Syracuse University Syracuse University

SURFACE SURFACE

Dissertations - ALL SURFACE

August 2016

La Pasionaria: The Ethos of a Leader La Pasionaria: The Ethos of a Leader

Nicole Gonzales Howell Syracuse University

Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/etd

Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Howell, Nicole Gonzales, "La Pasionaria: The Ethos of a Leader" (2016). Dissertations - ALL. 661. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/661

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact surface@syr.edu.

Abstract

LaPasionaria:TheEthosofaLeaderwasdirectedbyLoisAgnew.Thisdissertation

projectinsertsLatinaactivistDoloresHuertaintothefeministrhetoricaltraditionand

tracesthecomplicatedwaysinwhichethosisconstructedfrommultiplyoppressedbodies

withinthecontextofsocialmovements.Specifically,Huerta’sethosformationisexamined

inordertoidentifytherhetoricalstrategiesrequiredwhensomeonenotonlylacking

power,butalsopurposefullysilenced,isabletobreakthroughsocietalbarriersandcreate

change.Theintentofthisresearchistobuildontheworkoffeministrhetoricalscholars

anddiscoverhowattendingtoHuerta’sinescapableembodiedidentitiesprovidesadeeper

conceptualizationofrhetoricalstrategy.Throughtherhetoricalanalysisofavarietyoftexts

by,andabout,HuertaIexaminehowshewaspositionedbyothersaswellpositionsherself

throughlanguage,andmorespecificallylanguagethatdescribesand/ordefinesher

embodiedidentitycategories.

Ultimately,asastudyofethosandhowitisaffectedbyidentitythisdissertation

projectarguesthatthebodyandtheembodiedidentitiesassociatedwithitsignificantly

shapeshowethoscanandisconstructed.InexamininghowsocialjusticeactivistDolores

HuertaconstructedherethosduringtheinitialorganizationoftheUnitedFarmworkers

UnionIaimtobothhighlighttheroleofHuertaasaco-founderoftheUFWandaddHuerta

asanimportantrhetoricalfigureofstudyinthefieldofRhetoric.

LAPASIONARIA:THEETHOSOFALEADERBy

NicoleGonzalesHowell

B.A.,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,1996M.A.,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno,2009

DissertationSubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophyinCompositionandCulturalRhetoric.

SyracuseUniversityAugust2016

Copyright2016NicoleGonzalesHowellAllrightsreserved.

iv

Acknowledgements

IhavebeenlookingforwardtowritingmyacknowledgementssinceIstarted

workingonmydissertation.Truthbetold,I'vefoundmyselfimagininghowitwouldfeelto

writethislongbeforeIevenhadadissertationproject,perhapsevenasfarbackasmyfirst

semesterofcoursework.Now,asIsithereandwrite,I'mfloodedwithmanyemotions,but

nonemoresignificantthangratitude.Thereissomuchthatgoesintoachievingthekindof

accomplishmentofearningaPhD,andIamgratefultoallthosethatcontributedtomy

successalongtheway.IcouldnotimaginemylifewithoutthepeopleandexperiencesI

havegainedinthelastsevenyears!SyracusethecityandSyracusetheUniversitywill

foreverholdaspecialplaceinmyheart.

Thisdissertationhasbeenaworkofcollaborationtoitscore,butIwanttostartby

acknowledgingthesupportofmyincrediblehusband,GabrielHowell,withoutwhichI

wouldhavenothadtheconfidenceandopportunitytoreturntogradschool.Littledidwe

knowourfamilywouldgrowwhileinSyracuse.However,aftermanyyearsofhoping,we

foundoutafterourfirstyearherethatweweregoingtohaveababy!IdeliveredJonas

duringmysecondyearofcourseworkandhavebeentryingtokeepupwithhimeversince.

Butthisdissertationwouldn’thavecometofruitionwithoutthem.Further,thesupportof

myparentsandsisterspositionedmeinlifetobereadytocommittothiskindofworkand

tomakethedecisiontofurthermyeducation.Iamindebtedtomyfamilyfortheirendless

encouragement.

In2008,oncethecosmosaligned,andwiththehelpofmyfamily,wewereSyracuse

bound.Andtherebeganarigorous,exasperating,andlife-alteringjourney.Havingearned

mymaster’sdegreeafterovera10-yearhiatusfromacademia,Iwasareturningstudent,

v

andIfoundmyselfstrugglingtofindconfidenceasanacademicwriter.IoftenfeltasifI

wereconstantlyplaying“catchup.”Interestingly,thereisapalpablecadenceduring

coursework—adistinctebbandflowtotheknowledgegainedandproduced.And,tosome

degree,theechoofthatcadencecanbefeltduringexamprepandcompletion.Butthework

ofadissertationisdifferent;it’sasortofintellectualworkthatdrawsfromallaspectsofa

scholar’spersonalandprofessionallifeinequalmeasure.Ittakesself-discipline,self-trust,

andalotofpersonalandprofessionalsupport.

AftertakingLois'classinmysecondyearofcoursework,andafterworkingwithher

duringmyWPAinternshipduringmythirdyear,IknewIfoundthementorIneeded.As

theChairofmydissertation,Loisofferedsomuchofhertimeandinvaluablementorship.

Shereadandrespondedtomymostrawandunpolishedwritingandthinking.She

continuallyencouragedmetothinkdeeplybyaskingtoughquestionsthat,whilenoteasily

answered,developedagreaterunderstandingofboththevalueoftheworkthatIwas

doingandtheperspectivethatIoffer.Whileprovidingmewithintellectualandscholarly

guidance,Loisalsoconsistentlysupportedmyeffortstomaintainawork/lifebalance.Iam

immeasurablygratefulforthegiftsLoishasgivenmeovertheyears,especiallyhertime,

herunendingpatience,andherunwaveringbeliefinmyabilitytoproducemeaningful

work.

Itrulycouldn’thavehadabetterdissertationcommittee.LikeLois,Beckyoffered

unwaveringenthusiasmandconfidenceinmyabilitiesandremindedmeoftenthroughthis

multi-yearendeavorthattheworkIwasdoingwasnotonlyinteresting,butalsoamuch-

neededinterventioninthefield.BeckywasoneofmyfirstmentorsatSUandhascontinued

toseemethroughthisprocesswithencouragementandguidanceatthemostpivotal

vi

moments.AndIwillbeforevergratefultoGwenPoughforboththeadvicesheprovidedme

professionallyandpersonally.Thetransitionfrombeingamaster’sdegreestudenttoaPhD

studentcanbedauntingforjustaboutanyone,butthereisaparticulardifficultyasa

returningstudentofcolor3000milesawayfromhome.Gwenhelpedmebeunapologetic

aboutsharingmyexperiences,andtoknowwhentoprotectmyselffrominstitutionalized

pressures.

InSyracuse,Ialsoformedincrediblerelationshipswithmyfellowcohort,grad

students,andadditionalfacultywhocollectivelyofferedagreatdealofencouragementand

guidance.Throughcoursework,IhadthepleasureoflearningfromDrs.LoisAgnew,Collin

Brooke,MargaretHimley,Rebecca(Becky)MooreHoward,KristaKennedy,SteveParks,

GwenPough,DaliaRodriguez,andEileenSchell.IalsohadanincredibleMaymestercourse

withMinnie-BrucePrattthatforeverchangedmyorientationtowritingandthatsparkeda

deeploveandappreciationforCreativeNonFiction.NotonlywasIabletoforgecloseand

meaningfulrelationshipswithfacultythroughcoursework,butalsoIwasveryfortunateto

workwithDr.TonyScottasaWPA:AssessmentInternduringmyfourthyearinthe

program.ItwasthroughthecollectivementorshipfromfacultythatIlearnedaboutthe

manyfacetsofbeingafacultymember,andthatIdiscoveredthekindofteacher,scholar,

andadministratorthatIamandhopetobecome.

WithoutadoubteachfacultymemberIhadtheopportunitytoknowandtowork

withatSUaidedmeingrowinginanintellectual,professional,andpersonalcapacity.In

additiontothefaculty,whileatSUIwasincrediblyblessedtohavemetandbecomefriends

withmysoulsisters!Now,Drs.MissyWatson,AnnaHensley,andKateNavickas,have

becomesuchamazingfriendsthattheyareconsideredfamily.Icouldnotbemore

vii

fortunatetocallthesewomenmysister-friendsasIhavebenefittedfromtheirgenerosity

timeandtimeagain.Together,wehaveenjoyedmanyadventurous,sufferedgreatlosses,

andhaveenduredthemundane.Muchlovetoeachoftheseladiesandtheiramazing

familiesthathavekeptuskeepin’on!

Truthfully,IamindebtedtosomanypeoplethatIworkedwithandmetthroughout

mygraduateworkincluding:JustinLewis,MelissaKizinaMotsch,RachaelShapiro,TJ

Geiger,SantoshKhadka,ColletteCaton,AviLuce,JayHaynes-Hughes,LaToyaSawyer,Tim

Dougherty,BenKuebrich,CarolynOstrander,AllisonHitt,SethDavis,JasonLuther,Emily

Luther,JasonMarkins,KarrieannSoto,TamaraIssak,TessaBrown,LindseyBanister,

KristenKrause,LouAnnPayne,JonnaGilfus,KristiJohnson,BetsyHogan,IvyKleinbart,and

somanymore!

Next,IwanttotakeamomenttoextendmythanksDr.EileenSchell.Surprisingly,

mydissertationwasnotsupposedtobearhetoricalanalysis.InsteadIhadplannedona

WPA-centeredprojectthattookupwritingassessmentpractices.However,becauseofone

criticalmomentwithEileenSchell,mydissertationprojectwasborn.Mypresentationfor

the2011FeminismsandRhetoricsconferenceinMankato,MNwasacritiqueofthelackof

bothLatinafiguresofstudyandscholarsincludedinpopularanthologiesoftenusedin

FeministRhetoricscourses.ThenightbeforedeliveringmypresentationIpracticedwith

Eileen,afterwhichIwasmetbyatroublingquestion.Eileensimplyasked,“WellNicole,if

youdon’tdothiswork,whowill?”Itookthisquestionveryseriously.IfI,aLatinawho

believesmyvoicemattersandwhostronglybelievesmanyLatinavoicesmatterandneed

tobeheard,ifIwasnotdoingthiswork,whowould?IrealizedIneededtobepartofthe

interventionIwascallingfor.IneededtobeaLatinavoice,andIneededtobringinaLatina

viii

figureofstudyintothefieldofRhetoric.ThankyouEileenforpushingmefromcritiqueto

production!

Aftermuchdeliberation,activistDoloresHuertabecamemyprimaryrhetorof

interestforseveralreasons,butnonemoreimportantthanthemanyconnectionsweshare.

IlikeHuertaamfromthecentralvalleyofCalifornia—althoughborninDawson,NM

HuertaspentmostofherlifeinStockton,CAjustabouttwohoursnorthofFresnowhichis

whereI’mfrom—andIlikeHuertaneverlaboredinthefields,butareveryclosetomany

thatdid,andIlikeHuertacontinuetonavigatebuildingauthorityfromabodythatsignifies

multipleoppressions.Thankyou,DoloresHuerta,foryouractivismandyourrhetorical

skill.I’msogratefultohavehadtheopportunitytogettoknowmoreaboutyourimportant

contributionstotheUnitedFarmWorkersthroughmydissertationproject.Whileitistrue

thisdissertationhadtobedoneforprofessionalreasons,ithadtobedoneforpersonal

reasons,too.Andit’sdone!

ix

Dedication

ForAlinaSimon,yourlove,faith,andstrengthcontinuetoinspireallthatIdo.You’re

deeplymissed,butnotforgotten.

x

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….…………..................ivCHAPTER PAGE1. LaPasionariaTheEthosofaLeader…………………...………………………….………..…………1

2. ConceptionsofEthos:WorkingtoUnderstandthe“Self”……….……………..…….……….25

3. MatrixThinking:Intersectionality,Mestizaconsciousness,anddiscovering

Huerta…………………..…………………………………………………………………………...……..………66

4. Inescapablebodyandself-definition………………...……………………………..………...…..…..85

5. EthosandGenre:Purpose,SocialAction,andtheRhetoricalSituation…..………….....120

6. Conclusion…………..………………………………………………………………………………..……….....165

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………..………………………………………………………………………………….....187

VITA……………..…………………………………………………………………………………...............................200

1

LaPasionaria:TheEthosofaLeader

ForsixdecadesLaPasionaria(thepassionateone),assheisalsoreferredto,haspersonifiedleadership,courage,commitmenttothecauseofthedowntroddenandpowerless,andyes,passionforsocialjustice.

~MarioT.GarciaIntroduction:

InDecember1955RosaParksrefusedtogiveupherseattoaWhitepassengerin

Montgomery,Alabama.WhileParks’protestwasnotthefirstactiontakentowardthecivil

rightsmovement,itwasoneofthefirst,anditreceivedagreatdealofattention.Gaining

momentumfromcivilrightsleaderslikeDr.MartinLutherKing,Jr.aswellasmanyothers,

thelate1950sand1960swasatimeofchange,protest,and,inmanyways,unityinatime

offracture.DoloresHuertaandCesarChavez,leadersofthefightforfarmlaborers’rights,

calledforbetterworkingconditionsforfarmworkersduringthelate1950s,afightthat

lastedthroughouttheirlifetimes.However,theheightofthesuccessoftheUFWwas

primarilyduringthecivilrightsperiod.HuertaandChavezwerewellawareofthecultural

andpoliticalclimateandwereabletoutilizethemomentumfromthemovementto

leveragetheirefforts.Nonetheless,theculturalclimatealonewasnotenoughtomakethe

UnitedFarmWorkers(UFW)unionandcampaignasuccess.Infact,thereweremany

previousattemptsmadetoorganizefarmlaborerslongbeforeHuertaandChavez

spearheadedthecause.Inhisbook,WhyDavidSometimesWins,communityorganizerand

UFWparticipantDr.MarshallGanzidentifiesthreejuncturesbetween1901and1951in

whichseverallaborassociations,networksofradicalorganizers,andtheAmerican

2

FederationofLaborattemptedtoorganizefarmworkers(5-6).However,eachofthese

attemptsfailedinpartbecausetheunionrepresentativeswerenotseenasgenuineallies.

