We are all unique, autonomous individuals with our own views and cultural ties. We come from diverse origins with differing religious and political sentiments based on our varied experiences of the world. We may also be from specific racial backgrounds, sexual orientations, and socio-economic classes. All of these factors mold our subjectivity and shape our paradigm of the world. Each of these elements makes us who we are, but at the same time, these structures may limit our ability to understand the viewpoints of others. However, understanding one another is necessary to write for audiences who come to our work with different experiences and expectations. How do we bridge this gap that resides between us? How can we build an understanding between one another in these divisive times while also cultivating the courage to speak?  The answer is listening. More specifically, rhetorical listening.

Krista Ratcliffe, author of the book Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness, defines rhetorical listening as “a stance of openness that a person may choose to assume in relation to any person, text, or culture. Defined more particularly as a code of cross-cultural conduct, rhetorical listening signifies a stance of openness that a person may choose to assume in cross-cultural exchanges” (Ratcliffe 1). Ratcliffe’s quote expresses that our openness is a choice, and if we hope to understand one another better, open-mindedness is key in this dynamic. Openness is the initial phase in the softening of cultural boundaries that may exist between individuals and groups of people who have differing social or cultural backgrounds. This is why rhetorical listening can be defined more specifically as a code of cross-cultural conduct. Radcliffe explains that her particular focus with her exploration of listening “lies in how rhetorical listening may be employed to hear people’s intersecting identifications with gender and race (including whiteness), the purpose being to negotiate troubled identifications in order to facilitate cross-cultural communication about any topic” (17). So, what are identifications? Identification is the primary factor in modern rhetorical theory or new rhetoric made popular by the rhetorician Kenneth Burke. It deals with how we relate to one another through symbols present in language and otherwise. Think of the politician who is having a rally in coal country and immediately explains to the audience that he/she truly understands their plight because “My grandfather was a coal miner his whole life.” Here, we see the example of the politician attempting to “identify” with his/her audience. Taking this example further, imagine what this particular candidate is wearing at this campaign stop. Perhaps they are wearing a flannel shirt or maybe something denim, the stereotypical clothes a coal miner might wear. This would be another attempt at identification by the candidate that goes beyond language. These identifications are continually occurring in every facet of life; most of the time, we are unaware of it. Rhetorical listening, if used properly, will help you navigate and understand how and why we identify with certain people, groups of people, or ideals, as well as what may be motivating other people to act and think the way they do. By understanding our own internal and external identifications, we then are in a better position to appreciate the views of others who are influenced by their own identifications with the world.

 It is important to keep in mind that even the act of listening itself may be influenced by our social programming, especially as it relates to factors such as gender. Debrah Tannen, the author of You Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation and a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University explains that gender roles deeply affect how we communicate and how we listen. Tannen argues that in U.S. culture, we have been conditioned to follow certain gender norms related to listening and communicating (Tannen 129). In essence, speaking is gendered as the more masculine attribute, while listening is gendered as the more feminine attribute. This could be why we have narratives in the country, such as “women are better listeners.” Take, for example, the disconnected husband figure half listening to the dramatic events that occurred in his wife’s long day at work, answering each statement with a monotone grunt, eventually angering her and forcing her to respond with “Are you even listening to me?” This is such a cliché at this point, and it has been on so many TV shows and films that it has become part of the narrative that we collectively tell ourselves. Most of us have probably heard an example of this before and maybe even have witnessed this same scenario with our own parents.  As a result, each of us may be influenced by how our gender identification might dictate how we speak and how we listen. It is essential to understand that not only does our gender affect how we listen and communicate, but other factors such as age, race, and class also have a dramatic effect on how we listen. With this example of bias as a result of our social programming, we can see just how easily our ability to listen may be hindered or even staunched.

Furthermore, another cultural bias that informs our ability to listen effectively is race. Nikki Giovanni, an African American poet, commentator, and activist, explains that listening is not only influenced by gender but also by race. Giovanni makes clear that white people in this country are not required to listen in the same way or as attentively as people of color (Giovanni 83-89). Think about all the unarmed people of color who have been slain by law enforcement. This has led numerous Black families across the country to have “the talk” with their children before they turn 16. “The talk” is when parents emphasize the importance of “listening closely” to everything the officer says during a traffic stop to avoid the unthinkable from happening. This is just one example of how race informs how we listen in our society.

Factors such as age and class inform how we listen as well. Think about your grandparents and other people their age; now think about yourself and other people your age. Imagine you are all watching/listening to a political debate between two presidential candidates. The topic of Social Security and Medicare might have little to no bearing on your age group, but your grandparents’ age group will be all ears. However, if the issue of student loans comes up, it is safe to assume that your age group will listen to every word that the candidates are uttering. The same is true for class. The stockbroker in the audience will be listening for key indicators as they relate to business or finance, whereas the middle school band director is listening for issues as they relate to public education and the preservation of the arts. We can see how other elements, such as religion, race, or gender, might also inform how a person listens. Keep in mind, though, that each person is a web of identifications; one person might be a mother/schoolteacher/middle-class/Gen X/Christian/Native American (visually white)/pro-gun/anti-abortion/Mid-Westerner. All of these factors inform how this person listens. The same is true for you; a web of factors inform how you speak and how you listen.  

