The Threshold of Democracy: The Rhetoric of Outsider Activism A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English of the College of Arts and Sciences by Daniel G. Floyd M.A., Eastern Kentucky University M.A.T., Morehead State University M.A., University of Kentucky B.A., Eastern Kentucky University March 2020 Committee Chair: Christopher Carter, Ph.D. Floyd 1 Abstract This work explores how democracy is a rhetorical construct that is often used to maintain the status quo; it examines the way democratic outsiders speak within exclusive democratic frameworks. The framework of liberal democracies like that in place in the United States delimits who can speak through what is framed as insider rhetoric; insider rhetoric seeks to attain hegemonic consent by negating the validity of arguments and ideas forwarded by those who do not have authorized channels of participation in the democracy. Outsider rhetors in democratic frameworks, therefore, must forge alternative frameworks of participation. They seek to tell stories, build coalitions, engage in activist events, question assumptions and generally destabilize the hegemonic narratives of democracy. The chapters of this work focus on immigrants, prisoners and children as democratic denizens who lack authorized agency as a result of their statuses. Ethical democracies should seek to listen to all those who are affected by the decisions of the democracies. However, most democracies craft litmus tests to determine who has the right to participate within their frameworks. Often, however, those who do not have the right to participate are the ones who have the most to gain or lose as a result of the decisions—immigrants may have no say in immigration policy; prisoners may have no say in criminal justice reform; children may have no say in climate crisis action. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the ways all participants can be given a voice and heard. The chapter on immigration examines immigrant narratives of radical transparency, considering the stories of immigrants, documented and undocumented, and how they fit within the concept of American. The chapter on prisoners explores the activist actions of currently and formerly incarcerated people to highlight the way they agitate for changes to the system that impacts their lives daily. The chapter on youth activism focuses on how young people use traditional and social media platforms to forward their causes and defy the notion that they are too naïve to concern themselves with politics. The final chapter is a conclusion that articulates the changes that need to be made to democracies in order to be more inclusive, including actively listening to outsider voices, changing the mechanisms for participation within democracies and serving as allies for the voiceless. The conclusion seeks to situate the issue of insider and outsider democratic rhetorics within historical and global contexts and articulates avenues for further future research. Floyd 2 Floyd 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my wife, Kristy, without whom I could not have completed this work, nor could I have maintained my confidence to enter and complete a doctoral program. She has always done whatever she could to make the process manageable for me. I appreciate my children, Avery and Gibson, for being a source of infinite joy while working through this program and on this dissertation. I would like to thank my parents, Tim and Vonda, for everything that they have done for me during this process. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the assistance provided by my mother- and father-in-law, Debbie and Rick Tuttle. My brother, Jeremiah, as well, has been instrumental in helping to keep me positive. My entire circle of family and friends have also been a tremendous help with my work. Beyond family members, I wish to thank my committee members, Dr. Chris Carter, Dr. Russel Durst and Dr. Laura Micciche, each of whom has been as supportive, committed and caring as anyone could hope from a committee. In particular, I wish to extend my deepest gratitude for Dr. Carter, whom I view as both a friend and mentor and without whom I would have surely given up on this project long ago. Finally, I wish to thank the University of Cincinnati and the UC Department of English. My work completing this dissertation was greatly aided by receiving a Ricking Fellowship Award. This award provided me with a semester course release that proved to be my most productive time working on the dissertation. Floyd 4 The Threshold of Democracy Table of Contents Abstract 1 Acknowledgements 3 Introduction 5 Chapter One – Immigrant Activism 47 Chapter Two – Prisoner Activism 87 Chapter Three – Youth Activism 133 Chapter Four – Conclusion 172 Bibliography 191 Floyd 5 Introduction “I think [immigration] has very much hurt . Europe. And I know it politically not [sic] necessarily correct to say that, but I’ll say it and I’ll say it loud. And I think they better watch themselves because you [sic] are changing culture . .” -Donald J. Trump July 13, 2018 “[I]f you won’t follow the law yourself, then you can’t make the law for everyone else, which is what you do—directly or indirectly—when you vote.” -Roger Clegg April 22, 2016 “Maybe all of this can be written off as the work of overenthusiastic, underinformed 17-year- olds. But the student activists aren’t acting alone. They are promoted and praised by adults who should know better” -Rich Lowry March 27, 2018 In an ideal democracy, all voices have the authority to speak out to effect change. Democratic discourse should serve as a mechanism for the free exchange of ideas on an equal footing, no matter who supports those ideas or how large the base of support may be. In the origins of democracy, in theory, an individual would state a case before the public and receive a fair and disinterested hearing after which the people (demos) would rule (-cracy) on the matter. In this context, the any individual person, no matter who that person was, could engage in the democratic process and feel certain of at least having the potential to achieve his/her goal.1 In contemporary practice, this approach to democracy would be unwieldy and unfeasible. In the United States, for example, there are over 325 million people, and the sheer enormity of the population renders impractical a style of governing that attempts to give every individual’s 1 This is not to ignore the myriad problems in original democracies. Aristotle, of course, writes problematically about the rights of slave masters and of men at the expense of slaves and women. Democracy’s history is not without its issues, but this synopsis is intended to demonstrate the idealized basis of democratic discourse in contemporary Western societies. Floyd 6 issues a hearing that involves every other individual in the process. Instead, representatives for different groups and regions must serve as proxies for those people, and those representatives will, ostensibly, voice the legitimate and pressing matters brought to their attentions to a wider democratic audience. Without devoting too much time to political shortcomings, avenues for corruption and partisanships, it is needless to say that mediated representation, while practically effective, removes the individuality of democratic participants and establishes a democratic framework in which insiders (those who fit the stereotypical conception of American—white, Christian, middle class, etc.) have a greater likelihood of achieving their democratic aims than do outsiders (those who are outside the stereotypical conception of American). Indeed, James Madison anticipated just such issues while writing the Federalist Papers and explained the perils of a “pure democracy” and the need for a “republic.” Writing in “Federalist Number 10,” Madison explains, “[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of factions.” Madison continues to claim that “such democracies” are hotbeds for turbulence and violence. On the other hand, Madison argues that “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” For American founding fathers, like Madison, it was necessary to put into place mediated representation rather than a pure democracy in order to avoid “factions” and to account for the greater number of disparate voices. Finally, the purpose of these measures, according to Madison, is to “[e]xtend the sphere, [so] you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own Floyd 7 strength, and to act in unison with each other.” Perhaps somewhat paradoxically, the entire purpose of establishing a republic in place of a pure democracy is so that it will be more difficult to establish majorities to the detriment of minorities; when citizens must work harder to achieve a majority regarding any given issue, it is more likely, and even necessary, that all voices will be heard who wish to speak on that issue. In effect the goal was to prevent insiders (the majority; the privileged) from excluding the outsiders (the minority; the underprivileged).2 This work will consider insiders and outsiders in detail, so it is worthwhile to consider what is meant by these terms. In democracies, insiders are individuals and groups of people who can rest assured that their interests will be represented, even if specific individuals do not agitate for change on a given issue.