ChavezandHuertaembodiedidentitiesthatweresharedbymostofthecommunity

theywereworkingtoorganize,andwereintimatelyfamiliarwiththeworkingconditions

experiencedbythefarmworkers.Ganzacknowledges,“Someobserverspointtothe

distinctiveframingoftheUFW‘message.’Farmworkers,theysay,respondedtoacall

rootedintheirreligious,ethnic,andpoliticalculturemorereadilythantoa‘straighttrade

union’approach”(7).WhileGanzsuggeststhat“someobservers”recognizetheimportance

ofsharedvaluesbetweenthefarmworkersandtheUFW’sleadership,hestopsshortof

describingthe“straighttradeunion”andhowtheirvaluesdiffered.Ultimately,Ganzargues

thattheUFWwassuccessfulbecauseofwhathecalls“strategiccapacity,”andthat“an

organization’sstrategiccapacityis...afunctionofwhoitsleadersare—theidentities,

networks,andtacticalexperiences—andhowtheystructuretheirinteractionswitheach

otherandtheirenvironmentwithrespecttoresourceflows,accountability,and

deliberation[emphasisadded]”(8).Indeed,theethostheleadersbroughttotheUFWand

labormovementwasequallyifnotmoreimportanttotheirsuccessthanwasthehistorical

moment.

Thisstudyisanexaminationofethosandhowitisaffectedbyidentity.However,it

isalsoastudythatliesattheintersectionofrhetoric,feministhistoriography,andcritical

racetheorybecauseitaimstodemonstratehowethosiscomplicatedwhenbeing

constructedfroman“othered”body.Morespecifically,astheleadersoftheUFW,both

ChavezandHuertaspokefrombodiesthatwerefarlessauthorizedthantherhetorsthat

aremostoftenstudied—namely,Whitemen—however,theywerebothquitesuccessfulin

3

constructingtheirauthorityandthushaveremainedtheuncontestedforcesbehindthe

successofcreatingtheUFW.

Inasocialmovement,theroleoftheleader—thepublicface,theicon,therhetor—is

notonlycrucialtothemovement,butalsoshapestherhetoricalclimatethatrunsthrough

andaroundthemovement.Intheirchapter,“SocialMovementRhetoric,”authorsRobert

CoxandCristinaR.Fousttracetheevolutionofsocialmovementrhetoric(SMR)andargue

thatasthestudyofsocialmovementsgainedflexibility“theideaofadiscrete‘social

movement’hasbecomesomewhatproblematic”(620).Citingtheimportanceofmultiple

figures,contexts,andrhetoricalacts—especiallyastheyrelatetoembodiedandmaterial

rhetoric—inanygivenmovement,andthentheorizingaboutefficacyorstrategyofSMR

hasbecomeincreasinglydifficult.Thus,thisstudyisnotmeanttoanalyzethefarmworker

movementoverall,butinsteadexaminehowHuerta’sembodiedidentitiesaffectedherrole

asvicepresidentduringthecreationoftheUFWandherethosconstruction.Insodoing,

turningtosomeearlySMRscholarshipinwhichtheleaderisplacedcentraltoanalysisis

usefulforthisdiscussion.Morespecifically,in“Requirements,Problems,andStrategies:A

TheoryofPersuasionforSocialMovements,”HerbertW.Simonsidentifiesthechallenges

leadersofsocialmovementsaretaskedwithaddressing.Asaco-founderoftheUFW,like

Chavez,Huertawastaskedwithresolvingandreducingrhetoricalproblems,whichisone

oftheresponsibilitiesofasocialmovementleaderoutlinedbySimons(36).WhileChavez

isoftencelebratedas“the”leaderoftheUFW,Iarguethatasateamtheywerebetter

suitedtomanagethecomplexitiesoforganizingthefarmworkersintheculturalclimateof

the1960sand1970s.Simonsexplains,“movementsrequireadiversityofleadershiptypes

withwhomanyoneleadermustbothcompeteandcooperate”(39).Hefurthernotesthat

4

veryfewsingularleadershavebeenabletomeettheneedofthisdiversity(45),andthusI

claimthatlookingtoHuertaasaleaderalongsideChavezrevealshowtheirteameffort

benefitedthelargermovement.

AsthepresidentChavezwasaveryhighprofilememberofthefightforfarmlaborer

rights,however,thisworkfocusesprimarilyonHuertafortworeasons.First,aspointed

outbyhistorianandeditorofADoloresHuertaReader,MarioT.Garcia,

TheliteratureonChavezisvoluminous,andeventhoughnomajorbiographyhasyetbeenwrittenonthegreatfarmworkerandspiritualleader,therearemanybooksandarticlesabouthim.ThesameisnottrueofHuerta.Notonlyhasnobiographybeenwrittenabouther,buttheliteratureonherisquitescant.Asaresult,herroleinhistoryismuchlessappreciated.(xv)

SinceChavezhasbeenthefocalpointofmosthistoricalaccountsoftheUFW,thisstudy

examinesHuertaasaco-leaderinordertoacknowledgethecomplexityinvolvedin

organizingamovementonascaleaslargeasthecampaignforfarmlaborerrights.

RegardlessofthecrucialroleHuertaplayedinthefightforbetterworkingconditionsand

socialjustice,upuntilrecentlyherworkandeffortshavebeenhistoricallyeclipsedbythe

moreprominentroleofChavez.Thus,thisprojectaimstobringHuertaoutoftheshadows

andforegroundthecomplex,crucial,andexceptionalworkshedid.Second,oneofthe

largeraimsofthisprojectistocontinuetheworkcriticalracefeministscholarsdoof

bringingwomen’svoices—especiallywomenofcolor—tothefield.Therefore,Iprimarily

focusonHuertaratherthantheduo.

AsaLatinamotherchampioningfarmlaborerrights,Huerta’smarginalityoffersa

challengetomanyofthetraditionalassumptionsaboutwhocan—andshould—be

consideredaneffectiverhetorician.Huertaskillfullyconstructsanethosthatcannotbe

dependentonconventionalsymbolsofauthoritythatareoftenaffordedtoWhitemalesor

5

thoseassociatedwithpowerfulpositions.Whileethosisconsideredakeyargumentative

appeal(Hyde,xiv-xvii),itisalsogreatlyaffectedbytheembodiedidentityoftherhetorand

theperceivedproximitytobodiesofpowerandauthority.Inotherwords,becauseHuerta

embodiedidentitiesdisassociatedwithauthority,andthatinsteadwereassociatedwith

culturalscriptsthatunderminehercredibility,shewaschallengedbyadditionalobstacles

forethosconstruction.InherbookRefiguringRhetoricalEducation,authorJessicaEnoch

describestheconceptofbiculturalismasaperspectivethatacknowledgesthepower

relationsbetweenadominantcultureandsubordinategroups(123).WhileEnochutilizes

thisconcepttoemphasizetherhetoricalsophisticationofMexicanteachersontheborder

ofMexicoandUnitedStatesattheturnofthe20thcentury,Ifindthisausefulconceptfor

consideringthecomplexityinvolvedinHuerta’sethosconstruction.Inotherwords,

becauseHuertaconstantlyhadtonegotiatethetensionbetweennormativedefinitionsof

herembodiedidentityandherpositionasaco-leaderoftheUFW,sheoftendefiedthose

normativedefinitions,thusrequiringuniquerhetoricalstrategiestoemergeasshe

navigatedthevolatileclimateofpoliticalprotest.

ThisdissertationprojectlooksatHuerta’sethosformationinordertoidentifythe

rhetoricalstrategiesrequiredwhensomeonenotonlylackingpower,butalsopurposefully

silenced,isabletobreakthroughsocietalbarriersandcreatechange.Theintentofthis

researchistobuildontheworkoffeministrhetoricalscholarsanddiscoverhowattending

toHuerta’sinescapableembodiedidentitiesprovidesadeeperconceptualizationof

rhetoricalstrategy.Specifically,throughtherhetoricalanalysisofavarietyoftextsbyand

aboutHuerta,Iexaminehowshewaspositionedbyothersaswellaspositioningherself

throughlanguage,andmorespecificallylanguagethatdescribesand/ordefinesher

6

embodiedidentitycategories.Basedonmyexamination,IfindthatHuertamustattend

to—ratherthanignoreorcontest—hermostvulnerableandvisibleformsofidentityin

ordertobuildherethosandmovebeyondthephysicalmarkersshecarries.Hersisthusa

compellingcasetoconsiderasitspeakstotheimportanceofnegotiatingbetweensocially

constructeddefinitionsofidentityandtheembodiedrealityofthoseidentities.

Inwhatfollows,IfirstlocatetheneedforincludingLatinarhetorsinthefieldof

RhetoricandCompositioninordertocallattentiontothecurrentgapinrepresentation.In

sodoing,Ialsosetthefoundationfordiscussionsinsubsequentchaptersthatfocuson

challengesuniquetoLatino/as.Ithenprovidesomecriticalbackgroundinformationabout

HuertaandherroleinUFWinordertoprovideabroadorientationtoher,themovement,

andtheUnitedFarmWorkersUnion.LearningwhereHuertaisfromandhowshegother

startinorganizingrevealsafewkeycomponentsthataidintheunderstandingofher

complexidentity.DrawingonthediscussionofHuerta’sroleintheUFWandthe

importanceoftheleadersofamovement,IfocusonconnectingHuertaandChavez’s

responsibilityforcreatingexigenceforthefarmlaborermovement.Thefinalsectionnot

onlydemonstratesthattheethosleadersbringtoamovementororganizationisnot

discreteorconfinedtotheirownpublic/privateidentitiesbutalsofurtheremphasizesthe

needtohighlightandforegroundtheroleofidentityinordertobetterunderstandhow

rhetoricalstrategyisaffectedbythebody.

ACallforLatinaVoices:AddingtoFeministPerspectivesandDisruptingtheBlackandWhiteParadigm

Feministworkonthehistoryofrhetorichasbecomeabundantoverthelastfew

decades.BeginningwithKarlynKohrsCampbell’s1989anthologyManCannotSpeakfor

Herfeministrhetoricshasbroughtinvoicesofrhetorsthathavebeensilencedalltoolong.

7

AddingtoCampbell,AndreaLunsford’sReclaimingRhetorica(1995)includesessaysthat

considerthemanycontributionswomenrhetorsweremakingdespitetheirlackof

recognitioninthehistoryofrhetoric.Witheachcollectionofwomen’svoicesthemale

centeredstudyofrhetoricwasevolving,orasLunsfordstates,“theessaysinReclaiming

Rhetoricasuggestthattherealmofrhetorichasbeenalmostexclusivelymalenotbecause

womenwerenotpracticingrhetoric—theartsoflanguageareafterallatthesourceof

humancommunication—butbecausethetraditionhasneverrecognizedforms,strategies,

andgoalsusedbywomenas‘rhetorical’”(6).Openingupspacesforrhetoricalinquiry

remainsaleadingobjectiveinfeministrhetorics,butasevidencedbyCherylGlenn’s

RhetoricRetold:RegenderingtheTraditionfromAntiquityThroughtheRenaissance,(1997)

womenthathadaccessto“educationandrhetoricalaccomplishments,”demonstratedthat

womenwereindeedrhetoriciansintraditionalconceptionsaswell.Nonetheless,asKate

Ronaldpointsout,Glennmappednewrhetoricalterritoryby“definingtherhetoricof

devotion,autobiography,thebody,andsilence”(142).

Withthegrowingcorpusofscholarshiponwomenrhetoriciansthesubfieldof

feministrhetoricswastakingshapeandgrowingexponentiallywithadditionalstudies

fromBarbaraBiesecker,SusanJarratt,NanJohnson,CarolMattingly,andLindalBuchannan

tonamejustafew.WhilesomeofthetextsaboveincludedAfricanAmericanwomenas

figuresofstudy,itwasShirleyWilsonLogan’s1995anthologyWithPenandVoice:A

CriticalAnthologyofNineteenth-CenturyAfricanAmericanWomen,thatexclusivelyfocused

onBlackwomen’svoicesandtherhetoricalstrategiesthatemergedfrommultiply

oppressedbodies.LikewisetheworkofJacquelineJonesRoysterandHuiWuwere

bringingattentiontowomenofcolorandtheiruniquecontributionstorhetoricalhistory.

8

Theworkofthese—andother—foundingmothersoffeministrhetoricpavedthewayfor

myinquiryintotheethosconstructionofLatinaactivistDoloresHuertabynotonly

expandingwhatcountsasrhetorical,butalsobydemandingattentionto“who”countsasa

rhetorician.

