THE DIVERGENT ARCHIVE AND ANDROCENTRIC COUNTERPUBLICS: PUBLIC RHETORICS, MEMORY, AND ARCHIVES BY EVIN SCOTT GROUNDWATER DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2020 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Kelly Ritter, Chair Associate Professor Peter Mortensen Assistant Professor John Gallagher Associate Professor Jessica Enoch, University of Maryland ii ABSTRACT As a field, Writing Studies has long been concerned with the rhetorical representation of both dominant and marginalized groups. However, rhetorical theory on publics and counterpublics tends not to articulate how groups persuade others of their status as mainstream or marginal. Scholars of public/counterpublic theory have not yet adequately examined the mechanisms through which rhetorical resources play a role in reinforcing and/or dispelling public perceptions of dominance or marginalization. My dissertation argues many counterpublics locate and convince others of their subject status through the development of rhetorical resources. I contend counterpublics create and curate a diffuse system of archives, which I refer to as “divergent archives.” These divergent archives often lack institutional backing, rigor, and may be primarily composed of ephemera. Drawing from a variety of archival materials both within and outside institutionally maintained archives, I explore how counterpublics perceiving themselves as marginalized construct archives of their own as a way to transmit collective memories reifying their nondominant status. I do so through a case study that has generally been overlooked in Writing Studies: a collection of men’s rights movements which imagine themselves to be marginalized, despite their generally hegemonic positions. By critically scrutinizing the rhetorical practices of these men’s movements, we come to a more nuanced theory of the rhetorical formation and position of publics. Such work also illuminates the rhetorical practices and arguments of a group poorly represented in academic research. Ultimately, I answer the question of how counterpublics that see themselves as “outside” the cultural mainstream work to convince others of that status and a need to change it. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the aid and tireless support of a countless number of people. I will, inevitably, fail to do all of them (and maybe even any of them) justice. Nevertheless, I’ll do my best to communicate their importance both to this project and my daily life. First, I’d be remiss not to thank former President Barack Obama for stopping to chat about my dissertation during our chance encounter at an Urbana coffee shop in September of 2018. To have Obama suggest that my dissertation was important almost certainly means I’ve peaked. There’s precious little praise that could top that. The research I undertook here, particularly my archival research through the Changing Men Collection at Michigan State, could not have occurred without the generous support of UIUC’s English department and graduate college, both of which have awarded me fellowships and grants that enabled that research, specifically. I am indebted to a number of faculty, staff, and fellow grad students in UIUC’s English department and the Center for Writing Studies, and although I cannot name them all individually, this department and program as a whole has been instrumental in my ability to research, compose, and defend this dissertation. Foremost among those individually responsible for whatever successes I may have through this project is my chair/advisor, Dr. Kelly Ritter. Kelly has been a tireless advocate for this project since day one and has indulged my curiosity and penchant for delving into the cesspool that is the androcentric archive, holding her nose and jumping in at my side. Her attention to detail, desire for specificity, and seemingly endless breadth of knowledge on subjects both inside and outside of Writing Studies helped make this project what it is today. Most iv importantly, her near-constant availability is a rare privilege for a grad student to have from an advisor who keeps as many plates spinning as Kelly does. I owe her so much. All of my committee members have shaped this project in so many ways. Their generosity and support for this dissertation has been instrumental, and I could never have gotten this far without them at my back. Though a change of institutions removed him from my committee mid-draft, Eric Pritchard’s encouragement to examine men’s rights archives as rhetorical products of Whiteness and maleness was a crucial element of this project, as were his insightful suggestions to ground such research in queer archival historiography. Jess Enoch’s sharp mind has shaped this project’s engagement with publics, memory, and archives in substantial ways, and her support and insight as a feminist rhetorician has been invaluable. Similarly, Peter Mortensen’s expansive knowledge of rhetorical history, public