Charland

Maurice Charland’s article Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Quebecois felt like the paper version of the class we had about discourse. Charland’s insight is that we all live in some sort of discourse, and the case of the Peuple Quebecois was an example of a failed defined and recognized discourse within a country. For the Quebecois, and those in the past like them, felt a need for sovereignty from Canada because it helped the essence of life for them. This conflict continually expresses itself in civil wars and identity debates, and I wonder if that is one of the basic human right.

In the case of Quebec, it was a strong 45% of the population that agreed to The White Paper’s suggestion, yet it fell short of the majority. This case reminded me of the time when of the failed Annexation of Texas and the civil war. Here, the disagreement was resolved within paper while Texas and the civil war was messy. This leads me to the issue that I wonder which is if Texas of the South won in the civil war, would history be written differently. If the South had won, would we have more lines on the globe, one saying the United States of America and in the south, it would say The Confederate States of America (CSA for short). It is the winners who decide what label to call the discourse. And within the hegemonic discourse, other subgroups that contain subjects may be able to create their own discourse. However, they must be recognized by the hegemonic discourse to exist.

Another issue Charland address which piqued my interest was on page 147, he says “audiences do not exist outside rhetoric, merely addressed by it, but live inside rhetoric” which is the exact summary of how discourse as discussed in class. However, something disagreed with me when I read “from the moment they enter into the world of language, they are subjects; the moment of recognition of an address constitutes an entry into subject position to which inheres a set of motives that render a rhetorical discourse intelligible” From the past class, I was under the impression that by claiming any identity, that the person became an active part of the discourse.

I am still unclear of the definition of constitutive rhetoric. However, I do remember Charland connecting Constitutive rhetoric with national identity and that the subjects have their own narratives. A usual common identity for us would be our national identity. In my Communication 240 class, I do remember the professor explaining the trouble in the Middle East is the lack of national identity. So I wonder if their constitutive rhetoric (?) is their ethnicity which is Arab instead of national identity.  

 Maurice Charland