Unveiling Esther as a Pragmatic Radical Rhetoric

Hansberry's Hidden Transcript

“…In this sense, the play–itself about exile and the search for home–remains in exile. In her discussion of the Biblical story of Esther, Sue Zaeske observes how exilic rhetoric is by necessity coded, for its confrontation with power can be deadly. Exilic rhetoric, she writes, “Is rhetoric aimed at survival, resistance, and even elevation within the foreign government.…”

Rhetorical Agency asHaciendo Carasand Differential Consciousness Through Lens of Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Class: An Examination of Dolores Huerta's Rhetoric

“…Other recent discussions, such as the 2003 Alliance of Rhetoric Studies Conference on the Status and Future of Rhetorical Societies and a 2004 special issue of Philosophy and Rhetoric , have broadened our understanding of rhetorical agency, suggesting that it might be understood as enactment (Brouwer, 2003; Campbell, 1988; Lucaites, 2003), performance (Fishman, 2003), articulation (Biesecker, 2003), personal will (Condit, 2003), resistance (Dube, 2003), invention (Benacka, 2003; Zaeske, 2003), “ability to make decisions” on one's own (Holling, 2000, p. 145), and creativity (McNay, 1999). For example, Susan Zaeske (2003) observes that agency might be viewed as agentic or subversive invention, in which resistance requires creativity. Cheryl Geisler (2004) clarifies some of these position papers from the Alliance of Rhetorical Studies conference by noting that the “common understanding of rhetorical agency at the ARS was the capacity of the rhetor to act” (2004, p. 12).…”

“…While I have focused on some of Huerta's individual rhetorical practices, her relationships with family, Chávez, and others, religion and spirituality (García, 2008), social movements, and other contextual facets also illustrate how agency functions beyond the individual agent. Some rhetorical scholars have suggested that rhetorical agency includes creative, inventive, collaborative, and resistive elements (Benacka, 2003; Campbell, 2005; Enck‐Wanzer, 2006; Holling, 2000; Zaeske, 2003); haciendo caras and differential consciousness in Dolores Huerta's rhetoric more fully explicates and expands these ideas through Huerta's emphasis on flexibility, hope and optimism, resistance, transformation of self and others, and how she uses these tactics to negotiate intersectional identities related to gender, race, ethnicity, class, and national origin through language choices.…”

“…Furthermore, Huerta's rhetoric illustrates the importance of the resistive nature of agency. Several rhetorical scholars have argued that agency can function resistively or subversively (Holling, 2000; Zaeske, 2003), yet more concrete examples are needed to illustrate the resistive element that Latinas employ to navigate gender, race, and class constraints. In essence, Huerta used caras through fearless, public, and embodied resistance, utilizing simultaneously expected and unexpected rhetorical styles such as motherhood and emotionality.…”