CO 4243: Rhetorical Theory
Final Paper
Many people think of cookies when they think of Girl Scouts, but the cookie sales are just one of the many ways the Girl Scouts instills real-life lessons into the girls of our country. In 1912, long before a society or culture that thought about empowering girls and women, Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts of the USA to build girls of confidence and character (girlscouts.com). The impact Girl Scouts has on its members affects their career paths and quality of life in a positive way, according to Anna Maria Chavez, and that rate only increases to Gold Award recipients (lines 80-83). The Gold Award, first awarded in 1916, is the highest achievement a Girl Scout can receive (girlscouts.com). Some projects that are awarded this title include creating sustainable food sources, working to end sex trafficking, and helping those in underprivileged communities— all high bars to reach as a high schooler (lines 70-73). The influence of lofty goals, experience in STEM subjects, and real-life problem solving skills are all key takeaways from the organization.
Anna Maria Chavez attended Yale and the University of Arizona, leading her to serve for the Arizona and United States Supreme Court. She left her positions in politics to serve as the CEO of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas, later becoming the first woman of color to serve as the CEO of the Girl Scouts of the USA. I analyzed a speech by Chavez titled “The Future of the Girl Scouts,” that she presented towards the end of her time as CEO. She talks about her experiences as a Girl Scout and the way the organization affects so many girls like her in a positive way. Her personal experiences and her support of an organization created for females set the tone for invitational rhetoric to be used in my analysis.
Since the beginning of time, rhetoric has been used by scholars to achieve different goals of persuasion. Once females started to enter the public sphere, rhetoric became a tool that needed to be changed for their goals and intentions. Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin provide a framework of invitational rhetoric in their piece “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric” published in the Communication Monographs. The title of the article itself puts power in the audience or reader by a subtle but important detail— the word proposal. The theory serves as just one way rhetoricians can go against the traditional patriarchal grain of rhetoric by communicating without the sole intention of persuasion.
Foss and Griffin say invitational rhetoric is a way for feminist rhetoricians to further their causes (Borchers 2006, 212). In “The Parallel Rhetorics of Ella Baker” in the Southern Communication Journal, Mittie Carey shows how Ella Baker, a civil rights activist, used invitational rhetoric long before it was defined by Foss and Griffin (29). Her offering and acceptance of perspectives set her apart from other leaders of her time (38). It is clear that Chavez supports the progress for girls in technology that the Girl Scouts has provided in lines 158-173. Chavez counters the persuasive nature of factual evidence in lines 172-180 when she says, “and for us, that’s what’s important,” and then continues to talk about personal skills the girls learn. Chavez points out that it is a main goal of the organization without presenting it as the required route girls must take. The audience is given an option rather than a checklist, and this mutual understanding allows the audience to use the rhetor’s evidence in their own way.
Since its conception, invitational rhetoric has been a way to promote equality (Borchers, 2006, p. 212). Conveniently, Girl Scouts seeks to create a welcoming environment for their members the same way that invitational rhetoric seeks to do so for the speaker and audience. In lines 181-182, Chavez talks about teaching girls in a welcoming environment and fostering resiliency for them to carry into their every day lives. No longer is the speaker more knowledgable or important than the audience; rather, both sides offer perspective that others can learn from. Chavez portrays this equality in lines 152 and 153 when she says, “Well, I got to tell you that the average age of my boss is eight years old. And they’re pretty clear about what they need in life.” Chavez is taking away the hierarchy of her position and giving it to her eight year old bosses, a comical way of using invitational rhetoric. Chavez doesn’t forget her leadership role, rather she embraces and encourages those by using her role to help them. Her mentor told her in lines 115 and 116, “When you’ve worn the leadership mantle, it is your job to reach back and help others and pull them forward with you.” Chavez’s leadership style encompasses the equality invitational rhetoric encourages. Furthermore, all perspectives are valuable when attempting to reach a better understanding of any issue.
