The Ethos of Dissent: Epideictic Rhetoric and the Democratic Function of American Protest and Countercultural Literature
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects The thoE s of Dissent: Epideictic Rhetoric and the Democratic Function of American Protest and Countercultural Literature Jeffrey Lorino Jr Marquette University Recommended Citation Lorino, Jeffrey Jr, "The thosE of Dissent: Epideictic Rhetoric and the Democratic Function of American Protest and Countercultural Literature" (2018). Dissertations (2009 -). 777. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/777 THE ETHOS OF DISSENT: EPIDEICTIC RHETORIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC FUNCTION OF AMERICAN PROTEST AND COUNTERCULTURAL LITERATURE by Jeffrey Thomas Lorino, Jr., B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, WI May 2018 ABSTRACT THE ETHOS OF DISSENT: EPIDEICTIC RHETORIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC FUNCTION OF AMERICAN PROTEST AND COUNTERCULTURAL LITERATURE Jeffrey T. Lorino, Jr., B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2018 My dissertation establishes a theoretical framework, the literary epideictic, for reading the African American social protest literature of Richard Wright and Ralph Ellison, and the American countercultural literature of Jack Kerouac and Ken Kesey. I argue that epideictic rhetoric affords insight into how these authors’ narratives embody a post-WWII “ethos of dissent,” a counterdiscourse that emerges out of a climate of dynamism deadlocked with controlling ideologies. Epideictic rhetoric commends or censures a particular individual, institution, or social practice, preserves or revises value systems, and builds social cohesion. Postwar American society provides “epideictic exigencies” for these authors, i.e., historical events that inform each novel’s counter-narrative – the script and myth of the black male rapist in Native Son, the nonrecognition of African Americans in the social and political sphere in Invisible Man, the Cold War’s ideology of domestic containment and desire in On the Road, and emerging measures of social control in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. These narratives reveal how their respective social environments impede the realization of democratic freedoms for individuals who refuse to adhere to cultural codes of acquiescence, and they feature alternative values that clash with the dominant social forces attempting to control individual activity. Chapter one applies Sarah Ahmed’s “affective economy of fear” to Wright’s Native Son and helps elucidate Bigger Thomas’s traumatic fear as the impetus for his actions, an intense fear embedded in violent histories of contact between black and white bodies. Chapter two attends to Ellison’s Invisible Man and the theme of invisibility, which calls for the social and political recognition of African Americans. In chapter three, I argue that Kerouac recodes postwar desire in On the Road, and his novel offers a vision of mobility and authenticity that is akin to a Deleuzian becoming, producing a shift in American values within a culture of containment. Finally, chapter four examines Kesey’s Cuckoo’s Nest and how the narrative captures an emerg- ing culture of surveillance and parens patriae, and counters with the notion, “play as power.” “The Ethos of Dissent” offers two new insights: 1) my dissertation contributes to literary scholarship by providing a new framework for reading authors who are not ordinarily compared, but who, as Ellison proposes, “report what is going on in their particular area of the American experience” during the postwar period; and 2) it adds to rhetorical criticism by extending epideictic rhetoric from the public civic arena (oratory) to the private literary realm, as well as contributes to a previously unexplored relationship between affect theory (in a broad sense) and epideictic rhetoric. While scholars have attended to the function of communal values uniting an audience, there is no work delving into the affective components of the epideictic process. These social protest and counter-cultural novels strive to affect readers emotionally by incorporating emotive discourse that relates to their targeted issues, and the novels instigate a moral examination of the narratively depicted realities against the democratic ideals by critiquing the broad values of racism, conformism, and authoritarianism. Ultimately, the authors and their texts expose failing value systems, promote positive values alluding to a democratic interdependence, and imagine alternative possibilities to the current state of social and political affairs. