Mao, LuMing
“Studying the Chinese Rhetorical Tradition in the Present: Re-presenting the Native’s Point of View.”
College English, 69.3, 2007
In “Studying the Chinese Rhetorical Tradition…” Mao is re-examining the Analects in something more like its own context (Mao is exceptionally aware it is impossible to see things completely from the native point of view). Mao conceptualizes seeing the Analects as type of rhetoric, but one in which filial relationships are first and foremost important. In seeing the Analects as a pattern of reciprocal relationships and using this discursive field as a set of rhetorical practices, Mao believes it possible to move beyond the “either-or” dichotomy of Western rhetoric. Mao asserts this step away from the “either-or” combative stance would be:
promoting a culture of reciprocity or interdependence, it not only moves away from [the] polarizing discourse [i.e. “either-or” discourse], but also becomes a metaphor for accepting, and negotiating with, differences, ambiguities, and even contradictions… Such discourse can allow for internal ambivalences, ambiguities, and even contradictions, and it can help cultivate a much-needed space where two opposing discourses can coexist—without necessarily having one either deny the Other its own context or serve as the norm or the point of origination for the Other. (234)
In a world where globalization is becoming more of a reality and the possibility of a return to imperialistic attitudes is very credible, this style of rhetoric could prove a way to humanely negotiate issues of difference and resolve conflict.
This proposed use of the Analects is much different than the uses of I had envisioned either as an artifact of the past or as a set practices for the present. If nothing else, Mao’s article highlights how ingrained the comparative practices I’ve criticised Kennedy for are present in my own worldview.
- The foregrounding of the familial as to give the discourse of shu an authority and authenticity (231-232).
- How shu and its “semantic siblings” form a discursive field (230).
- Discursive fields, and how this concept fits into Mao’s argument for the discourse of shu(found in the Annalects) as a way out of the “either-or” bind (223).
- The outcomes of consistently “othering” Chinese rhetoric (220).
- Mao’s statement that strategic essentialism is in play for the entire article (217).