rhetorics, and almost any Writing Studies topic you can think of has pushed this project beyond a narrow focus and into broader theories about the rhetorical processes engaged by counterpublics. Finally, John Gallagher’s entry into my committee after Eric’s departure wasn’t just filling a gap in the committee’s ranks; John brought a flurry of ideas, constructive criticism, and support that changed a great deal about how I presented my research and how I composed this dissertation. Most particularly in his push to specify more precise principles of selection, my relationship and contribution to existing Writing Studies research, and his encouragement to more broadly consider the digital side of my project, John has made the dissertation that much better. Without these incredible scholars and mentors, none of what you’re (hopefully) about to read would have been possible. Not one single part of this project could have happened without my incredible colleagues within the Center for Writing Studies and the English department more broadly. All of the CWS v English faculty have contributed to this project in some way, whether through their brilliant coursework or support in conference talks and center programming, most particularly Lindsay Rose Russell and Paul Prior. Andrew Merrill and Valerie O’ Brien endured countless sighs, exasperated rants, and shared so many laughs in our little office as we all struggled through dissertations and the academic job market together. Sabrina Lee’s reassuring comments got me through more than a few emotional days. Pretty much everyone in CWS, past and present, either modeled for me how to be a wonderful scholar and friend or gave me a supportive shoulder in the hard times (and most of them did both). Ryan Ware’s thoughtful and capable feedback, both inside our dissertation accountability group and outside of it, has been a huge source of encouragement since his arrival to CWS. Annie Kelvie’s ability to make the gloomiest day less terrible and her unconditionally cheery friendship made my life in Champaign that much better. The members of the CWS ‘dualhort’—Niki Turnipseed, Andy Bowman, Bruce Kovanen, and Logan Middleton—have all encouraged me over coffee and drinks, attended conference presentations, and just generally been wonderful colleagues and friends. Likewise, my personal CWS mentor, Katrina Kennett, was the first face I saw in C-U and by far one of the most impactful, her tireless support, kindness, and reassuring presence making me less lonely from my first moment in town. My officemate and personal memory studies mentor, Helen Makhdoumian, has offered me so much brilliant advice and conversation, been so welcoming, and cheered me up with her relentlessly sunny disposition more times than I could possibly count. Alex Van Doren’s feedback on my dissertation materials, articles, and job market documents made this project so much better than it could ever have been without her brilliant and inspiring mind. Likewise, the members of The Writers Workshop, and most especially its vi director, Carolyn Wisniewski, have encouraged my dissertation writing and enlivened long days of composing on many, many occasions, in addition to being incredible mentors and supporters. The other members of my CWS cohort—Paul Beilstein, Allison Kranek, and María Carvajal—are the best friends, colleagues, and mentors that anyone could ever have. I am a man prone to dealing with emotions by relentlessly talking about them, and every single one of these incredible people indulged my need to talk through problems any time I asked. They are all amazing scholars in their own right, far smarter and more compassionate than I could ever hope to be, and they demonstrated on a daily basis how to be a researcher, teacher, and friend in ways I may never be capable of. Paul’s extreme generosity and keen sense of wit never cease to brighten my day. Allison’s willingness to lend a sympathetic ear and shoulder, no matter how busy she is, has kept me from despair on many occasions. And María’s sharp insight, tireless support, and relentless advocacy have directly contributed to my ability to finish this dissertation. As I leave the University of Illinois, their absences will leave a gaping hole in my heart that no other group of friends or colleagues could hope to fill. I also owe thanks to an abundance of teachers, mentors, and educators who inspired and encouraged me throughout my life. Worth specifically mentioning are Bill Perring and Jann Jeffery, without whose support in high school choir and art, respectively, I would never have recognized the importance of creativity in education, and who showed me what truly inspirational pedagogy looks like. To all of the University of Oklahoma English department, I owe you so much for helping prepare me for this journey into the PhD and shaping who I am today. That said, my Master’s Committee—Chris Carter, Michele Eodice, and Jim Zeigler— deserve special mention.