing [texts] in the context of the conventions, ideologies, and histories embedded therein; and it offers empirical researchers a unit of analysis that reveal power relationships, social agreements, and background presumptions.” (Miller et al)
If we believe that (1) rhetoric is a tool of persuasion, and that (2) rhetoric is imbued with symbolic meaning, and if we also believe that (3) those symbolic meanings are reflections of our society’s values, then what we have at our disposal is a method by which we can influence those values. This means that rhetoric is more than just a tool of persuasion. It means that rhetoric allows us to speak realities into being. “[Rhetors] seek to present ideas as they intersect with audience experiences because these intersections determine a matter in the audience’s mind.” (Hauser) The practice of taking an idea, finding a connection between the idea and the values of the audience, and turning it into a belief in the mind of another person, is aptly called invention. The rhetor must do more than just transmit a message from themselves to the recipient of that message. They must turn the abstract into the concrete.
Thoughts have an annoying habit of turning into actions. Influencing how a person thinks will also influence the decisions they make and how they interact with the world. The arguments that rhetoricians aim at an individual have the potential to become material reality, beyond the realm of ideas. By examining the arguments that spur these material changes, “… we have found a way to begin to identify in detail just what the metaphors are that structure how we perceive, how we think, and what we do.” (Lakoff and Johnston) Since this appears to be true for all rhetoric, we have no reason to believe that this would not also be true for the mundane texts we encounter every day.
There is perhaps no written object so mundane as the memo. In any corporate environment, there are probably innumerable memos produced, spanning a wide variety of subjects. One of the largest corporate environments, producing an endless stream of memos, is the federal government, and more specifically the Department of Defense (DOD). In an attempt to test the theory that mundane texts signal values (and can lead to material change because of the values signaled), I looked at two DOD memos on the subject of inclusion and diversity. My hypothesis was that the language in these memos would correlate with the larger societal shift in values and norms, moving from ‘inclusion’ language pre-1990 to the ‘diversity’ language of contemporary social justice rhetoric.
Following the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and the legal protections that Black people demanded (successfully) for themselves, many corporations were compelled, legally, to make company-wide adjustments to comply with the new anti-discrimination regulations. In 1971, the DOD sent a memo to do just this. DOD directive 5500.11, released on May 27, 1971, is essentially just an explanation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and an expression that non- adherence to the regulation is actionable. It detailed precisely what those repercussions would be to the individual and to the company, and framed compliance with non-discriminatory practices as ‘doing the right thing’, legally. There was no language celebrating the inclusion of diverse voices and thoughts in the organization. The rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement had led to material change with the Civil Rights Act, but the rhetoric surrounding the law centered either whiteness as the benefactor bringing minorities into the fold because it was the right thing to do, or centered whiteness as the hegemons who are now legally required to ‘let’ the Other in. Either way, it centered whiteness, and it framed diversity in the workplace as little more than a requirement for compliance with the law.
By the 1980’s diversity education professionals realized that diversity training had become ubiquitous, and still did not address the issues necessary to make meaningful change. This was when the language about diversity began to change, and the corporate documents produced in that era reflect it (Martin & Vaughn). There was a shift from ‘inclusion is the right thing to do’, to ‘diversity is better for the corporate environment.’ This change can be seen in the diversity and inclusion memo created by the DOD in 2015. There is a dramatic change in the language, from demanding compliance to avoid a lawsuit, to encouraging the audience to consider how their work lives might be enriched by diversity. While I can’t speak to the follow-through, DOD directive 1020.02E, released on June 8, 2015, explained that it is now official DOD policy to promote anyone with the required abilities to do the job.
FIGURE 1
The DOD correctly identified that diversity is not ‘just’ the right thing to do, but that it creates better workforces and leads to more favorable outcomes. This DOD memo is one example of what is likely to have been hundreds of memos since 2015 that reflect these values. Raytheon, a close personal friend of the DOD, was lambasted in 2021 for including anti-racist language in their leaked diversity education materials. As a corporation that works very (very) closely with the DOD, and which often lends their civilian employees to DOD projects, it is not a stretch to believe that their corporate cultures surrounding inclusion and diversity are compatible. If what we understand about the relationship between language and values is true, then this trend toward more and greater diversity in the corporations of the defense sector is an indicator of the same shift in the broader society.
Figure 2 excerpts from 2015 DoD memo
Rhetors certainly have not chosen the profession for the money. Rhetors have a deep understanding that the world of ideas and the world of material reality are connected, because we are often the bridge between them. It’s clear that through even the most mundane of texts, language can be used surgically or carelessly, for the betterment of life for everyone or for only a few. The ways that our language reflect, reinforce, and remake our values is something that all rhetoricians should understand. And since we understand, it is our moral imperative to act. Rhetors have the opportunity to change the world with language, as I have just shown. Language allows us bend wills, change minds, and alter entire worldviews. This is a great and terrible power, to be wielded with intention, in order to shape our realities and make the world different. Hopefully, to make it better. It is the responsibility of every rhetor to wield this power carefully. That is the power of rhetoric, and because we can, we therefore must.
WORKS CITED AND CONSULTED
Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 1020.02E. Directives Division. (2015, June 8). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.esd.whs.mil/dd/
Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 5500.11. Directives Division. (1971, May 27). Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.esd.whs.mil/dd/
Edelman, M., & Carter, R. (1971). Politics as symbolic action: Mass arousal and Quiescence. University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000271627340600170
Einsenhart, C., & Roscoe, D. (2016, July 11). The emergent genre of campaign e-mail in the 2008 presidential nomination campaign. The Communication Review. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10714421.2016.1195201
Hauser, G. A. (2002, February 8). Introduction to rhetorical theory: Second edition. Retrieved December 15, 2022.
Johnstone, B. (2009, April 1). Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge Core. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/abs/barbara-johnstone-discourse-analysis-2nd-ed-malden-ma-blackwell-2008-pp-xvii-310-pb-4495/205C5DD245109B0F6074D7B78886079C
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003, April 1). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html
Martin, M., & Vaughn, B. (2007). Cultural competence: The nuts & bolts of diversity & inclusion. Strategic Diversity & Inclusion Management. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from 1(1), 31-38
Miller, C., Devitto, A., & Gallagher, V. (2018). Genre: Permanence and change. Rhetoric society quarterly: Vol 48, no 3. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02773945.2018.1454194
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca , L. (1973, October 31). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Google Books. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from https://books.google.com/books/about/The_New_Rhetoric.html?id=dYQlDwAAQBAJ