Lee Thach

HCOM 420
Rhetoric and Recognition: The Subaltern in the Public Sphere

The act of persuasion depends on the art of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the communicative tools
available for the act of persuasion. According to Aristotle, there are three rhetorical proofs
needed to convince an audience of the speakers argument, which are logos, ethos, and pathos.
Logos is logic; the argument must make rational sense. Ethos is credibility; the speaker must
earn the audiences trust through character, intelligence, goodwill, and expertise. Pathos is
emotion; the speaker must draw on the audiences affect and feelings (Pg. 326-27).
There are two assumptions of rhetoric. First, effective public speakers must analyze their
audience if they are to successfully persuade them. Second, effective public speakers employ a
number of proofs as a method of persuasion (Pg. 325-326). This is especially true in deliberative
rhetoric, where a speaker persuades the public to determine a course of action.
For this paper, I intend to analyze Jurgen Habermas conception of the public sphere and
its role in deliberation and rhetoric by exploring Gayatri Spivaks critical analysis of the
subaltern. Habermas argues that the public sphere is a central space for speech and deliberation.
If individuals are capable of speech, action, reflection, and discourse, then individuals are also
open to public criticism. Deliberative communication processes in the public sphere then can be
oriented towards mutual intelligibility among different actors, and can create an integrative space
of solidarity and mutual criticism in order to construct a discursive space for collective reflection
and action.1
1 Susen, Simon "Critical Notes On Habermas's Theory of the Public Sphere" Sociological Analysis Volume 5,
Number 1, Spring 2011 Pg. 45-46

Spivaks rhetorical question Can the subaltern speak? deconstructs Habermas premise
that the public sphere grants access to public speech. Subalterns are those who are subordinate to
the globalizing forces of colonialism and post-colonial conditions, and yet do not inherent or
communicate through the vocabulary of hegemonic discourse.2 From this vantage point, because
subalterns are unable to communicate in a way that is intelligible to the dominant class, their
speech is never able to be recognized as such in the public sphere. From an Aristoltian
framework, the subaltern is a priori denied ethos, pathos, and logos.
This is especially true in the tradition of rhetoric, which is built on public address. From a
historical standpoint, public address was a place where imperial voices were primarily heard and
imperial policies articulated. The colonized did not have access to a public sphere because their
speeches were not always recorded in mainstream documents.3 From a deliberative standpoint,
the subalterns subordination denies any possibility of dialogue with the dominant class because
subaltern speech is not permitted recognition, and the subalterns rhetorical opposition to the
social order departs from the intelligible language of negotiation, dialogue, and mutual progress
with the dominant class. The subaltern speaks from a world beyond agendas, platforms, and
practical proposals, because there will always be an utter impossibility of dialogue with the
institutional force of ones own domination.4

2 Spivak, Gayatri Chakrovorty "Can The Subaltern Speak?" Marxism and Interpretation of Culture Macmillan
Education: Basingstoke 1988 Pg. 78

3 Shome, Raka "Postcolonial Interventions in the Rhetorical Canon" Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader
The Guilford Press 1999 Pg. 599

4 Rodriguez, Dylan Forced Passages: Imprisoned Radical Intellectuals and the US Prison Regime
Published: University of Minnesota Press 2006 Pg. 7-8