Rhetoric and/of the Common(s)

E. Johanna Hartelius
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2204783
2023-06-22
RSQ-Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Abstract:The first years of the 2020s have provided reasonable doubt as to what "common" means. What is common place when accessible locations become scenes of oppressive violence, and physical and digital sites are privatized and surveilled? What is common sense when the dread and fear of so many are eclipsed by the postpandemic rhetoric of "resilience" and commercialism's bubblegum optimism? What is common good when legal and civil rights are stripped, and the institutions originally established to serve the public are dismantled? In Richard Rorty's assessment of the public (and privately self-created) potential for solidarity, common sense is the opposite of irony (74), and the ironist "someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance" (xv). The "final vocabulary" against which "alternative" beliefs, actions, and lives are judged habituates its speakers to what may be taken for granted (although speaker is not Rorty's word). He writes, "When common sense is challenged, its adherents respond at first by generalizing and making explicit the rules of the language game they are accustomed to play" (74). The issue at hand (in this [special] issue at hand) concerns language games, habituation, the common, and the commons.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?