Montgomery 1

Ashley Montgomery

Dr. Gabriela Ríos

ENC 3331

10 February 2015

Defining Rhetorical Citizenship

Rhetorical citizenship is the privilege of hearing and being heard, whether through

actions or words, it is the ability to speak freely and to listen openly. However, rhetorical

citizenship is not free, it is earned. Through broad societal standards and particular individual

standards, everyone must earn rhetorical citizenship and it is not an equal fight. Some are born

with the silver spoon of privilege and some are tossed a rusty one that must be polished into

perfection. But once rhetorical citizenship is earned, it is our responsibility to exercise it to

affect society in a positive way, lest it be taken away once more.

Social Citizenship

At a macro level, achieving citizenship is based on rules and solid evidence. Just by being

a natural born citizen I have privilege to access a driver’s license, apply for a job, or go to

college. These easily earned opportunities then allow me to use my citizenship for the greater

good. I am able to drive to a charity event or use money from my salary to make donations. Yet,

I am not all privileged. As a woman the path to rhetorical citizenship is improving, when before

“women were discouraged from engaging in rhetoric and because of this, they were omitted from

history”, now I am able to choose a career over motherhood and my voice is heard when I speak

(Haas 4555). But, I still receive less pay for the same work as men and oftentimes I am spoken to

Montgomery 2

in a condescending or softer way. That weakens my rhetorical citizenship because I am not taken

as seriously in political or social forums therefore my ideas and my fight for positive change is

not heard as strongly as if a man had said it. In this way, rhetorical citizenship is often earned

through gender, with men earning it quicker and with more power. Rhetorical citizenship is

earned through race, as well. I can use my mixed-race privilege to obtain opportunities, such as

scholarships. Through race, I can use my African American side to protest police brutality and

still seem credible. What we can gather from this information is that ethos is directly related to

rhetorical citizenship. As Nedra Reynolds states, “An individual’s ethos cannot be determined

outside of the space in which it was created or without a sense of the cultural context” (Reynolds

329). This means that your power of ethos weakens or grows depending on who your audience is

at the time. For example, as a college student my ethos in a classroom setting is relatively weak.

I am the one who needs the professor to teach me, and so my influence in things such as subject

matter or amount of homework is low. But, as a college student visiting high school, my ethos is

very strong. I am a credible source of information because I have been where those students are

now, and I have experience in college. Rhetorical citizenship is also defined through literacy,

according to Amy Wan, “a good citizen is one who participates, who is engaged, who can

critique society, and who is a productive, satisfied member of the nation, using advanced literacy

skills as a means to achieve these civic acts.” (Wan, 33). This means that if you are literate, you

are able to understand issues about local, state, or national matters and introduce your own

credible opinions. Yet, Wan offers a rebuttal to literacy as a bridge to rhetorical citizenship “A

more literate student (however that literacy may be defined) is assumed to be a better citizen

because of his or her ability to participate more effectively (however that effectiveness may be

defined)”(Wan, 36). What she means is that “Literacy” is too broad a word to use so strictly in

Montgomery 3

defining rhetorical citizenship. Some people may be more literate than others, so do they earn

more privilege in rhetorical citizenship? Questions like this make defining rhetorical citizenship

at a social level so difficult. There will always be someone left out of participating rhetorically

until we manage to create an all-encompassing definition that allows fair access to rhetorical

citizenship for everyone.

Individual Citizenship

On a micro level, definitions of rhetorical citizenship vary from individual to individual.

Amy Wan believes that rhetorical citizenship comes from access, “gaining access to resources is

what gives individuals the ability to enjoy these rights and to live as full citizens.” (Wan 40).

This means that people may earn citizenship simply just by accessing resources such as

education. Yet, for some people, such as undocumented immigrants, gaining access isn’t so easy.

Without identification or proof of citizenship many immigrants are denied access to school.