TheLatino/avoicehasnotbeenentirelysilentoverthehistoryofrhetoric,butithas

beenquiet.HighlightingtheissuesuniquetoLatinosineducation,RichardRodriguez

(1983)andVictorVillanueva(1993)offeredsomeoftheearliestautobiographicalwork

detailingthechallengesofbiculturalismexperiencedinanacademicsetting.Villanueva,has

continuedtocontributeimmenselytothewideningdefinitionofwhatcountsasrhetoric

andhasrecentlyco-editedwithDamianBacaananthologyofnon-GrecoRomanrhetoric

titledRhetoricoftheAmericas3114BCE-2012CE(2012).InasimilarveintoVillanueva,

RalphCintronexaminesrhetoricsofpubliccultureinhisethnographicbook,Angel’sTown

thatisarhetoricalanalysisofeverydaynegotiationsbetweenaLatino/acommunityand

dominantinstitutions.However,oneearlystudyfromLisaFloresdirectlyinformsthis

studybecauseofherfocusonexpandingdiscursivespaceandidentity.Inher1996article,

“CreatingDiscursiveSpaceThroughARhetoricofDifference,”LisaFloresanalyzesfictional

textsandLatinaliteraryauthorsandultimatelyargues,

thatadiscursivespacecanbeopenedthrougharhetoricofdifferencewhichallowsamarginalizedgrouptoreverseexistingandexternaldefinitionsandtocreatetheirowndefinitions.Thecreationofone'sownidentitywhichreliesuponthematerialconditionsofthepeopleismorelikelytoreflectthecultureofthepeople,ratherthanthedominantcultureoftheempowered.Suchaprocessisnecessaryforthosegroupswhoexperiencethedecenteringassociatedwithalackofspaceoftheirown,asitisameansthroughwhichtheoppressedcanmovethemselvesfromtheperipherytowardtheirowncenter.(162)

9

Flores’searlyinsightsintotherhetoricalstrategiesemployedbyLatinaauthors—albeit

throughfictionalnarratives—laidthefoundationforthekindofanalysisIdointhisstudy.

LikeFlores,JessicaEnochalsoaddstotheinvestigationofChicanarhetoricsinherarticles

“DefiningaChicanaFeministRhetoricattheTurnofCentury,”(2004)“SurvivalStories:

FeministHistoriographicApproachestoChicanaRhetoricsofSterilizationAbuse,”(2005)

andofcourse,herbookRefiguringRhetoricalEducation(2008).Inadditiontothescholars

citedabovetherearealsonewandemergingscholarsaddingtothefieldsuchasCristina

Ramirezwithher2015bookOccupyingOurSpace:TheMestizaRhetoricsofMexicanWomen

JournalistsandActivists1875-1942.Ramirezbringsneededattentiontothecontributionsof

Mexicanwomenjournalistsandactiviststhatworkedtoshapetheculturalandpolitical

climatebothbeforeandaftertheMexicanrevolution.Additionally,KendallLeon’s

“ChicanasMakingChange”andAjaMartinez’sseveralarticlesemphasizingtheimportance

ofcounterstory,codemeshing,andthetrappingsofcolorblindracismalsocontinuetoopen

channelsfordiscoveringcontributionsofLatino/afiguresofstudyandrhetorics.Whilethis

isnotanexhaustiveoverviewofeverystudyinvolvingLatino/arhetoricsitdoesinclude

manyofthetextsandscholarscurrentlyworkinginthesubfield.Thesescholarsamong

othersmadecriticalinterventionsinthefield,andofcourse,theircontributionscontinueto

influencecontemporaryrhetoricaltheory.However,whilegainshavebeenmade,many

peopleofcolorremainunderrepresentedacrossdisciplines,andtheretendstobeaspecific

andsignificantlackofLatino/avoices.

AscriticalracetheoristsRichardDelgadoandJuanPereahaveargued,ournation

hasbeenworkingfortoolongunderaBlackandWhitebinary.IanHaneyLopezandGeorge

Martinezfurtherreasonthatbecauseoftreatiesandgeographicproximity,Mexican

10

AmericansspecificallyhavebeenclassifiedasWhitewhenitsuitsthedominantgroupand

asnon-Whiteswhenitdoesnot.In“TheBlack/WhiteBinaryParadigmofRace”Perea,

arguesnotonlythatthecurrentparadigmfocusesonBlack/White,butalsobecauseofthat

“otherpeopleofcolor”tendtoeithergetcategorizedwithBlacksorignored

altogether.Furthermore,Pereaclaims,“Onlyafewwritersevenrecognizethattheyusea

Black/Whiteparadigmastheframeofreferencethroughwhichtounderstandallracial

relations”(346).ThefieldofRhetoricandCompositioncanbelikewisecritiquedinthis

context.Ofcourse,RhetoricandCompositionscholarshavebeguntheimportantworkof

examiningrace/ethnicityinrhetoricaleducationandcompositionstudiescontextsaswell

asrecoveryandanalysisofimportanthistoricalfiguresofcolor.However,muchofthe

workdoesexistwithinaBlack/Whitebinary.Inotherwords,itisclearthatourfield

includesmanyimportantworksthatexaminethehistoriesofHistoricallyBlackColleges

andAfricanAmericanrhetoricalpractices,whichofcourseareinherentlyimportanttoour

field,but—ascriticalracetheoristssoastutelynote—sotooarethepracticesand

experiencesfromthosethatareinthemiddleofthecolorspectrum.Thus,sinceRhetoric

andCompositionasafieldmaybeviewedasalsoremainingwithinaBlack/White

paradigm,thereremainsadireneedtoinsertLatinafigureslikeDoloresHuertaintothe

scholarship.

Withveteranscholarsandemergingscholarsalikethereispromiseformoreand

louderrepresentationoftheso-called“sleepinggiant”Latino/acommunity.Iplacemyself

withinthiscommunityasanemergingLatinascholarcommittedtonotonlyinserting

importantLatinafiguresfromthepastintothepresent,buttoalsoanalyzinghowrhetoric

isdeployedfrombodiesthatdefysymbolsofpower.Insodoing,Ialsodisruptthe

11

Black/WhiteparadigmthatremainsinplacewithinthefieldofRhetoricandComposition.

IncludingthevoiceofLatinafigures,likethatofHuerta,doesnotonlyservetodiversifyour

field,butitalsoservestobroadenourconceptionsofethosandrhetoricalstrategyby

lookingtotheunfamiliarstrategiesandtacticsutilizedbytraditionallymarginalized

bodies,strategiesthatareunfamiliarprimarilybecausetheyhavenotbeenthefocusof

manyrhetoricalstudies.

DoloresHuertaandtheUnitedFarmWorkers

DoloresFernandezHuertawasbornintheminingtownofDawson,NewMexicoin

1930,butmovedtoStockton,Californiaduringherearlychildhood(MexicanAmerican

Biographies).AccordingtoauthorFrankBardacke,Huerta’supbringingwasmiddleclass

andafterhermother,AliciaFernandez,foundsuccessasaStocktonbusinesswoman,

Huertawas“thoroughlybilingualandbicultural,enjoyedsomeoftheaccoutrementsof

Americanmiddle-classlife—dancing,piano,andviolinlessons—andaspotintheStockton

HighSchoolorchestra,withtheprizedpositionofmajorette”(119).Inhis2011award-

winningbookTramplingOuttheVintage:CesarChavezandtheTwoSoulsoftheUnited

FarmWorkers,BardackemeticulouslycoverstheriseandfalloftheUFWthrough

testimoniesoffarmlaborers.AlthoughBardackeemphaticallycontendsthatthehistories

oftheUFWhavefocusedtoonarrowlyonChavezandhisstaffattheexpenseofthefarm

workers’voices,hestilldedicatesseveralpagestoHuerta.

WhenHuertafirstgotinvolvedwiththefightforfarmlaborer’srightsshewasa

youngmotherandschoolteacher.Thoughherworkasanactivistvariedfromparticipating

inChicanoorganizationstovoterregistration,Huertaworkedintheserviceofothersfor

mostofherlife,butitwasn’tuntilafewyearsaftermeetingCesarChavezthatHuertagave

12

upherstablejobandincomeinordertovolunteerfulltimefortheUFWandfullycommit

toheractivism.In1962,Chavezresignedfromasmallcommunityserviceorganizationin

ordertoconcentrateonworkingforfarmlaborers’rights.HuertaandChavezjoinedforces

andafterafewiterationscreatedwhatisnowknownastheUnitedFarmWorkers(UFW)

union.Together,theduowasinstrumentalinorganizingfarmlaborerstofightagainstthe

oppressiveworkingconditionsprevalentintheagriculturalindustry.Accordingtoits

officialwebsite,theUFW“isthenation'sfirstsuccessfulandlargestfarmworkers’union

currentlyactivein10states”(UFW.org).WhiletheUFWwasnotabletomaintainthesame

levelofmembershipandinfluenceasitoncedid,itremainsaninfluentialforceinthe

negotiationoffarmlaborers’workingconditionsandcompensationandactivelycampaigns

forimmigrationlawreformandracialequality.

ThereisnodoubtthatChavezismostcloselyassociatedwiththeUFW.However,

theshortandconcisetracingofHuerta’slifeandroleintheUFWfoundintheDictionaryof

MexicanAmericanHistory(DMAH)suggestshersignificanceinMexicanAmericanHistory

andherinfluenceonthefarmlaborermovement.TheDMAHemphasizesHuerta’sabilities

asaninternationallyrecognizednegotiator,speaker,andpolitician.TheDMAHalsocredits

heraptitudeinthemanyaspectsoforganizing,whichrangedfrompicketcaptainto

contractnegotiator,asthereasonbehindherroleasChavez’smosttrustedandable

associate(166).Likewise,Bardackeexplains,

In1959,after[Huerta]lefttheAWOC,FredRoss,whohadbroughtherintotheStocktonCSO[communityserviceorganization]fouryearsearlier,addedhertotheshortlistofpaidCSOstaff.Inabrilliantmove,hehiredhertobetheCSOlobbyistinSacramento.Shewasapioneerinthestatecapital,fortherewerenootherMexicanAmericanwomenlobbyists.Bytheageofthirty,Huertahadfoundhervocation.Shemasteredtheintricaciesofthelegislativeprocess.(119)

13

Yet,despiteherprovenabilityasaco-leaderoftheUFW,Huerta’spersonallifewasalso

broughtintopublicdiscussionsaboutherwork,ineffectblurringtheboundariesbetween

herpublicandprivatelyheldroles.Ofcourse,herdecisiontoleaveastableincomeandjob

asasinglemotherofseven—whicheventuallygrewtoeleven—andtodosointheservice

ofothersisnothingshortofastonishing.However,herdecisionsasaparentwerefarmore

scrutinizedinthepublicspherethanthoseofChavezorthemultitudeofothermalepublic

figures,whichalsocontributedtotheconstraintsplacedonherasamother.The

constraintsofmotherhoodbecameespeciallyevidentwhenattimesHuertawasasingle

parent,andhervolunteerworkledtoherhavingtofacevariousobstaclesincluding

arrangingforchildcareandevennegotiatinghowtopayforbasicneedssuchasfood,

clothing,andshelter.

AlthoughChavezwasthepresidentand“face”oftheUFW,heandHuertaworked

togetherasthedrivingpublicforceoftheunion.Chavezwasknownforhisquietand

seriousdemeanor,whileHuertawasoftendescribedasfieryandpassionate.Their

collectivestrengthshenceledtheUFWorganizationtobecomeknownforbothits

persistenceandfiercedetermination.Huerta’sworkasanactiviststartedyearsbeforeshe

beganherfightalongsideChavez,yetsheremainsarelativelyunknownandunderstudied

rhetor.Despitethegeneralpublic’slackofawarenessofHuerta,asIargueinthis

dissertation,herroleasaleaderoftheUFWprovidesinterestinginsightsregardinghow

therhetor’sbodyinfluencescredibilityaswellashowembodiedidentitiessignificantly

influencebothorganizationsandsocialmovements.Asthevicepresident,Huerta

shoulderedtheresponsibilityformanyroleswithintheUFWthatwerecarriedoutinboth

publicandprivatesettings.Thus,Huertageneratedanimportantandrichbodyofwork

14

thatdemonstratesherabilitytoconstructanethosthatiseffective,embodied,andfluid.A

fewexamplesofherworkasapublicfigureinclude:chiefnegotiatorforfarmlaborer

contracts,representativeoftheUFWincongress,spokespersoninahighlypublicized

debatewiththeInternationalBrotherhoodofTeamsters’union,andofcourse,speakerat

countlesspubliceventsincludingmanyprotestrallies.Becauseofherroleasapublicfigure

fortheUFW,Huertaalsocaughttheattentionofthepressandwasfeaturedinnewspapers,

magazines,anduniontradepublications.Asahighprofileexecutivecommitteememberit

isclearthatHuerta’sethosconstructionnotonlysetthetoneforhowthepublicperceived

her,butalsohowtheUFWwasperceived.

