In “A Rhetoric of Inclusion and the Expansion of Movement Constituencies: Harriot Stanton Blatch and the Classed Politics of Woman Suffrage (Rhetoric Society Quarterly 44.2 pp. 129-147), Belinda Stillion Southard analyzes how Stanton Blatch reached out to working women in her woman suffrage rhetoric and shows how she “advanced a rhetoric of inclusion that made visible, resisted, and rearticulated class difference toward more inclusive suffrage constituencies.”

I found this article interesting in light of some of the conversations we’ve been having about the question of how Clinton’s rhetoric was ineffective for certain groups or Trump’s rhetoric was more effective for those groups. How could Clinton’s rhetoric resonate more with working class voters?

Stillion Southard’s analysis could also apply to the tactics Clinton used in Women’s Rights are Human Rights:

“[S]peaking for and about others [is] a rhetorical practice with the potential to both oppress and liberate.”

How did this election illustrate what Stillion Southard called a rhetoric of inclusion and in what ways did it instead promote a rhetoric of exclusion? How did that rhetoric make visible, resist, or rearticulate difference?

Advertisements