“All the world's a stage, and all the
men and women merely rhetors.”
~ Shakespeare,
misquoted
How do silenced
or ignored people gain a voice? How does the subordinate party in an asymmetrical
power relationship acquire agency? In his article, “‘White Guys Who Send My
Uncle to Prison’: Going Public within Asymmetrical Power,” Ben Kuebrich
discusses just these issues. One of his points involves the persona of the subordinate group. Within
their hidden transcript, the subordinate group—in this case, Syracuse’s
Westside residents—may often "critique, complain about, and blame" the neighborhood
cops for prejudiced, ineffective policing. But during a community forum
including both police and residents, “the large-group conversation revolved
around loose terms like ‘dialogue,’ ‘communication,’ and ‘respect,’ and
residents took much of the responsibility for problems” (Kuebrich 581). When
the residents discussed power issues “off-stage,” they wore a different mask,
or persona, than when they stood “onstage” before a police audience.
Why beat around
the bush? Why didn’t the residents hit the cops head-on with specific issues
rather than generalized problems? Consider this: “persona invites assent both to the request made and to the person making it”
(Palczewski et al. 151, emphasis added). Do you feel like cooperating with
someone who blasts you with both barrels? Probably not. Even though the
residents’ pointed criticisms would have been accurate, they would not have been
conducive to productive discussion (though one could argue the actual
productivity of that community forum, I say any
productivity is better than none).
By emphasizing “dialogue,” “communication,” and “respect,” the Westside
residents presented the goodwill facet of persona; they wanted to work with the police rather than against them—a perception that would
have lowered the lawpersons’ defenses.
This persona
aspect of goodwill along with the aspect of virtue appears even in the
residents/university’s I Witness publication.
One contributor named Bonaparte added an introductory paragraph to his chapter
after reading the transcript of his conversation; he was worried about “police
officers and people outside the neighborhood reading his chapter
and thinking
that he ‘just hates the cops’” (Kuebrich 584). His revision reframed the
chapter so people would know he wanted a platform to promote improved policing,
not “an excuse to tell horror stories” (Kuebrich 584).
We might say the
Westside residents presented a rather “non-threatening” persona to the police.
I’d go even a step further and describe their persona as “gentle”—which is
ironic as I define gentleness as “power under control.” But it’s true: the
residents had some power to shatter whatever good image the police had with
outside/other publics. Yet a certain “violence” is naturally done on the
dominant public or power-holder’s discourse when a counterpublic or subordinate
group gains more power. So where is the line between that gentleness and
violence? And which kinds of personae effect the most comprehensive, productive
results?
