Sunday, March 18, 2007

Rhetorical Agency and Metaphor

One of my favorite websites, autismvox.com, is having a great conversation on the use of metaphors to describe autism. Autistic individuals and autistics talking about the metaphors used in regard to autism--war, combat, toxicity, waste... Rhetoric in use. By "non" rhetoric scholars. Isn't this a great discipline or what?

I see these kinds of blogs as so interesting in terms of rhetorical agency. Doing something to help the way they see autism, the way autism is treated, and the way the world sees autism in return.

It's a fascinating read and so interesting...

5 comments:

DrTee said...

You know, in my former life as a literature person, my particular interest in the Romantics was their treatment of the peak experience, a moment of transcendence. One of the reasons (I've always maintained) that they use so many metaphors and particularly similes is that they are trying to describe the "ineffable"--that which cannot be described. So I wonder if the use of metaphor is an acknowledgment that one can't really know what it's like unless one has experienced it. That's a huge leap, it seems to me--real progress--since most people just assume they know it all, understand it all, and then dismiss it.

Nancy Grace, who thinks everybody is guilty and should be hanged, frustrates me on this very thing. She clearly has had no contact with "mental illness" (I use quotations because I think it's just illness and to differentiate it with "mental" diminishes its credibility), because she dismisses it as an element in criminal cases. She doesn't understand that a person can have the coherence to plan a crime, cover it up, etc., but still be totally out of touch. Andria Yates, for example, understood that what she did was illegal (the legal distinction in Texas in sanity cases), but she still thought it was the right thing to do to save her children's souls.

T J Geiger II said...

The Yates case is fascinating for a number of reasons. The first jury convicted her after only 4 hours of deliberations. I found it odd they didn't sentence her to death ... I mean, this is Texas. However, her conviction was overturned primarily because an "expert" lied on the stand about the possibility of Yates being inspired to murder her children by an episode of Law & Order.

The difference between the 2 verdicts in the Yates case demonstrate at least one of two things: 1) that there is a growing understanding in the popular consciousness about the legitimacy of mental illnesses and/or 2) the need for a fabulous legal and psychiatric team to educate specific juries. I'm afraid the latter alone is more likely than the former.

Rochelle Gregory said...

That's an interesting point, Dr. T. I wonder if the metaphor as a way of *not* knowing breaks down when it comes to mental illnesses, developmental disabilities, or neurological differences because of the very point you make regarding Nancy Grace. We all have brains. We all think (in theory). There's an existential "separateness" between the mind and the body, so it's easier to see mental conditions as separate from the body--and similar to everyone's experiences. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well.

Let me try again: we all experience fear, happiness, frustration. We know it's difficult to explain because it's wrapped so intrinsically with consciousness. I think of it as being "in my head" when I'm angry and have a hard time "stepping outside of myself" to see the bigger picture. After all, if you're OCD and have been OCD for most of your conscious existence, you don't know any different. You don't know what it feels like to not be OCD.

*But,* we still think we all experience fear, love, happiness, frustration that same way. Sure, I've been sad. You've been sad. We've all been sad. What's the big deal? Well, my "sad" is different from your "sad" but we can't get out of our own consciousness to understand that.

Autistics are sometimes referred to as having "mind blindness" where some lack the ability to put themselves in other's positions. To see themselves as part of the world rather than just existing in it. I wonder, then, if we all have "mind blindness" to a certain degree. We think our consciousness is the same as everyone else's.

Rochelle Gregory said...

TJ--your comment reminded me of a paper I wrote on Terri Schiavo and the rhetoric of that case. I think there's so many similarities here, specifically for the reasons you discuss--the awareness and lack of understanding of mental conditions and mental illness. I think many in our society would be fine with Yates finding the same fate as Schiavo. Our society has little patience for mental illness or mental conditions.

Yates and Schiavo are also similar in the point Dr. T makes. Both Yates and Schiavo experienced diminished mental capacity. Both deserved to die. The rest is just details.

DrTee said...

But the people who think Yates should die are the very ones who reject any notions of mental incapacity. They think she killed her kids because she just wanted to--who thinks that way? Normal people, apparently.