Huerta’sinfluenceandroleinsuccessfullysecuringmajorfarmlaborreform,and

herabilitytodoso,isexceptionalbecauseshewasworkingfromamarginalizedbody,and

fromapositiongenerallyeclipsedbyChavez.Herabilitytosuccessfullymaneuverbetween

communitiesandsubjectpositionsalsostandsassupportforherinclusioninourfieldand

thebenefitswewillgainfromdeeplyanalyzingherwork.WiththeworkofHuertaasthe

focus,thisstudywillcontinuethedisciplinarytraditionofprovidingafullerandricher

understandingofwhatweunderstandaboutfeministrhetorics.AsIwillillustrateinthis

dissertation,Huerta’srhetoricalstrategieshelptoshowhowexplicitlyattendingto

embodiedidentitiesstrengthensrhetoricalappeals,andespeciallyethosconstruction.In

theirrecentwork,JacquelineJonesRoysterandGesaKirschmapouttheimportanceof

accountingforthecomplicatednessinvolvedindoingrhetoricalhistoriesandspecifically

callfortheheightenedattentiontoourembodied-ness.Theauthorsposit,

Ratherthandistancingourselvesfromthecomplexitiesoftheembodied-ness,wesuggestinsteadthatweattendtoit,reflectonit,observeit,andcritiqueitandthatwecultivateastanceamidthechaosofitallthatenablesrobustinquirywhileenactingethicsofhopeandcare.(149)

15

Further,asPatriciaBizzellassertsintheforewordtoFeministRhetoricalPractices,thekind

ofethicalapproachRoysterandKirschchampionisnotonlycriticaltofeminist

rhetors/scholars,buttoanyonewhowilldoresearchinrhetoric,composition,andliteracy

ingeneral(xii).DrawingonthiscallfromRoysterandKirschIaminsertingHuertainto

rhetoricalhistorywiththisdissertationstudybecauseHuertawasarhetoricalforce

withoutembodyingatraditionallyauthorizedbody.Or,toputitanotherway,Ilook

specificallyatHuertaandhowshebuildsherethosinordertobetterunderstand,analyze,

andacknowledgehercontributionsasaLatinarhetortorhetoricalstudies.

TheCriticalRolesandResponsibilitiesofLeaders:Creatingexigence

Althoughethosisonlyoneofthemodesofargument,itisarguablyoneofthemost

importantandstrongestinfluencesontheoverallrhetoricaleffect.Infact,MarshallAlcorn

contendsthatcharacter—asitisembeddedinethos—isnotonlypartofargumentative

strategy,itistheforceoftheargument(4).However,therhetor’scharacterandherability

toidentifyaswellasconnectwithanaudienceareintrinsicallyconnectedtothelarger

conceptsofcontextandexigence.Intheirleadership,HuertaandChavezfocusedonthe

conditionsoffarmworkersandthenfurtherlinkedtheirfighttothehealthandwellbeingof

everyAmericanduringthecivilrightsmovementasawaytodemonstratetheexigencefor

change.Inthissection,IwillillustratehowHuertaandChavezseizedthemomentofthe

civilrightsmovementtobuildmomentumforfarmlaborers’rightsthroughseveral

documentsandinterviews.Mydiscussionservesthepurposeofemphasizingthe

responsibilitiesoftheleaderstoexcitethenecessityofthecauseandalsonegotiatethe

complexrhetoricalsituationtheywerein.

16

Aspartofthelargerscopeofrhetoricalstrategy,exigence,likeethos,ishighly

contextualizedandconstructed.In“UnframingModelsofPublicDistribution:From

RhetoricalSituationtoRhetoricalEcologies,”JennyEdbauerexplains,“[E]xigenceismore

likeacomplexofvariousaudience/speakerperceptionsandinstitutionalormaterial

constraints”(8).Inotherwords,exigenceiscreatedbybothwhatisgroundedinrealityand

whatisperceived—withhelpfromarhetor—asurgentand/orimportant.Further,

Edbauerplainlystates,“therecanbenopureexigencethatdoesnotinvolvevariousmixes

offeltinterests”(8).Insteadof“pureexigence,”thereisamixofperceptionsandconcerns

thatcometogethertocreateasenseofurgencyforaction;therefore,partoftherhetor’sjob

iscreatingexigence.

Inrhetoricalsituationscreatingexigence,evenasitderivesoutofrealmaterial

experiencesandevents,isoftenaidedbyaleader/speakerbecausepeoplearegenerally

resistanttochange.AsAlcornargues,“Realpeopleresistwhattheysensetobe‘rhetoric’

becausetheselfseemstoidentifywithparticularfeelingsandideasinanorganizedand

predictablemannerandactivelyresistsother,opposingfeelingsandideas”(16),butsuch

resistanceultimatelybecomesanallytorhetoric.Inotherwords,becausepeoplepreferto

remainintheircurrentstateofbeliefstheonlywaytopromoteactionistopersuadethem

todoso.Thus,rhetoricalprowessbecomeskeytoanysocialmovement.Thecombination

ofrealmaterialexperiencesandevents,aculturalclimatethatwasripeforchange,andthe

charismaticleadersoftheUFWmadeitpossibleforthelabormovementtogain

momentumandstrength,whichledtoarealchangeinthelivingandworkingconditions

forfarmlaborers.Morespecifically,forexample,theculturalclimateofthesummerof

1969wasfueledbychange,NixonannouncedthewithdrawaloftroopsfromVietnam,

17

Stonewallriotsoccurred,andApollo11landedonthemoon.Withsuchsocietalchangeand

apoliticallyactivepopulation,theUFWwasgainingmomentuminthefightforbetter

workingconditions.Bythefallof1969theUFWhadlaunchedanationwideboycottand

hadscientificevidencethatpesticideresiduewasbeingdetectedongrapes.Ina

handwrittenmemototheactive“boycotters”inSeptember1969Chavezimplores:

Enclosedyouwillfindapacketofimportantinformationonpesticides.PLEASESITDOWNANDREADITCAREFULLYRIGHTAWAY!YourstaffandclosestsupportersshouldalsoreadALLofthismaterialsothattheycanspeaktogroupsonthepesticideproblem.

You’llfindasamplepesticidelawsuitagainstachaininthepacket.Withthissamplesuit,allyouneedarelabtestsongrapesfromthetargetstoreinyourcity,avolunteerlawyer,andaconsumer(preferablyanursingmother)whoisoutragedoverthepesticideresiduesongrapes.

Remember,theproblemofpesticidesiscriticaltoallofus.YOUMUSTREADTHEMATERIALWESENDTOYOUANDINFORMYOURSELVESSOTHATYOUCANBEEFFECTIVEINMOBILIZINGSUPPORTTOSTOPTHEPOISONINGOFFARMWORKERSANDCONSUMERS.Ihopetoseemanyofyousoon.Cesar(alreves)1

Whilethismemoisrichwithelementstoanalyze,I’dliketodrawattentiontothetoneof

urgencycreatedbyChavezinemphasizingtheimportanceforboycottersbeingeducated

abouttheeffectsofpesticidesandtheprocessforbringingalawsuit.Chavezcreatesthat

urgencybyfirstofferingveryexplicitdirectionstotheboycottersto,“Pleasesitdownand

readitcarefullyrightaway.”Withthisdirectorder,Chavezdemonstratesthattimeisofthe

essenceandthereisnoroomforputtingoffaction.Additionally,Chavezleavesverylittle

roomfortheboycotterstomisunderstandwhichpointsaremostcriticalbyunderlining

andcapitalizingspecifictext.Notonlydoesthisstrategydrawtheattentionofthe

boycotterstoveryspecificactions—readingallthematerialforinstance—butitalso

providesthemwiththejustificationandnecessityforthecontinuedboycott.Lastly,the1PresumablytheinclusionofUFWmemberAlRevessignatureistoindicateatranslationordictationofthememofromCesarChavez.

18

strategyofselectinga“nursingmother”asaparticipantinalawsuitagainstagrocer

carryinginfectedgrapesalsosuggeststheexigencethatwascreatedbyChavezasthe

presidentoftheUFW.Insum,bymakingstylisticchoicesbothinform,annotation,andthe

languageutilizedinthememo,Chavezeffectivelycreatedtheexigenceforthemovement.

AlthoughthememoabovewasgeneratedbyChavez,itisimportanttoknowthat

HuertawasinchargeoftheboycottintheEastCoastandadministeredsimilarlyvoiced

memoswhilealsobuildingtheexigenceforanationalboycott.LikeChavez,Huerta

recognizedthattheculturalclimateofthetimeandtheincreasingmomentumofthe

boycottofferedcriticalopportunitiesforsecuringsupport.Thus,Huertautilizedthe

culturalconditions—apoliticallyactivepopulation,civilrightsera,andtheconcernfor

Americanconsumer—inordertocultivatetheexigenceforthefarmlaborers’cause.For

example,inafour-pagememoaddressedtotheboycottersandsignedbyHuertaduringthe

sametimeperiod,weseeasimilartoneofurgencyandexplanation.Afterprovidingan

updateonsomesuccesses,Huertasharesadditionalstepsforbringingalawsuittochain

grocerystores.Huertadetails:

OnceweareinthemeetingwiththeChainManagement,weinviteasmanyheadsoforganizationsaswillcome.ThenwhoeversetupthemeetingortheheadoftheorganizationthatisleadingthegroupinformstheChainManagementthataConsumerSuitisbeingpreparedagainstthatstoreforthefollowingreasons:

1. (1) Bringingunsanitaryproduceintothecity(grapes)thathasbeenpickedandpackedunderunsanitaryconditionsbecause(1)lackoftoiletsandwashingfacilitiesinthefields(2)manyalienshavebeenbroughtinfromMexicotopickthegrapesthathavenothadhealthexaminationsasthegovernmentrequires(wetbacks)orcommuters,andtheyarebreathingandputtinghorribleturbuculrar[sic],venereal,andothergermsonthegrapes.

2. (2) Misrepresentingtheproduceintheirstorestotheircustomers.TheyhavetoldcustomersthatthegrapeisfromArizona,orotherplaces,thatthestrikeisover,orthatthegrapeisunionpicked.

19

3. (3) Theyarepushingaproductontheircustomersthattheircustomersdon’twant.Grapes.(Hererefertotherecordsofdelegationsthatwentintothestorestoaskthatthegrapesberemoved).Thestoreswillsay,“Thecustomersbuythegrape.”Thenweanswer,“Sure,becauseyoumisrepresentedtheproductandliedtothem.”

TheImportantthingabouttheConsumerSuitThreatisthattheSuitisgoingtobefiledinthenameofsomeBigNameconsumeragainstthestore,ONBEHALFOFtheconsumersinyourcity.Forinstance:InNewYork,ShirlyMcLane[sic]…(2)

LikeChavez,Huertaalsoutilizedspecificmethodswithinthetexttobuildexigence.And

again,theexcerptincludedisrichwithtexttoanalyze,butforthesakeofthisexamination

I’dliketodrawattentiontohowHuertawasstrategicbothintheevidenceshecitedforthe

boycotterstocollect,suchasgrocersstockingunsanitaryproduce,suggestingthatthe

supplyofgrapeswasfromoutsideofCalifornia,andsellinggrapesdespitebeingaskednot

to.Askingboycotterstoacquiresuchevidencespecificallyalsocallsattentiontothepublic

healthconcernscreatedbythefarmlaborers’conditions,aswellasprioritizingwhatissues

arebroughttothepublicdiscussion.Thus,Huertabuildsexigenceamongtheboycotters

whointurnbuildexigenceamongthegeneralpublicbybringinglawsuitssupportedby

well-knownpublicfigures—suchasactressShirleyMcLane.

AlthoughtheguidanceprovidedfromHuertaforestablishinglawsuitsagainst

grocersandtacticstobuildconsumers’concernforpublichealthsignificantlyaddstothe

exigenceforthemovement,someofthetacticsengagedinarecontroversial.Forinstance,

inHuerta’smemo,itisalsoimportanttonotethereferenceto“wetbacks.”2Thisisan

interestingpointtoconsiderbecauseHuertaandtheUFWwereworkingtobetterthe

conditionsforbothdocumentedandundocumentedfarmlaborers,thusthefocuson

2WetbackisgenerallyunderstoodasaderogatorytermusedtodescribeundocumentedMexicanimmigrantsthatenteredtheUnitedStatesviatheRioGrande.

20

growersbringinginMexicannationalsmightseemsurprisingandtroubling.AsaLatina

andtheresearcherofthisdissertationproject,suchafindingconjuredvisceraland

unexpectedreactionswhileconductingtheanalysis,reactionsthatIhadtoworkthrough

beforeacknowledgingtheslur.However,whileitisimperativetoacknowledgetheeffectof

languageonsocialbeliefs—inthiscaseHuertaperpetuatednegativestereotypesof

MexicanpeopleenteringtheUSillegally—itisalsonecessarytoconsiderthesocial

complexitiesofthetime,andthesituatedidentitiesofbothHuertaandChavez.Inactuality

Huerta,andChavez,werebothcriticizedfortheiractionsagainstnewundocumented

immigrants,butwhatisnotreflectedwithinthememowasthesignificanttensionbetween

thegrowersandtheworkersregardingreplacementsbroughtinbygrowerstorelievethe

effectsofthestrikes.Inotherwords,thegrowers’choicetoexploitandemploynew

undocumentedworkersintheirfieldsallbutnullifiedthepoweroftheUFWstrikes.The

tacticofemphasizingtheuseof“unexamined”laborerswasdeployedinordertobolster

publicinterestandsupportforthenationalboycott.Itis,withoutadoubt,unfortunatethat

suchaslurandsentimentwasputforwardbutitalsosignifiestheintensecommitmentthe

leadersmaintainedforbuildingtheeffectivenessofthestrikeandprotectingthefarm

workersfromfurtheroppression.Ultimately,bothHuertaandChavezprovidedexigence

fortheboycottwhenaddressingtheirsupportersandsimultaneouslyofferedthe

boycottersconcretemethodsforcreatingthesamekindofexigencetothepublictheywere

workingtopersuade.