Reynolds states that everybody is already born with rhetorical citizenship because everyone is

born with ethos, she uses a quote from Aristotle, “we become just by doing just acts, temperate

by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts”, this means that if you act as a citizen, then

effectively you are a citizen. Reynolds’ definition is idealistic, in reality, our culture requires

concrete facts to tell us where we stand. In this modern age, we need assurance that who people

say they are is true and we want evidence to quell our fears. To me, rhetorical citizenship on an

individual level is defined by civic engagement and education. Civic engagement is simply

participation in your community to better the lives of others through political and social action.

This is important to rhetorical citizenship because being a good citizen requires an interest in

current affairs and good morals. Education does not mean an Ivy League degree; it can be as

simple as life experiences that have helped you learn and grow. This is important to my

Montgomery 4

definition of rhetorical citizenship because if you have an education in the subject you are

addressing then you will be heard clearly. Individually, rhetorical citizenship is based more on

abstract matters. This is because when dealing with people separately it is easy to discover if he

or she is a “good man speaking well” (Quintilian 12.1.1). Rhetorical citizenship on a micro level

is more forgiving and open to interpretation because everyone will have their own definition.

Sponsor Citizenship

At the University of Central Florida, civic engagement is abound. One group stands out

to me as a perfect example: Don’t Shop, Adopt. It is a group that aims to raise awareness of

animal shelters, specifically kill shelters, in the Orange County area. The group practices

rhetorical citizenship through passing out informational leaflets on various parts of campus and

every month they bring shelter dogs to UCF to demonstrate that shelter animals are neither

aggressive nor unsociable. Through this, they are using their privilege as college students to

relate to other young adults and gain access to resources provided by the university such as

printing labs or designated public forums where they bring the dogs to interact with. Because

members of the group are college students they have ethos with their audience (fellow UCF

students). The group is young, educated and willing to change the world, so when the audience is

told that volunteering at a shelter can be as simple as bringing in animal food every week, the

audience is willing to listen and perhaps even participate because they see someone just like

themselves making change. The club encourages members and non-members to visit rescues

homes and write about their experiences with these beautiful and mistreated animals. By doing

this, they hope to raise awareness of the plight of abandoned pets and increase adoptions from

kill shelters and rescue homes. Don’t Shop, Adopt uses its privilege as a certified club in a

Montgomery 5

positive way, to save animals. By practicing rhetorical citizenship, they are making change in the

lives of mistreated pets through oral communication and written stories.

Conclusion

Defining rhetorical citizenship is challenging. On a societal level, the definition must

have strict limitations and a clear outline because it is for the diverse masses. On an individual

level, the definition can be fluid and subject to opinion because it is evaluated from person to

person. On the broadest level however, rhetorical citizenship is simply being able to speak and

listen freely and hopefully using those actions to invoke positive change. Don’t Shop, Adopt

epitomizes the positive use of privilege through raising awareness of shelter dogs. We must use

their example to make change in our lives, too. When we speak, we must do so for a constructive

reason. When we listen we must be willing to hear the message because as Krista Ratcliffe

summarized, we are only limited by our ability to listen. When we speak well and listen willingly

we are doing our part. Power, privilege and ethos are the building blocks in our rhetorical

citizenship and we must use them to affect society in a positive way.

Montgomery 6

Works Cited

Wan, Amy. "In the Name of Citizenship: The Writing Classroom and the Promise of

Citizenship.” College English 74.1 (2011). Print.

Reynolds, Nedra. "Ethos as Location: New Sites for Understanding Discursive

Authority.” Rhetoric Review 11.2 (1993). Print.

Ratcliffe, Krista. "Rhetorical Listening: A Trope for Interpretive Invention and a "Code of Cross-

Cultural Conduct" College Composition and Communication 51.2 (1999). Print.

Powell, Malea, Pigg, Stacey, Leon, Kendal and Haas, Angela (2010) “Rhetoric”, Encyclopedia

of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition, 1: 1,4548-4556

Quintilian, Marcus. Institutio Oratoria. 1st ed. Vol. 12. 0. Print.