Pages

Sunday, March 27, 2016

The Power of Personae

“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?

6 comments:

  1. Hi Sadie,

    Your blog articulates a lot of the thoughts I had while reading much more nicely than I could have done, so thank you for that! I really enjoyed reading.

    I like that you bring in this idea of persona, especially in terms of how it applies to the Westside residents and their meeting with the police. You say they "they wanted to work with the police rather than against them," but I would take that a step further and say that there were likely consequences for the residents if they chose instead to be more aggressive. They recognized that the power of the officers was greater than their own, and if conflict did arise, there could be serious punishments for the residents but perhaps no repercussions for the officers. I do agree that they had "some power to shatter whatever good image the police had," as you said, but I really think there was some level of them being forced into maintaining the "gentle" persona, deeply rooted in fear. Therefore, to answer your last question (sort of), the persona that appeals to and appeases the person in power produces results-- results at the level that the person in power is comfortable with.

    Thanks for posting!

    Molly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Molly, you make an excellent point! Fear definitely is playing a role in this situation--in fact, as you noted, it may provide the "base motive" for the residents' rhetorical actions. But perhaps after all that fear is inhibiting; if "the persona that appeals to and appeases the person in power produces results...at the level that the person in power is comfortable with," then what kind of results are those, if not negligible? Maybe this realization about the power of fear fuels the reasoning for violent protests, as in the case of Malcolm X...

      Delete
  2. Sadie,

    Great post. Here's what I am thinking. If, in the crossover from hidden transcript to public one, where the marginalized group re-phrases and re-frames their language in order to appear more goodwill and cooperative to the dominant public (the ones with more power) are they simply bending their discourse to fit the dominant discourse, and therefore not escaping or changing the hegemony at all?

    It's a question I have returned to frequently throughout the semester and blog posts, wondering, since the dominant public controls the means of communication, how could alternate voices ever speak out and be taken seriously, if they don't align with the master discourse? And, once they align with that dominant power have they not ceded their fight for equality and rightful representation?

    This circles back to your question, "Where is the line between that gentleness and violence?" That is, how much bending to the dominant voice is "doing as the Romans do," and fitting your message to be received best, and how much is surrendering power and accepting hegemonic dominance? I cannot say fully where the line lies. I have read some incredibly-written pieces of writing which revealed how they were written within certain constraints while simultaneous fought against them. In form they aligned with the dominant discourse, but in content they argued against. Can we Trojan horse-style affect social change? Maybe so. Maybe the tactic is to appear similar enough to the hegemonic power in order to be heard and taken seriously, but also use that power against itself, to show its binds.

    Hm. At 11:24 p.m. this all sounds very inspirational but it could just be the sleeps coming on...

    I loved your post. :-)

    Anjeli

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha, I love your "Trojan horse" metaphor! I keep flipping back and forth between my thoughts on this topic: on one hand, "bending to the dominant voice" means that one is going to concede or give up something, which makes for a slow-going social change. On the other hand, doesn't social change involve the dominant public changing their views and *listening* to the weaker public? (And they might listen if not on the active defense). But maybe that is one of my assumptions; does the dominant public (in this case, the police) *have* to change their views? Or does the counter/weak public simply need more members from other publics to overpower the dominant public?

      Delete
  3. This makes me think about whether on and off stage persona is effective in its purpose. Would a minority e completely disregarded if they only choose one personae? Perhaps if they only choose the one that the majority preferred they would maintain some credibility. If hey choose to have their true persona, that of the group they belong to, they may lose that credibility. Why do you think they cannot maintain it under their true persona?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andrew, I'm not so sure about your mention of a "true" persona. Of course, people can pretend to be something they're not, but "a person can also present different facades to various audiences or in various situations, but 'facade' does not mean 'fake'" (Palczewski 150). So rather than the residents presenting a "fake" persona, they *did* present a true persona which happened to best fit the rhetorical situation at the time. However, I see your point: does changing one's persona to adapt to the dominant public involve a level of falseness? Or are they acting as their true selves in response to a particular situation--and the type of situation just highlights different aspects of the "true" persona? (Notice my presupposition: that underneath all the personae or "masks" is a face, not an empty void. Postmodernism says otherwise.) I suppose these questions go back to an even broader concept: rhetoric itself. At least in our culture, many people seem to think that rhetoric inherently involves "false play." Hmm...

    ReplyDelete