Asisevidencedinbothmemosthereisanintentionalanddirectappealtopublic

safetyasopposedtoanemphasisontheworkingconditionsofthefarmworkers.Ineffect,

focusingonissuesthataffectedthegeneralpublicdeemphasizedtheconditionsofthe

21

farmworkersandthereforebroadenedtheconcernedaudiencetopotentiallyinclude

“everyone.”Focusingonthegeneralconsumeraddedexigencetothefarmworkersworking

conditions.Lastly,intheexcerptabovetherequesttosecureahighprofileconsumerto

bringthelawsuitaddstothegeneralappealtothepublicandultimatelyaidsincreating

exigenceforthemovement.Bothleaderstookuptheurgencycreatedbythedire

conditionsofthefarmworkersinordertocreatealegitimate,yetalsoorchestrated,sense

ofexigenceforthefarmlaborermovement.Thus,notonlyweretheco-founderstasked

withconstructinganeffectiveethos,partofthatconstructionalsoinfluencedtheir

effectivenessincreatingexigenceforthemovement.

Conclusion

DoloresHuertawas—andremains—astrongforceinthefightforfarmworkers

rightsandsocialjusticecauses.ShebeganhervolunteercareerasChavez’s“mosttrusted

associate”(DMAH),butwasalsoaleaderinherownright.Ineffect,thisexaminationof

Huerta’sethosismeanttodiscoverwhathappenstowidelyheldconceptionsofethoswhen

therhetorembodiestraditionallymarginalizedidentities.

InthisintroductionIfirstcalledattentiontotheneedthatremainsforinserting

LatinafiguresintothefieldofCompositionandRhetoric;aneedthathasbeennoticedby

many,butaddressedbyveryfew.Recognizingthattherearefewworksthatfocuson

Latino/afiguresandevenfewerthatlookspecificallyatChicana3figures,thisintroduction

aimstobringintofocusthesignificantrolethebodyplaysinrhetoricalstrategy.Thus,I

alsoprovidedbiographicalinformationinordertooffersomeinsighttohowHuerta’s

3ChicanaorChicanoisatermthatreferstoanAmericanofMexicandecentandisoftenconsideredapoliticallycharged.InchapterthreeIfurtherdiscusstheimportantdifferencesbetweentermssuchasChicana,Hispanic,Latino,andMexican-American.

22

upbringingandbackgroundinformhowshemightbeunderstoodbythebroaderpublicas

wellashowheridentityiscommonlydefined.Huerta’sbackgroundandpaththatledherto

betheinauguralVPoftheUFWofferimportantinsighttohowshewasabletoobtaina

highlypoliticalandvisibleroleinatimewhenthatwasveryrareforbothLatinosand

women.Further,becausethisexaminationofHuertaismeanttoexplorethewaysinwhich

herethoswasaffectedbyandalsoaffectedtheUFW,intheconcludingsectionofthis

introductionIprovideanexampleofamomentinwhichChavezandHuertacollectively

buildexigencefortheircause.

Drawingonthefoundationofthisintroduction,chaptertwotracestheshiftsthat

haveoccurredindiscussionsregardingethosandethosconstruction,discussionsthatbegin

withandincorporateAristotle’sfoundationofethosandthenexploretherelationship

betweenidentity,location,andethos.Placingthebodyascentraltothediscussionofethos

andrhetoricalstrategyrequiredacarefulapproachtomyarchivalresearch.Thusin

chapterthreeIbeginbyrecountingtheexperienceofvisitingthearchivesatWayneState

inordertoemphasizethecaretakeninresearching,selecting,andultimatelyanalyzingthe

documentsincludedthroughoutthisproject.Further,aspartofthecareinbothselection

andanalysesoftextualartifactsbyandaboutHuerta,intheclosingsectionsofchapter

threeIfocusonthemethodologiesthatinformthisstudy.Ineffect,IarguethatHuerta’s

bodypositionedherinwaysthatrequirebothautilizationofidentitycategories,inorder

torevealhowidentityaffectedherethosconstruction,whilesimultaneouslyattendingto

howthosecategoriesarefartoorigidtoeffectivelyaccountforherintersectionality.

Movingfromthediscussionsofethosandthemethodsandmethodologiesinforming

thisstudy,inchapterfourIanalyzeavarietyoftextsbothbyandaboutHuerta.More

23

specifically,IfocusonafewkeyarticlesthatdemonstratethecentralityofHuerta’s

appearance,whichserveasentrypointsfordeeperdiscussionregardingtheprominenceof

Huerta’sphysicalidentitiestounderstandingwhosheisasaleader.Itquicklybecame

apparentthatwhenreportingonHuertaandherroleinthemovement,manyjournalists

focusontheveryattributesofherbodythataremostvulnerableandthusimportant

identitiesforHuertatoexplicitlyattendtoasapublicfigure.Inessence,thefindingsthat

emergefromchapterfourdemonstratetheprevalenceofHuerta’sappearanceandhow

suchafocussetupheraudiencestoidentifyherinparticularways,andthusrequired

Huertatoexplicitlyrespondtosuchcategorizations.Inaddition,whatalsobecameevident

wasthatHuerta’sabilityandopportunitytoaddressthewaysinwhichherbodywas

positionedanddefinedinthepublicarenawassignificantlyinfluencedbygenre.Muchof

chapterfivefocusesontheimportantroleofgenreinestablishingcredibilitybecauseas

CarolynMillerconceptualizesgenreisanintegralpartoftherhetoricalsituationandisnot

merelyanorganizationalsystem.Therefore,inordertobetterunderstandandexplorehow

rhetoricalgenretheoryaidsinethosconstructionIexaminedavarietyoftextsfrom

differinggenres.ThroughtheexaminationitbecameevidentthatHuertawasskillfulat

navigatingthenuancesnecessaryinrepresentinghercharactertohermultipleaudiences

inmultipleformats.Connectingtheinsightsthatemergedfromthefirstfivechapters,inthe

concludingchapterIworktodemonstratethatalthoughethosisstronglytiedtothebodyit

canalsobe,andoftenis,transferredbetweenrhetors.Specificallybyextendingthefeminist

modelofethosoutlinedbyCarolynSkinnertoincludethepowerfulaffectofspoken

languageasamodeofidentification,IarguethatHuerta’sethosandthatoftheUFWlives

beyondherbody.Inanefforttoprovideabriefexampleofhowethoscananddoesget

24

redeployedthroughlanguage,especiallywhentakenupbydifferentrhetors,Isuggestasite

forfuturestudyinabriefexaminationofthesloganshefirstuttered,andthatwas

subsequentlyadoptedbytheUFW,¡SiSePuede!

25

ChapterTwoConceptionsofEthos:WorkingtoUnderstandthe“Self”

EventhoughsomescholarsinthefieldofCompositionandRhetoricarguethat

conceptionsofethoswerepresentbeforeAristotle’sarticulationoftheargumentative

appeal(Smith),mostscholarlydiscussionsofethosbeginwithAristotle.Thisexamination,

likewise,includesareviewofAristotle’sconceptionsofethos,whichIarguehelpsto

demonstratehowtheoriesofethoshavebeentakenupandcontinuetoevolve.Thus,

workingfrommanyofAristotle’sfoundingprinciplesofethos,thisstudyfurthernuances

theconceptbynotonlyemphasizingtherhetor’sbody,butalsobyemphasizingarhetor

thattraditionallylacksauthority.

Earlyconceptionsofethosoftenimaginedaspeaker/rhetorwhomaintainedalarge

amountofagencyandwhowasabletoputfortha“character”thatwouldbeperceived

generouslybytheaudience.Admittedly,ethosisstronglydeterminedandattachedtothe

moralcharacterofthespeaker/rhetor.However,andimportantforthecurrentstudy,

“morality,”asprescribedbyAristotle,wasreservedforanelitegroupthatwashighly

exclusionary.InAristotle’sRhetoric,heexplains,

[W]emusthaveregardnotonlytothespeech’sbeingdemonstrativeandpersuasive,butalsotoestablishingthespeakerhimselfasofacertaintypeandbringingthegiverofjudgementintoacertaincondition.Forthismakesagreatdifferenceasregardsproof,especiallyindeliberativeoratory,butalsoincourtcases—thisappearanceofthespeakertobeofacertainkindandhismakingtheaudiencesupposethatheisdisposedinacertainwaytowardsthem,andinadditiontheconditionthattheyarethemselvesdisposedinacertainwaytohim[emphasisadded].(140)

Thisparticularpassagehasbeencitedmanytimesandhasbeenutilizedtodemonstrate

theimportanceofwhothespeakerisinbuildingethos.Thus,itremainsusefultorevisit

becausethepassagedemonstratesoneofthewaysethoswasfirstconceived,whilealso

26

offeringevidenceforthetumultuousandchangingrelationshipbetweendiscourseand

character.GivenAristotle’stimeperiod,andevidenceelsewhereinhisteachings,the

appearanceofthespeakertobeofa“certainkind”referstothenecessityofthespeakerto

demonstratepracticalwisdom,virtue,andgoodwill(Aristotle,2.1.5).Whathasbeen

inferredfromsomereadingsdonethroughamorecontemporarylensisalsothatthe

speakerbeofelitestatusand—quiteliterally—beofnoblebloodinordertobespeaking

fromaplacethatgoodmoralcharacterisevenapossibility.Thus,whatremainsstrikingis

thatevenwhenarhetorisofthenecessarybloodline,argumentativeappealsingeneral

andethosinparticularstillmustbeconstructed.Further,whenrhetoricalstrategywas

conceived,taught,andmodeled,littleattentionwaspaidtotheroleofembodiedidentities

becauseinAristotle’stime—andformuchofhistoryafterward—politicalauthorityand

powerwereprimarilyaccessibletoonlyalimitedconstituencyofWhitemales.More

contemporaryrhetoriciansdoinfacttakeupissuesofthebody,andthisprojectaddsto

theirworkbyexamininghowcharacter,goodwill,andauthorityareconstructedfrom

bodiesgenerallyconsideredoutsideofaneliterulingclass.

WhiletheteachingsfromAristotleremaincriticaltothestudyofethos,conceptions

ofargumentandtheargumentativeappealhavebeenandremaindynamic.Giventhatthe

evolvingconceptionsofethosareessentialtothecurrentstudy,inthissectionIprevailon

theworkofrhetoricalscholarsthathaveexaminedethoscloselyandthatoffermanyuseful

perspectivesforthestudyofHuerta’sethosconstruction.AsIwillshow,becauseethosisa

complexpartoftheargumentationprocess,theoriesofethosarenecessarilyincomplete.In

otherwords,becauseethosiscontingentonmultiplevariablesacloseexaminationof,or

particularfocuson,specificelementsislikelytodeemphasizesomeotherelementsof

27

influence.Nonetheless,placinganemphasisonspecificcomponentsimpactingethos,asI

dobymakingthebodycentraltomyexamination,bringsattentiontosubtletiesaffectedby

race,class,andgender,whichmayotherwisebeoverlookedordismissed.

IntheintroductiontoEthos:NewEssaysinRhetoricalandCriticalTheory,James

Baumlinreluctantlydefinesethosasconcernedwiththe“problematicrelationbetween

humancharacteranddiscourse”(xvii).Baumlin’shesitancyinprovidingadefinitionactsas

evidenceofthecomplexityinvolvedinidentifyingethosaswellasitssources.While

determiningordefiningconclusivelythecomplexityofethosisnotanattainabletask,there

remainsageneralagreementthatethosisanargumentativeappealthatisdeeplyrootedin

thecombinedunderstandingsofboththerhetor(‘s)andtheaudience’ssenseofcharacter.

Or,asBaumlinfurtherspecifies,ethos“raisesquestionsconcerningtheinclusionofthe

speaker’scharacterasanaspectofdiscourse,therepresentationofthatcharacterin

discourse,andtheroleofthatcharacterinpersuasion”(xvii).IbeginwithBaumlin’s

carefullycraftedandtentativedefinitionofethosbecauseitoffersageneralunderstanding

ofethosandemphasizesthecollaborativeprocessthroughwhichitisbuilt.

LikeBaumlin,MichaelJ.Hydeemphasizestheimportanceofaudienceinethos

constructionbutdoessolessreluctantlyandwithagreaterfocusontheimportanceof

trust.Heexplains,“[t]hepracticeofrhetoricconstitutesanactiveconstructionofcharacter;

ethostakesformasaresultoftheorator’sabilitiestoargueandtodeliberateandthereby

toinspiretrustinanaudience”(xvi).Itisnotuntiltherhetorisableto“inspiretrust,”as

Hydeidentifies,thataneffectiveethostakesshape.Thus,presenting“goodcharacter”is

essentialtobuildingtrustbetweentherhetorandtheaudience,andone’scharacterwill

takeshapeoverthecourseofagivenrhetoricalsituation.However,trust,likeethos,canbe

28

quitedifficulttobuildandisinfluencedbyamultitudeofforces;perhapsnonemore

importantthanthetrusttherhetorhasinhim/herself.Inotherwords,althoughethos

constructionisacollaborativeprocessandtherhetormustgainthetrustofhis/her

audiencetobeeffective,trustmustalsoresidewithintherhetor.Forinstance,likeHyde,in

“Trust,Ethos,Transference:PlatoandtheProblemofRhetoricalMethod,”authorRobert

Brookearguesthattrustisnecessarytobuildingarhetor’sethos,andfurtherarguesthatit

mustbeestablishedbeforeeverutteringaword(150).Specifically,Brookepointsoutthe

significanceofthespeaker/writer’strustinherselfwhenheexplains,“[i]nordertowrite,

inshort,weneedtotrustourprocessesofwriting;weneedconfidencethatourpast

experiences,ourrelationshipswithresponders,andourcomposingprocesseswillleadto

successfulwork”(150).Placingthenotionofbuildingtrust—asbuildingethos—iscritical

inrelationshipswithboththeaudienceandtheself.Trustingtheselfandpastexperiences

toactfromanethicalandknowledgeableplaceisequallyimportanttopresentingoneself

astrustworthy.Onemightarguethen,thatinorderforHuerta—oranyotherrhetorfor

thatmatter—tobesuccessfultheymustfirst,oratleastadditionally,gaintheirowntrust

beforeaddressingandpersuadingothers.