To apply a theory to a rhetorical artifact, it is important to have a deeper understanding of its meaning and the intended effects. Invitational rhetoric, according to Foss and Griffin, takes away the superiority of the rhetor (Foss and Griffin, 1995, p. 3). Chavez does this early on in her speech in lines 46 and 47 when she says that shares the leadership of the Girl Scouts with several people in the room, rather than claiming the sole responsibility of leadership. In an article titled, “Invitation Accepted: Integrating Invitational Rhetoric in Educational Contexts” in Current Issues in Education, Sonja Modesti shows how invitational rhetoric can be used in more than just political or social issues. The lack of information on one side, Modesti argues, is the problem in most school settings (4). Much like Modesti equips educators to use invitational rhetoric when communicating with parents, the Girl Scouts equips girls with ways to handle bullying in their communities. Chavez addresses a specific project a troop created in lines 192-195, and reinforces the shift of power girls can create when handling tough situations. There is no persuasion for the audience to do the same, but you are still left with an improved sense of purpose and a longing to empower those around you.
Though feminism is defined differently by different people, the theory follows three categories in which Foss and Griffin say encompass all definitions of feminism: equality, immanent value, and self-determination (p. 4). Giving the audience the power to determine what they do with the information can prove to be difficult, but Chavez executes it well by using questions throughout her speech. Chavez considers both sides of the ROI when investing in girls in lines 130-133,
“What is the economic impact of a girl’s behavior when she’s making the wrong decisions? What happens when we fail to give that girl a safe place to thrive and to live? And what happens when we don’t put embracing mentors in her life to understand the need that girls have every day?”
Chavez presents the statistics of girls succeeding from their organization, but allows the audience to consider the personal consequences instead of presenting a single solution. This way of thinking is the root of invitational rhetoric and allows perspectives from the audience and the speaker. Chavez offers her Girl Scout experience and allows the audience, even the men, to reflect on their own experience with the organization in lines 87-103. This personal way of speaking allows the audience to see her way of thinking and reflect on their own ways as well.
Stacey Sowards and Valerie Renegar discuss the use of invitational rhetoric, or what they called consciousness-raising, in different waves of feminism. The effect the Girl Scouts create is similar in the sense that they create change by offering perspective in smaller groups, much like the grassroots level of the feminist movement (p. 53 6). Chavez points this out by laying out the positive lessons that the Girl Scout troop model teaches in lines 203-204. Chavez doesn’t present a desired end goal by empowering girls, but still produces a self-empowering environment like the one Sowards and Renegar say is effective (549.) Basically, she persuades the audience without ever directly doing so.
Like any theory, some believe that there are drawbacks or weaknesses to invitational rhetoric. Bone, Griffin, and Scholz discuss common criticisms of the theory and how they can be avoided in a study published by the Western Journal of Communication in 2008. Just as persuasion should not be used in all situations, invitational rhetoric is not a one size fits all approach to rhetoric. One of the most common drawbacks is the misconception that it can only be used by females or for promoting feminist causes. Though this speech only covers a female-centered idea, it is easy to find evidence proving it is useful beyond the topic of women. As previously mentioned, Modesti presents evidence proving effectiveness in education, and Ella Baker used it before its creation in promotion social equality for African-Americans. Bone, Griffin, and Scholz also present several examples of males using invitational rhetoric in politics (p. 449-456). Chavez addresses victims of the Orlando shooting at the very beginning of her speech in line 31, and again at the end of her speech saying:
And going back to our thoughts in Orlando, as we continue to try to create a culture of inclusion, a culture of empathy, of possibility thinking, innovation and creative leadership, what a better place to start than in your hometown, in your community, by investing in a girl, by becoming a volunteer and understanding that anything is possible (222-225).
Though brief, her addressing the homosexual community fosters a welcoming environment to more than just women.
This speech is a great example of invitational rhetoric because of its openness. Chavez does make her stance on supporting girls very clear, but she allows the audience to decide how they support that cause individually. She doesn’t offer the one correct way to fix the problems girls face. Instead, she encourages the audiences to create change in their personal communities.