Now that we have a basic understanding of how our ability to listen is influenced by factors such as race, gender, etc., let us explore further how rhetorical listening may assist us in understanding our fellows. Ratcliffe outlines four moves or outcomes associated with rhetorical listening: “1. Promoting an understanding of self and others, 2. Proceeding within an accountability logic, 3. Locating identifications across commonalities and differences, 4. Analyzing claims as well as the cultural logics within which these claims function” (Radcliffe 26). With these four moves/outcomes in mind, we can see how rhetorical listening, if appropriately utilized, could foster a sense of unity that celebrates differences by the recognition of our inherent identifications within the social and cultural matrix we exist within. For Ratcliffe, “these moves foster in listeners the critical thinking skills that may lay grounds for productive communication” (26).

We can certainly see how promoting an understanding of ourselves and others would be extremely helpful in improving our ability to communicate. Radcliffe explains that “understanding means more than simply listening for a speaker/writer’s intent. It also means more than simply listening for our own self-interested readerly intent…understanding means listening to discourses not for intent but with intent- with the intent to understand not just the claims but the rhetorical negotiations of understanding as well” (28). Proceeding within an accountability logic, according to bell hooks presented in her work “Race and Feminism: The Issue of Accountability” explains that

Accountability does not mean continually beating oneself up for one’s history, culture, or Freudian slips; such a move is, at best, narcissistic. Nor does accountability mean believing that apologizing for unintended slights is enough; such a thought is, at best, self-indulgent. Nor does accountability mean claiming that the past is the past and, thus, has no effect on the present; such a claim is, at best, myopic. Nor does accountability mean arguing that things have always been this way and that acting for change will do no good; such an argument is, at best, cowardly, self-interested, and/or self-defeating. (hooks 31)

Here hooks explains what accountability is not, but how should we view accountability? Radcliffe proposes that “accountability means that we are indeed all members of the same village, and if for no other reason than that (and there are other reasons), all people necessarily have a stake in each other’s quality of life” (Radcliffe 31). In essence, we are all in this together, and this should be our guiding principle. We should be aware of our privileges and biases but not be anchored to the guilt/blame logic cycle of reasoning.  

            Locating identifications across commonalities and differences is helpful in finding areas of relation while also emphasizing areas of difference. This adds to the Burkean or Rogerian concept of common ground, which is important in that our associations and relationships with one another are places of commonality and of difference. Rhetorical listening encourages us to become aware of this dynamic to promote a deeper understanding of our world and others.

            In analyzing claims as well as the cultural logics within which claims function, Radcliffe states that “If a claim is an assertion of a person’s thinking, then a cultural logic is a belief system or shared way of reasoning within which a claim may function” (33). Let us take two generic claims about the 2024 presidential election. Person one claims that “Donald Trump should be elected president in 2024,” and Person two claims that “Kamila Harris should be elected.” Both people have opposing claims, but what are the cultural logics at play in this exchange? Person one may be operating from a conservative logic, evangelical logic, isolationist logic, or a combination of all three logics and certainly others not mentioned here. The same is true with person two, the Harris voter, but their claim is motivated by different cultural logics.

Furthermore, Ratcliffe outlines a few strategies for rhetorical listening and achieving a state of openness. First, one must “Pause.” It is in this moment that we bring our conscious awareness into the encounter. We consciously prep ourselves to be open and aware. This is important because our initial reaction when hearing views that conflict with our own is to either immediately disregard what the other person is saying or to take offense and start looking for ways to attack that person’s opinion. This dance of othering is not conducive to finding a middle ground. The best approach is to pause and let our biases fade into the background momentarily. The goal is to become as objective as possible while the exchange is taking place. One of the most crucial aspects of rhetorical listening is nurturing a stance of openness. This means that we should mitigate or at least muffle our pre-judgments or prejudices before hearing or reading another person’s opinion. This also means remembering that we are engaging with another human being who has lived a unique experience and has a valued perspective as to how the world functions.

This openness and understanding of the other person’s humanity is the starting point for finding a middle ground. This idea of reaching a “middle ground,” or “common ground,” was an idea proposed in Rogerian rhetoric by the famed psychologist Carl Rogers, who viewed this technique of conflict resolution as a key element of his client-centered therapy (Bator 428). This is also similar to Kenneth Burke’s modern theory of consubstantial common ground. A middle ground is a workable space where ideas and perspectives can be shared without the abject fear of reprisal or retaliation. This is the goal of rhetorical listening. But how can this workable space be created?  One technique for establishing a middle ground involves listening as deeply and as empathetically as possible to the other person’s point of view and then restating the other’s view. Once both parties have expressed the other’s sentiments, a middle ground between the two parties may be possible. This middle ground is the space where compromise and progress are possible and ultimately is the goal of rhetorical listening. This process of finding a middle ground could easily be exemplified in the classroom during group work, or simply during instances in daily life when compromise is required. However, this does not mean that, ultimately, we will always agree or that we should jeopardize our authenticity.  Sometimes, respectful disagreement is the closest we can get to finding a middle ground and that’s ok. The truth is that sometimes speaking up and risking disagreement is absolutely necessary.  Each situation is different, but this does not mean that we should resign ourselves to silence for fear of going against the grain.