ExtendingBrooke’sclaimthattherhetormusttrustherselfinordertointurntrust

thecomposingprocess,itcanbearguedthatHuertaneededtohaveakeensenseofher

identityinordertoconfidentlydrawonherpastexperiences,relationships,and

understandingofheraudience.Ortoputitmoreplainly,Huertahadtoknowthather

experiencesasamother,Latina,andwomanmatteredenoughtospeakwithauthorityto

heraudiencesabouttheneedforsocialchange.Perhapsthisisoneofthekeyreasons

Huertahadtobe,andwasclassifiedsooftenas,passionate.Aboveallelseshebelievedin

29

her“reading”ofthesituationbecauseofherlivedexperiencesalongsidefarmworkersand

theirchildren.Consideringthattrustplaysacentralroleinethosconstruction,thecurrent

examinationofethostakesintoconsiderationmultipleconceptionsofthetrust/ethos

dynamic.Inparticular,myresearchintoDoloresHuertahascompelledmetoexplorethe

waysinwhichtheconstructionoftrustandethosrevolvesaroundtherhetors’needto

placethemselveswithinabroadercontext,todefinehowtheyunderstandtheirown

identitiesor“self”,andtoacknowledgetheimportanceofembodiedidentities.The

subsectionsthatfollow—“EthosasDerivedfromLocation/Dwelling,”“Ethosas

ConstructionofSelf,”and“EthosfromaFeministPerspective”—addressthesethree

rhetoricalneeds,respectively.

EthosasDerivedfromLocation/Dwelling

DespiteAristotle’seffortstodescribeethosandemphasizetheimportanceofthe

appeal,Baumlinpointsout,“TheveryvocabularyofAristotelianrhetoricremainsslippery

andunsettled.OnecannotsimplyreadtheRhetorica,andparticularlyitsdiscussionof

ethos,asifitwereaclear,comprehensiveoutlineofincontrovertibletheory”(xvii).

Attendingtothecauseforsuchapparentambiguityin“EthosDwellsPervasively,”CraigR.

SmitharguesthatAristotle’sadaptationsandevolutionsofhowhepositionsethos

predicatesethosasadwellingplace.Specifically,Smithcontends,“[f]orAristotle,itisa

given:everyonehasethoswhetheritbenobleorignoble.Beforeonespeaks,thatethoshas

anontologicaldimensionbecauseitemergesfromthewayonemakesdecisions,theway

onelivesonaday-to-daybasis,thewayonedwells”(2).Ultimately,Smitharguesthat

Aristotleisnotcontradictoryorintentionallyambiguousaboutethos,butinsteadtaken

collectivelytheRhetoricandEthicsare,“inextricablyboundandbothareessentialto

30

understandingAristotle’srhetoricaltheory”(16).Thus,readindependentlyand/orwithout

takingintoconsiderationthecontextofAristotle’stime,hisdiscussionsofethosmightseem

detachedandambiguous.Conceptually,SmithaidstheanalysisofHuerta’sethosby

explainingthatAristotle

assumedtheancientnotionofethosasdwellingplace,advancedit,andtookforgrantedthatpriorreputationamongthedemoswasimportanttocredibility.Asidefrombroadeningtheintertextualunderstandingofethos,[aclose]readingdemonstratestheimportanceoftheconceptintermsofpervasivenessinthespeechtextanditsaudience.(16)

Inhisconclusion,Smithclaims,“forAristotle,ethosdwellspervasivelyintherhetorical

situation”(16).WhenapplyingthisconcepttoarhetoricalfiguresuchasHuerta,it

becomesevidentthat“prior”reputationmayfirstbeknown—orperceived—throughthe

recognitionofembodiedidentities;acategorizationthattendstoassistaudiencesin

constructing“whoapersonis”beforeactuallyknowingthem.

LikeSmith,scholarsMichaelHyde,NedraReynolds,JulieChristoph,andRisa

Applegarthhavedevelopedconceptsofethosthatstronglyprevailonethosasalocationor

dwellingplace.Morespecifically,Hydeaddstomydiscussionbydescribingethosasaplace

inwhichpeoplecandeliberateandknowtogether(xiii).Thecomingtogetherand

inhabitingspacetogetherinordertobuildethosisespeciallyinterestingwhenconsidering

HuertabecauseinmanycasesHuertahadtobridgeexternaldifferencesinorderto

establishcommonground.In“EthosasLocation,”Reynoldsexplainsthatethosrequiresthe

“writer”tolocatethemselvesintermsoftheiridentitiesandassociations,aswellas

acknowledgethey“areconstructedbyspaceandthespatial.”Reynoldsgoesontoexplain

that“awriter'ssubjectpositionsaredeterminedbythespaceofthebody,hergeographical

location,hershiftingintellectualpositions,herdistanceorclosenesstoothers,totexts,to

31

events”(335-336).Reynoldspointsouttheimportanceofbothmetaphoricalspaces,such

asidentities,andliteralspaces,suchasgeographicalsetting,inethosconstruction.Drawing

onReynoldsthen,itcanbearguedthatthephysicallocationswhereHuertaworkedand

livedalsoinfluencedherethos.AsHuertabecamemoreentrenchedinthefightforfarm

laborers’rights,shebuiltherethosbychanginghergeographicallocationafewtimes—first

bymovingfromStocktontoDelano,California;second,bymovingandorganizingthegrape

boycottinNewYorkCity;andthenreturningbacktotheCentralValleyofCalifornia.

Huerta’sphysicalbodyalsowasutilizedtobuildherethos,bystandinginpicketlines,

marchinginprotestrallies,andlivinginthesamematerialconditionsasthefarmworkers.

Therefore,Huerta’sethoswasdeeplyenhancedbyherhabitualandmaterialpractices

duringtheorganizationoftheUFW.SimilarlytoReynolds,JulieChristophbuildsonthe

senseofplacebyarguingthatnotonlydowriters/rhetorsneedtolocatethemselveswithin

particularcontextsandlocations,buttheyalsohavetoaccountfortheirpersonallived

experiences(678).Morespecifically,Christophsuggeststhatbyinvestigatingtheinfluence

ofthepersonalinargument,writer-scholarswouldbetterunderstandhowthepersonal

functionsinandaffectsargument(678).Asisdemonstratedoverthecourseofthis

dissertationproject,Huerta’spersonallifeandexperiencesbothgreatlyshapeandare

shapedbytheaudiencesandgenressheengageswithwhenmakingargumentsforthe

importanceoffarmlaborersrights.

Finally,drawingonReynoldsandHyde,Applegarthcomplicatesthediscussionof

ethosbydemonstratingtheinfluenceofgenreinethosstrategy.Morespecifically,inher

article,“Genre,Location,andMaryAustin’sEthos,”Applegarthdetailstheimportantrole

genreplaysinestablishingthecredibilityofarhetor.Usingtheworkofactivistnature-

32

writerMaryAustin,Applegarthdemonstrateshowgenre“shapesAustin’seffortsto

developherlocationinthedesertsoftheAmericanWestintoapersuasivepublicethos,”

ultimately,concludingthat,“ethosemergesingenre-specificformations”(41).Workingin

partfromApplegarth’sargument,inchapterfiveIcloselyexaminehowHuertapositions

herselfandheridentitydependentuponthegenreutilizedforherpublicaddress.

Additionally,IarguethatHuerta’sidentitiesandpoliticalcausesignificantlyinfluencedthe

genresshe,andtheUFW,hadaccessto.Whileeachofthesescholars’conceptionsvariesby

emphasis,collectivelytheylaythefoundationforthisproject.Consideringethosasa

locationordwellingplacethereforeprovidesausefulanalytictoexposethematrixof

forcesthatcometogetherasethos.Yet,whilethisprojectworkstofurtherthediscussionof

howethosisconstructed,itdoessocautiouslyandbyacknowledgingthecomplicated

natureoftheconcept(Baumlin,xxvi)andthenecessarilyincompletedepictionofethos

advancedhere.

Becauseethosisasdifficulttodefineasitistoempiricallytrace,anyexaminationof

ethosisnecessarilylimited.Thatsaid,however,examiningethosisalsogenerativebecause

itfurthertheorizeshowpowerandauthoritygetestablishedbyrhetors.Inotherwords,

despitetheindefinablenatureofethos,therearemarkersthatcanbeidentifiedand

conceptualizedbasedonoursharedunderstandingofcharacteranddiscourse.Further,it

hasbeenwellestablishedthatethosistiedtothebody,whichforastudyonaracialized

bodysuchasHuerta’sisparticularlynecessarytoconsider.Forexample,JamesBaumlin

explains,

AccordingtoAristotle’smodelofethos,therhetoricalsituationrendersthespeakeranelementofthediscourseitself,nolongersimplyitsorigin(andthusaconsciousnessstandingoutsidethetext)butratherasignifierstandinginsideanextendedtext.Therhetor’sphysicalpresenceandappearance,his

33

gestures,inflections,andaccentsofstyle,areallinvolvedinactsofsignification.(xvi)

AsnotedbyBaumlin,Aristotlerecognizedtheimportanceoftherhetor’sphysicality,

andsuchanunderstandingsupportsareadingofHuerta’sethosthatcentersonthebody.

Additionally,itbearsrepeatingthatinAristotle’sview,goodcharacterwasanattributethat

waspresumedonlyanelitefewcouldpossessandethoswasnegotiatedonlybetween

audiencesandspeakersthatsharedprivilegeaswellasaccesstopublicdiscourse.For

example,asReynoldsremindsus,theoratorsandrhetorsofAristotle’stimeinancient

Greecedidnotincludeslavesandwomenbecausetheywerenotallowedtoparticipatein

publicdiscourse(329).Likemanyothers(suchasBaumlin,Hyde,Fleckenstein,toname

justafew),thisexaminationofethosisdrawnfromanddeeplyvaluesAristotle’s

conception(s)ofethos,butalsoworkstobringattentiontohowcharacterandcredibility

arebuiltwhenthebodyoftherhetorsignalsidentitiesthathavebeentraditionally

disassociatedwithpowerandauthority.

Whileitiscertainthatethosisaffectedbyseeminglylessobviouslyembodied

influences—sayforexamplegenre—andisconstructedthroughamultiplicityofcontexts,I

arguethatbylookingatethosthroughthebodyweareabletodiscoverqualitiesthatare

oftenonlysubtlyconsidered—ifatall.AsKristieFleckensteincontendsin“Cybernetics,

Ethos,andEthics:ThePlightoftheBread-and-Butter-Fly,”“Aristotle’sethosmorphsacross

borders,resistingalleffortstoholditstable”(326)andthuscanbeimaginedasa“living

networkconsistingofrhetor,text,audience,andcontext”(326).Thisnotion—thatethos

maybeconsideredaninformationsystemofalivingnetwork—offersausefulanalogyfor

understandinghowembodiedidentitiesalsoinfluenceknowledgesbecauseitdraws

attentiontothelineagesandexperiencesthatconnectpeopletooneanother.Tryaswe

34

mighttodistanceourselvesfromourbodies,eventheethosofanorganizationisoftentied

tothebodiesitservesorthebodiesoforigin(thinkAppleandSteveJobs).Thus,while

Huerta’sethosdevelopsalongsidebothChavezandtheUFW’scharacter,itdoessofrom

veryspecificlocations.Huertahadtonegotiateaudiencesdistinctlybasedonwhoshewas

inwaysthatdifferedfromChavez.Thatsaid,however,becauseethosisdynamicandunruly

thereremainsarecursiverelationshipbetweenindividuals,communities,and

organizations.Inotherwords,ethosisnotbasedononesingularindividual,butratheris

mutuallycreatedthroughanetworkofknowledges,knowledgesthatwhenreadthrough

thebodyrevealthecomplexandinterwovenideologiesthataffecthowcharacterisdefined

andperceived.