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jeffrey T. Lorino, Jr., B.A., M.A. This dissertation took quite a long time to complete, and there is no way I could have finished this project without the gracious help and support of many, many people. I first want to thank Dr. Heather Hathaway. I cannot believe how far Dr. Hathaway has taken me. Some of the ideas I pitched when we first started working together were, well, somewhat alarming! However, Dr. Hathaway stuck with me, and stuck by the project once it began to take shape. I remember one time Dr. Hathaway was talking about being an English professor to some undergraduate students, and she yells, “J.T. is going to be an English professor, isn’t that right?” I sheepishly replied, “Yes,” but I remembered that statement for the next couple of years and used it as motivation to finish the PhD, the first step to becoming a professor. She believed in me; and I had to then believe in myself. I also want to thank Dr. Kris Ratcliffe and Dr. Cedric Burrows. Dr. Ratcliffe helped me in the early stages of developing my dissertation topic, and she paraphrased my argument during the DQE at a moment when I was at a loss for words. After Dr. Ratcliffe pursued an opportunity elsewhere, I needed to replace a committee member. Dr. Burrows graciously accepted. I am grateful for all the talks we had in his office (which is exquisitely decorated with vinyl album covers), and for the times Dr. Burrows would drive to my side of town to meet and to talk not only about the dissertation, but also about movies, music, and everything else. Dr. Sorby has been the wise sage. During the DQE, Dr. Sorby helped me realize that the theoretical focus of the dissertation should be on epideictic rhetoric. More importantly, due to the seemingly inherent fact that a dissertator can undergo feelings of inadequacy, I remember one time I was in such a state, and during a meeting, Dr. Sorby said, “to write a dissertation is an exercise in learning how to write a dissertation.” Those words picked me up and got me back to the keyboard that day. I also want to thank Dr. Curran for all of his support. Coming into Marquette University, I had planned on focusing on Early Modern literature and John Milton. However, things change, and I ended up switching my field to American Literature and Rhetoric. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t question that decision, for various reasons, but one of them being losing out on the opportunity to work with Dr. Curran. However, Dr. Curran continued to support and help me along, beginning all the way back to when I was as an undergrad, and all the way through my graduate career. I want to thank Dr. Nowacek for providing me with excellent professional development opportunities, most specifically in the Writing Center, but also with all things comp-related. I learned so much from Dr. Nowacek’s 6840 course, and my three years in the Writing Center were very informative and enjoyable. I loved our graduate student meetings where we could discuss composition theory and read in an area outside of our research focuses. I also want to thank Dr. Virginia Chappell who has since retired. Dr. Chappell was the FYE Director when I arrived, and she had taught me a lot about teaching when I thought that I was already a seasoned instructor. In recent years, I also enjoyed working under Dr. Fishman’s leadership, as she helped me understand that our students have their own ways of composing texts ii these days, and this includes their familiarity with electronic devices over what may be deemed more conventional ways of writing and revising. This helped me immensely in how I structure my classrooms and I am grateful for that lesson. I want to thank Deb Jelacic and Wendy Walsh – whenever I or anyone else needed help, Deb and Wendy were invaluable. I enjoyed chatting with them so many times over the years, and I will miss them. There are so many other people to thank, and I’m afraid I will fail to mention them all, but I am rambling (as is my forte – thanks to Jack and Neal for that one). My MU colleagues – Tyler Monson, Andy Hoffmann, Sareene Proodian, Matthew Henningsen, and others over the years – Labylos Pubatob. Thanks for the camaraderie and for some good times when I wasn’t working on the dissertation or with the family. Alex Rucka and Carolyne Hurlburt – thank you for reading chapters of my dissertation in the Writing Center and providing insightful comments and helping me feel like I was making progress. And finally, “la familia es todo.” On 12-11-10 Lukin Lorino entered this world and rocked mine. I remember getting the “call” in Raynor Library where I was with a good friend, Mark Kelley, who responded, “It’s a good day to be born.” And it was a good day to be born. Thanks Mark. I remember trying to learn about literature and critical theory, and trying to learn how to be a dad. It was not easy, but I look back on those days very fondly. I enjoyed the dad- ing. Being in grad school and having a child with a wife who worked third shift as a nurse was challenging, to say the least. My hardworking wife, Nikki, would leave for work at night and have to sleep the next day.