             The truth is, at times, we must risk disagreement. The other outcome is silence. Silence is stagnation. Choosing silence over speaking up is giving in to fear. Silence, in some ways, is death. This does not mean that we should abandon the possibility of compromise or become so rigid in our views that we blind ourselves to the views of others. We should always try to understand the cultural logics others are reasoning within, but at the same time, we should have the courage to speak even at the risk of disagreement. This is precisely what Audre Lorde, self-described “black, lesbian, feminist, socialist, mother, warrior, poet” explains in her speech “The Transformation of Silence into Action” given at the MLA (Modern Languages Association) conference in 1977. For Lorde, the most important aspect of confronting injustice is breaking the silence. Lorde states, “I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood” (Lorde 1). This vital realization came to Lorde as she was faced with a dire cancer diagnosis. Confronting the frailty of life, Lorde realized that “In becoming forcibly and essentially aware of my mortality, and of what I wished and wanted for my life, however short it might be, priorities and omissions became strongly etched in a merciless light, and what I most regretted were my silences.” Here, we see that when Lorde was faced with the potential end, she realized that her only regrets would be the times she chose silence over speaking out. This can be a daunting task. It takes courage to break the silence; Lorde explains that “In the cause of silence, each of us draws the face of her own fear- fear of contempt, of censure, or some judgment, or recognition, of challenge, of annihilation” (3). These fears are exactly what must be overcome in speaking one’s truth. In the process of rhetorical listening, these fears must be dealt with at the beginning of the process. But how does breaking the silence and listening relate? It may seem that these ideas conflict, but in reality, having the courage to speak our truth and having the courage to listen to the truth of another are intimately woven and dependent on each other for the possibility of growth. We must recognize our own identifications with the world while imagining the identifications of others, this can only be achieved by listening to ourselves and to others.  Lorde ends her speech by stating “The fact that we are here and that I speak these words is an attempt to break that silence and bridge some of those differences between us, for it is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken” (6). From Lorde’s speech we can gather that one must have courage to break the stifling bonds of silence. This courage is essential in the process of rhetorical listening as well. One must first have the courage to listen and then have the courage to speak up. This courage, coupled with openness, allows one to share their truth while respecting the truth of others. This can be difficult and yes, we risk disagreement, but if all parties are open and respectful of the social and cultural differences involved, then progress through rhetorical listening is possible. The courage to break the silence is just as important as having the respect to listen. Think back on an instance when you were moved by hearing someone lay their heart on the line. Did this person speak their truth from a place of fear or love? Perhaps a measure of self-love is required to take the risk involved with speaking up. Take, for example, Malala Yousafzai. Malala was an activist for women’s rights in Pakistan. She specifically spoke out about the Taliban’s restriction on women and girls seeking education. In this case, there was no possibility of compromise. The Taliban was quite firm in its complete and total control over women’s bodies and minds. Malala had the courage to speak out against the Taliban’s treatment of women, regardless of the danger involved. In 2012, Malala was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman. She survived her injuries and became a beacon of hope not only for women in the region but for people across the globe. She is now living a full and meaningful life; Malala understood that breaking the silence was the only way for change to occur. She knew that she was risking her life, but chose to speak up regardless. This is exactly the type of courage that Audre Lorde was talking about when she gave her famous speech.  

Hopefully, none of you will have to endure the level of oppression that Malala faced. However, you should take Malala’s and Lorde’s examples to heart. They both had the courage to break the silence when it really mattered. Most of the time, cultivating a perspective of openness and listening with awareness and empathy will be enough to gain additional insight into any given situation. However, there are times when this is not enough, and you must stand up against the oppressor or oppressive ideal and speak your truth. This paper was written with all of this in mind. Rhetorical listening is not a cure-all, it will not likely solve all of the world’s problems, but it can give you a level of awareness and insight into your own internal and external identifications that will help you navigate an increasingly tumultuous and divided world. As human beings, our capacity to listen allows us to bridge that gap between us. For Lorde, this means having the courage to break the silence, ultimately fostering connection. For Ratcliffe, this means cultivating a stance of openness, which allows us to be receptive to other perspectives. Both approaches deal with finding a connection despite what differences may exist between us. We cannot experience the world through the eyes of others, but we can listen. Through this process of rhetorical listening, we can at least shed our biases for a moment to see the humanity of our fellows. By doing this, real change and real growth can occur. You will find rhetorical listening helpful when reading and viewing material for class, but these strategies will be even more helpful when engaging with the real world in your everyday interactions.