EthosasConstructionofSelf

Placingthebodyinthecenterofarhetoricalanalysiscanservetoreorientnotions

aboutandempowermarginalizedbodies,whichmayotherwisebeseenandfeltas

liabilitiesratherthanassetsbythosewhoencounterandinhabitthem.Becausediscussions

ofethos,andrhetoric,areoftenorientedfromnormativecommonplacesthatdownplay

differenceanddiversity,emphasizingthevalueinpositionsofdifferenceisnecessaryin

ordertocompensateforthelackofunderstandingand/orawarenessofthatvalue.More

specifically,asJayDolmagesuggestsin“Metis,Mêtis,Mestiza,Medusa,”oneofthe

significantconsequencesofleavingwomenoutoftheearlyrhetoricaltraditionisthat

valuesestablishedbyWhitemenbecamethestandardornormforpositionsofpowerand

authority.Inotherwords,Whitemenbecameunderstoodasthe“normal”vesselsof

authorityandthereforetheirexperiencesandknowledgeswereprivileged.Thus,attending

35

tothebodywasunnecessarysinceitwaspresumedthata“normalbody”wasthatofa

Whiteablemale(Dolmage2).InhisarticleDolmageexplains,

Inorderforthislogicofnormativitytofunction,themalebodymustremainrelativelyunmarked.Thisinturnreliesonthesupposedaberrancyofthefemale.AndreaLunsford,CherylGlenn,KateRonaldandJoyRichie,SharonCrowley,andothershaveshownthattherhetoricaltraditionsthathavebeenchosenandtaughtinourmodernmilieuoverlook—ifnotexplicitlydevalue—thefemalebody.Aristotlefamouslywrotethatfemaleoffspringisthefirststeptoward“monstrosity”—“thefirstdeparturefromtypeisindeedthattheoffspringshouldbecomefemaleinsteadofmale”(Generation70).Hestatesthat“thefemaleis,asitwere,amutilatedmale,”establishingmanasthebaselineandwomenbothaspureaberrancyandasresponsibleforalldeviation.(2)

AsDolmageemphasizesabove,womenwereconsideredgrossmutationsofthemale,and

hefurtherarguesthatwomenwereconsidereddisabledordeficientjustbyvirtueofbeing

female.Yet,Dolmageultimatelyarguesthatfromdifferencecomespowerbydetailingthree

importantexamplesofwomen’sdistortedrepresentationsrangingfromGreekmythto

GloriaAnzaldua’sconceptofMestiza(seefootnote3).Inlinkingtherelationshipamongthe

conceptofmêtis,orintelligence/cunning,withtheGoddessMetis,Medusa,andMestiza

consciousness,Dolmageworkstoplacethebodyascentraltoandessentialfordefining

rhetoric.ThroughthisexaminationofHuerta’sethos,itbecomesevidentthatthereare

manyopportunitiestoutilizethepowerofher“difference”inordertobuildhercharacter

throughcommonlyheldconceptionsofheridentity—especiallyintermsof“self”definition

andre-definition—aswellasbyofferingproductivechallengestothoseconceptions.Or,for

example,asIdemonstrateinchapterfour,Huertadrawsoncommonlyheldconceptionsof

womanasmother(orpotentialmother)andthereforenaturallymoreconcernedwiththe

wellbeingofchildrenandfamilythanmenare.Shethencontinueswiththatcourseof

argumenttostronglysuggestthatwomenthenaremoretrustworthyandlookingoutfor

36

thebestinterestofothersratherthanthemselves.InthisscenarioHuertautilizedthe

“different”andsubjugatedroleofwoman/motherinordertopositionthewoman/mother

asthemoralsuperioroverthetypicalmaleleader/legislatorwhosheimpliesarebynature

moreegodriven.Thus,Huertaisempoweredbyherdifference,andbyextension,the

differenceofothersthatcanrelatetoher.

However,beforearhetor,especiallyamarginalizedrhetor,canutilizeherdifference,

shemusthaveagenuinesenseofself.Inthe1994anthology,Ethos:NewEssaysin

RhetoricalandCriticalTheory,editorsJamesBaumlinandTitaBaumlinbringtogether

severalworksthatexamineethosandexplorethecomplicatedrelationshipbetween

languageandhumancharacter.Atleastthreeofthesixteenarticlesemphasizethe

importantroleofarhetor’sunderstandingof“self”anditsintegralrelationshiptoethos

construction,andthroughthesethreetexts,itbecomesevidentthatlocatingrhetors’sense

ofselfiscrucialtotheirabilitytoconstructethos.Specifically,intheintroductionoftheir

text,JamesBaumlinarguesthatbecauselanguageisshapedbyideologicalforces,the

“studyofethosmustacknowledgethepresenceandplayofideologywithinaspeaker’sor

author’sself-representations”(xxii).Baumlinasksforthecarefulconsiderationofideology

andhowitbothshapescultureandisshapedbycultureinthestudyofethos;healsodraws

ourattentiontotheimportanceofexaminingthe“self”andhowitisrepresented.Explicitly

connectingembodiedidentitiestothestudyofethosisimportantandnecessarybecause

anyrhetor’sbodyandsenseofselfisdeeplyimpactedbycultureand“thepresenceand

playofideology.”LikeBaumlin,MarshallAlcornexaminestheroleoftheselfandself-

representationinethosstrategy.DrawingonbothBaumlinandAlcorninthisexamination

ofHuerta’sethos,Ilookcloselyatherexplicitrepresentationofselfinseveralformsofher

37

publicaddressaswellasconsiderhowshedefinestheidentitiessheembodiestoher

variousaudiences.Thus,IconsiderbothhowHuertapresentedher“self”aswellasargue

thatbecauseasenseofselfiscentraltoethosconstruction,identityand/ormore

specificallyembodiedidentitiessignificantlyshapeethos.

WhileitisunclearwhetherHuertaconsciouslyorsubconsciouslydevelopedher

approachtoself-definition,howshepositionsherselfdoesbecomecentraltotheanalysis

ofherethosconstruction.ThescholarshipofJamesBaumlin,MarshallAlcorn,andJarratt

andReynolds,especiallytheirworkincludedinEthos:NewEssaysinRhetoricalandCritical

Theory,informtheanalysisofethosIpresentinthischapter.ThisisbecauseIvaluethat

theseauthorsillustratethecrucialroleself-definitionholdsinethosconstructionaswellas

layouttheevolutionofcriticalchangesinconceptionsofethos.Oneoftheimportant

observationsAlcornpointsoutisthatnotonlydoconceptionsoftheselfdirectlyaffectour

understandingofethos,butalsothoseconceptionschangeovertimeandplace.For

example,ifidentifyingafigureasamother,wemayhaveatemptationtooverlayastable

definitionofcharacterthatimaginesacisgenderedhomemaker;withthatimaginedfigure

wemayassumeatrustworthinessorcredibilitywhenspeakingaboutparentingstrategies

orconcernsrelatedtothehome.However,suchadefinitionflattenstheverycomplicated

roleofareallifemotherandishighlycontingentonthetimethattheimagewasinvoked.

Thedefinitionorcharacteristicsofmotherweimagineinthe1950s,afterall,varies

drasticallyfromthatwhichwemightimaginetoday.

Inaddition,ethosisstronglyinfluencedbythesocialsituationinwhichtherhetor

andaudienceareengaged,and,therefore,asAlcornasserts,“itisamistaketoassumean

innercoreoftheselfthatsomehowgroundsthevariousrolestheselfassumes”(5).In

38

otherwords,whileHuertawastheVPoftheUFWsheconsistentlyremained“amother,”

buthowsherepresentedherselfandwasrepresentedassuchvariedgreatlybetween

socialsituationsandpurposefortheengagement.Thus,anydiscussionofselfandethos

mustalsorecognizethatnotionsof“self”arealwaysinfluxandnotautonomous.AsIwill

illustratemorethoroughlyinsubsequentchapters,Huertaconstructsherethosby

leveragingshareddefinitionsofidentitycategories(Chicana,mother,woman),butinso

doingalsorevisesthoseverydefinitions.InapersonalletteraddressedtoChavezcirca

1964HuertawritestodiscusshermovefromStockton,CAtwohundredmilessouthofthe

heartoftheorganizingeffortsinDelano,CA.Inadditiontosharingthestatusofher

arrangementstomove,Huertaalsosharesgeneralupdatesregardingthestatusoftheir

organizingefforts.Thus,whileHuertawaswritingtoChavezinaformalcapacityher

personallifewasnecessarilycomingled—andemphasized—intheletter.

Iamnowworkingonhavingmykidsstaywithvariousassortedrelativesforthenextmonthandonehalfuntilschoolstarts.Ifallgoesverywell,Iwillstillbeleftwithmaybeoneortwokids,dependingonwhetherVenturacanmakearrangementstokeeptheboys,anywaysVincentIwouldnotleaveanywherebecausehewouldmissmetoomuch.ThendoyousupposeIcouldmakelivingarrangementswithsomeonetoputmeandmyonekidupforamonthandonehalf,thenIcouldpayroomandboard.(DoloresHuertaReader202)

Basedonthequoteabove,itcanbearguedthatinordertoestablishherethoswithChavez,

Huertahadtodemonstrateherabilitytomanageherfamilyalongsidetheorganizing

efforts,andthus,Huertasharedthedetailsofmakingsuchaccommodations.Buildingher

ethoswithChavezwasalsonecessarysinceanendorsementfromhimwouldtranslateinto

agreatdealofsupportfortheinclusionofHuertainaleadershiprole.

WhileDoloresHuertamaybemorethananeducated,Mexican-American,religious,

woman,andmotherofelevenchildren,eachoftheseclassificationsstandsascultural

39

symbolsofidentitythatprovideuswithacluetowhosheisandtheknowledgesthatsheis

workingfrom.KnowingHuerta,understandingHuerta,believingHuerta,isimperativeto

herethosconstruction.Eachelementofwhosheis,whereshe’sfrom,andwhatshe

representsaidedherandfellowfarmlaboreractivistChaveztogarnersupportfortheir

fightforfarmworkers’rights.Hence,itisnecessarytotakeintoconsiderationHuerta’s

multipleidentitiesandhowtheyintersecttocreateuniquesituationsforhertonegotiate.

Inordertoconceptualizethesignificanceofembodiedidentities,andspecifically,its

influenceonethosconstruction,itisnecessarytoinvokeintersectionaltheory,or

intersectionality.Intersectionality,muchlikeethos,isadifficultconcepttodefine,butis

nonethelessimportanttounderstand.Thetermitselfismostoftencreditedaspopularized

bycriticalracefeministandforemotherKimberleeCrenshaw.Inhergroundbreaking1991

article“MappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,andViolenceagainst

WomenofColor,”Crenshawmakesevidentthemultipleoppressionsthatareoften

experiencedbywomenofcoloralongseveralaxes.Thus,initsmostbasicterms

intersectionalitycanbeunderstoodasaconceptthatacknowledgessocialinequitiesthat

areaffectedbyaconstellationofforces.WhileCrenshaw’snamingofintersectionality

occurredin1991,workengagedwithaccountingforandrecognizingmultipleoppressions

begandecadesbefore.Specifically,inherarticle“Intersectionality’sDefinitionalDilemmas,”

sociologistPatriciaHillCollinspointsout,literarytheoristslikeCherrieMoragaandGloria

Anzalduawereengagedinintersectionalwork,butdidnothavethetermtouseexplicitly.

Anzaldua’sconceptsofmestizaconsciousnessandbordercrossingideologieshaveinfact

becomeverycentraltointersectionalstudiesandscholarship(Collins,9).Thus,whetheror

notnamedassuch,intersectionalityworkconcernsitselfwithpowerrelationsandsocial

40

inequalitiesthatareaffectedbyacomplicatedmatrixofpersonhood—oftenrelatedto

embodiedidentitiesbutnotexclusively.Collinsoffersthisworkingexplanationof

intersectionality:

…ageneralconsensusexistsaboutintersectionality’sgeneralcontours.Thetermintersectionalityreferencesthecriticalinsightthatrace,class,gender,sexuality,ethnicity,nation,ability,andageoperatenotasunitary,mutuallyexclusiveentities,butasreciprocallyconstructingphenomenathatinturnshapecomplexsocialinequalities.(2)

Intersectionalityatitscoreisconcernedwithrelationshipsofpowerandsocialinequalities

andthoseconcerns—asisevidentintheaboveexcerpt—oftenincludemuchmorethan

raceandgender.WhatCrenshaw,Collins,andmanyotherintersectionalityscholarsand

practitionersidentifyisthesevereproblemcausedbysingleaxisthinkingthatcreatesan

oversightofthemultipleoppressionsthatareoftenexperiencedbywomenofcolor.

Inherbook,PursuingIntersectionality,UnsettlingDominantImaginariesWomenand

GenderStudiesscholarVivianMayexplainsthatworkingoutsideofsingleaxisthinkingand

usingacomplexanalyticisadifficulttask,butisnecessary.Specificallysheargues,

Ratherthanafixedmethodwithsetboundaries,hard-and-fasttenets,orpredeterminedsubjectsandschematics,intersectionalitycanbestunderstoodasaninterpretiveorientationthatleavesthesefactorsasopenquestionstobetakenup,tohelpexposehowsubjectionanddominanceoperate,sometimessubtly.(4)

InadditionMaydescribesintersectionalityas“ananalyticalandpoliticalorientationthat

bringstogetheranumberofinsightsandpracticesdevelopedlargelyinthecontextofBlack

feministandwomenofcolortheoreticalandpoliticaltraditions”(3).Becauseethos

constructionispredicatedoncharacterandcredibilityalongwithperceivedauthorityand

agency,anyanalysisofHuerta’sethosrequiresattentiontothemultipleidentities—or

41

matrixofidentities—sheinhabitsinordertoascertainwhereandhowsheachievesher

ethos.

Itisimportanttonotethatwhilethisprojectutilizesseemingly“fixed”categories

suchasChicanaandWoman,myintentistofocusonthesolidarityofcommunitiesrather

thansamenesstherebypreventinganessentialistapproach.Intersectionality,asMay

explains,offersamatrixorientationforexamininghowsystemsofpoweroperate.More

specifically,Maywrites,

Intersectionality,forinstance,contestsseveraltaken-for-grantedideasaboutpersonhood,power,andsocialchange:inparticular,itsmultidimensional“matrix”orientationisoftenatoddswith“single-axis”sociopoliticalrealities,knowledgenorms,andjusticeframeworks.(1)

Specifically,thisprojectlooksathowHuerta’sembodiedidentitiesaffectherpositionasa

rhetorandhowbeingapublicfigureaffectedthenotionsofherembodiedidentities.More

pointedlyinherintroductionMayarguesthatintersectionalityhasseveralkeyqualities

thatmustbekeptinmindtogether(11):

4. [Intersectionality]isanorientationforengagementorpraxis;itentailsmatrixthinking;itisrelevanttoand“about”allofus;anditisnotneutral.(12)

5. [Intersectionality]isanepistemologicalprojectthatcontestsdominantmindsets;andontologicalapproachthataccountsforcomplexsubjectivityandoffersdifferentnotionsofagency;aradicalpoliticalorientationgroundedinsolidarityratherthansameness,asanorganizingprinciple;andaresistantimaginaryusefulforinterveninginconventionalhistoricalmemoryandprevailingsocialimaginaries.(12)

ThesebroadqualitiesasMaydescribesthemdemonstratetheintrinsicallymessynatureof

doingintersectionalworkbecauseitresistsorderlydefinitionsforconductinganalysisand

insteadorientsscholarstowardanapproachof“doing”workthatidentifiesgaps,accounts

forvariedsocialpositions,emphasizesthepoliticalunderpinningsofeverydaypractices,

andpushesbackagainstdominantmindsets.Infact,drawingonCrenshaw,Maysheargues

42

thatintersectionalityshouldbeapproachedasverbratherthananoun(19).Thus,my

examinationnecessarilyinvokesintersectionalityinorderto“do”intersectionality.

Becauseintersectionalityisanumbrellatermitisusefultoalsoconsiderthree

subcategoriesthatareexaminedbyPatriciaHillCollins:(a)intersectionalityasafieldof

study,(b)intersectionalityasananalyticalstrategythatprovidesnewanglesofenvisioning

socialphenomena;and(c)intersectionalityasacriticalpraxisthatinformssocialjustice

projects(1).Ofcourse,Collinsacknowledgesthatthesesubcategoriesareinterdependent,

butnonethelessprovidesomeadditionalscaffoldingforunderstandinghow

intersectionalitycanbebeneficial.Whilethisworkutilizesmuchofthetheoreticalframing

providedbyintersectionalityitdoessoprimarilythroughintersectionalityasananalytical

strategyandasacriticalpraxisasdescribedbyCollins.Takencollectively,Anzaldua,

Crenshaw,Collins,andMay,alloffercriticalinsightsforengaginginthisprojectand

examiningtheroleofembodiedidentitiesonethoscreation.Asdetailedinthefinalchapter

ofPursuingIntersectionality,UnsettlingDominantImaginaries,Mayexplains,

Intersectionalityisajustice-orientedapproachtobetakenupforsocialanalysisandcritique,forpoliticalstrategizingandorganizing,forgeneratingnewideas,andforexcavatingsuppressedones,allwithaneyetowarddisruptingdominanceandchallengingsystematicinequality.Thisentailsactivelyfindingwaystoperceive/interpret/actagainstthepullofestablished,single-axisimaginariesandtoengageinanongoingefforttorealizemeaningful,collectivejusticeviaepistemic,ontological,economic,andstructuralchange.Thereisalso,therefore,aneedtobewaryofoverlyinstrumentalmodelsofintersectionalityand/ordepoliticizedapplicationsthatnegateitspoliticalhistoryandsubversivepotential.(228)

ItiswiththisexcerptinmindthatIacknowledgethatmyinvestigationofHuerta’sethos

constructionispoliticalandjusticeoriented.Althoughthisprojectismeanttobothenrich

ourunderstandingofethosconstructionbyemphasizingthesignificanceinwhich

embodiedidentityaffectsperceptionsofcharacteranddemonstratingtheimmensely

43

collaborativenatureofethosconstruction,itisnotpoliticallyneutralandinsteadismeant

toalsogeneratenewideasanddisrupt/challengedominantsystemsofinequity.

Additionally,MayoutlinesfourprinciplesthatIworkedtomaintainthroughoutmyproject

andthatshearguesarerequiredforscholarstodointersectionalwork:

1. Honorandfosterintersectionality’santisubordinationorientation;2. Drawonintersectionality’smatrixapproachtomeaningfullyengagewith

heterogeneity,enmeshment,anddivergence;3. Takeupintersectionality’sinvitationtofollowopacitiesandtoread

againstthegrain;4. Setasidenormemulationasaphilosophical/political/research/policy

strategy.(228)

InordertobestrepresentthequalitiesofintersectionalworkaslaidoutbyCrenshaw,

Collins,andMay,theanalysisofHuerta’sethosconstructionwas/isrecursive.Therefore,

theanalysisofherethosconstructionmayneverbedeemedasfinalorcompletebut

insteadinfluxalongwithourunderstandingofpowerandauthorityaswellashowit

manifestsinmainstreamunderstandingsofrhetoricalstrategyandaptitude.Forinstance,

strategiesthatweredemonstratedthroughoutthisprojectareHuerta’skeenawarenessof

heraudienceandherabilitytocrafthertextswithherspecificaudienceinmind.Ina1973

publicdebatewithInternationalBrotherhoodofTeamstersUnionrepresentativeChuck

O’Brian,HuertatailoredherresponsestoaddressclaimsbyO’Brianaswellastoinformthe

wideraudienceabouttheissuesfacingthefarmlaborers.InheropeningstatementHuerta

shares,

Theorganizingoffarmworkersinthiscountryhasalongandbitterhistory.Everyeffortthathasbeenmadehasbeenbrokenbythepowerfulforceofthegrowerswithviolenceagainstthepowerless,mostofthetimeethnicgroups,suchastheChinese,Japanese,Filipinos,Mexicans,Mexicans,andMexicansagain.TheTeamstersUnionin1961triedtoorganizethefarmworkers.TheysetupanorganizingofficeinStockton,California,myhometown,putoutalotofeffortandalotofmoneyandtheireffortfailed.(DoloresHuertaReader219)

44

ItisclearfromtheexcerptabovethatHuertafoundunifyingqualitiesinnamingtheethnic

groupsmostnegativelyaffectedbythelaborconditions,andalsomadenoefforttosoften

hercontentionwiththeTeamsters.Throughbothactions—namingtheethnicpopulations

andbyemphasizingtheTeamstersfailure—Huertabuildsherethosamongsupportersof

thefarmworkers’efforts,andamongthosethatidentifiedwithherotheredness/difference.

Overthelonghistoryoftheefforttonameand/ordefineethosthatbeginswith

Aristotle,itisnotsurprisingthattheneedtoqualifytheembodiedqualitiesoftheidentity

oftherhetorwasoftenconsideredunnecessary.However,whilerhetorshave—overan

equallylonghistory—alwaysderivedfromadiversesetofculturesandcommunities,the

focusonsuchqualitiescanrarelybelocated.Ofcourse,asMaycautions,evenwhen

intersectionalworkisdoneinearnesttherearelikelytobemishapsandflaws.Onesuch

critiqueMaylobbiesisagainsttheinadvertentreificationofneatandtidycategories.

SpecificallyMaynotes,

Oddly,criticsoftenusenonintersectionallenses,orevenanti-intersectionallogics,toassessitsalternativevision:viaaneither/orinterpretiveapproach,intersectionalboth/andanalysesarerenderedillogicalordispensable,forexample.Likewise,byusingnormsandmeasuresthatbeginfromanadditivenotionofidentityorinequality,criticsfrequentlyobliterateitsmatrixthinkingandcross-cuttingvisionofchange.(13)

MostnotablyMaypointsouttheproblematicnatureofthe“additivenotion”ofidentity,and

laterarguesthenecessitytoresistit.Inotherwords,whileitcanbesaidthatHuertawas

indeedawoman,andChicana,andamother,thesethreecategoriesofidentitydonot

equallyandalwaysadduptosomesortofaquantifiablelevelofoppression.Instead,May

arguesforanawarenessthatidentitiessuchasthesearealwaysatplaybutcan—andoften

are—measureddifferentlydependingonthesocialcontext.Further,inanefforttoaccount

45

forthecomplexitiesofidentityIapproachthisprojectthroughamatrixlenswhichrequires

agreatdealofzigzaggingbetweentherelationshipsformedbyculturalnormsasrevealed

throughclosereadingsofmainstreampublications,thesenseofselfasrevealedthrough

theanalysisoftextsfromHuerta,andthesenseofaudienceasrevealedthroughcontextual

analysis.

AsCollins,Crenshaw,andMayassert,amongmanyintersectionalityscholars,

intersectionalworkispolitical,andassuchisdeeplyaffectedbysocialandculturalshifts.

Likewise,rhetoricaltheoryisgreatlyimpactedbyculturalshifts,andthuspost-structural

theoristsdramaticallyinfluencedrhetoricaltheoryespeciallyinregardstoaccountingfor

thecomplexityof“self”andthehighlycontextualnatureofidentity.Intracingthechanges

poststructuralismbroughttoourunderstandingofself,Alcornexplains,“PaulSmith,a

theoristdescribingtheimplicationsofcertainLacanianandAlthuesserianideas,suggests

thatapersoncanbe‘conceivedasacolligationofmultifariousandmultiformsubject-

positionssituatedalong,butnotunitedby,temporalexperience(32)’”(5).Inotherwords,

poststructuralismdeconstructedtheimageofthestableunifiedselfsomuchthattheself

wasconceptualizedasonlyfragmentedandsociallyconstructedwithlittletonoagency.

AlcornarguesthatwhilethereisnosinglestableselfasseeminglyreferencedbyAristotle

intheclassicalunderstandingofethos,wearelikewisenotmerelyfragmentsofaselfas

suggestedbypoststructuralists.Morespecifically,Alcornstates,

TheAristotelianviewenvisionsanoverlystrongselfabletochoosefreelyitsownnature,abletobecomewhatevermodelitcanimagine…Thepoststructuralistviewemphasizestheself’slackoffreedom,butinsodoingitimaginesanoverlyweakself.(6)

WhileAlcorndoesvaluetheseviews,hearguesthattheyarenotusefulforastudyofethos

andinsteaddescribesethosas“arelationshipexistingbetweenthediscoursestructuresof

46

selvesandthediscoursestructuresof‘texts’”(6).Thispointbecomesparticularly

importantwhendiscussinghowethosworksfromamarginalizedpositionbecausethe

discoursestructuresthatinfluencetheidentitiesofmarginalizedpeople—ortheirsenseof

self—oftenpositiontheminoppressedorsubservientroles.TofurtherthispointIreturn

toAlcornasheexplainstheroleofhistoryandself-definition:

Historicalconsiderationsoftheselfareimportantbecausewetoooftenconsidertheselftobeonething,unchangingovertime.Thisencouragesustobelievethatdifferentideasabouttheselfreflectideasaboutoneandthesamething.Itmaybethattherearemany,distinctlydifferentselves.Similarly,weoftenthinkofethosasdefiningasingle,stablerelationshipexistingbetweenlanguageandtheself.Butifbothlanguageandtheselfundergohistoricalchanges,thenitmustfollowthatethosalsoundergoeshistoricalchange.Thus,theconceptofethosshouldnotbeimaginedassomefixedrealityapproachedbydifferentperspectives.Rather,weshouldimaginedifferentsortsofethosassumingmanyshapesasthesestructureschangeovertime.(6-7)

Ineffect,Alcornisarguingthatethositselfshiftsasourlivedexperiencesshift.Therefore,

unliketheexampleof“mother”sharedpreviouslyinwhichthedefinitionof“mother”

changedwithtimeduetothechangingactions/rolesthatmothersengagedin,amore

explicitredefinitionorshiftcanbewitnessedinthe(re)appropriationoftermsthatwere

oncederogatorysuchasChicano.

SimilarlytoAlcorn,SusanJarrattandNedraReynoldsarguethatalthoughAristotle

placestheperson/subjectcentraltoanydiscussionofethos,itisstillboundbythenature

ofthe“right”or“good”man.Moreover,JarrattandReynoldslikewisequestionthedegree

towhichPoststructuralistsswingthependulumawayfromthecentralstableselfby

arguingthatindividualsaremerelyaproductoffractureddiscourse.Specifically,Alcorn

claims,“Theselfdoesnotbecomeeachandeverysociallyconstructeddiscourseformation

itencounters;somethingwithinitsowninnerorganizationpromptstheselftoidentify

47

withcertainsocialformsandtorejectothers”(13).Inessence,Alcornarguesthattheselfis

acombinationofbothmutableandimmutableformationsthatarebuiltinconjunctionwith

culturaldiscourseandthereforepoststructuralismisinadequate,buthefallsshortof

politicizingsuchshortcomings.JarrattandReynolds,however,focusourattentionon

another,morepoliticalshortcomingofpoststructuralismbyarguingthatthepoststructural

authorlesstextonlydevaluestheimportanceofrecognizingthatnotallbodiesarereceived

thesamewaybytheaudience—asiftosaythereis‘one’theoreticalsubjectthatisremoved

fromall“politicalandethicalrealities”(38).Althoughitisclearthatthisstudycentersthe

authorintheexaminationofrhetoricalstrategyitdoessobyalsoconsideringthe

poststructuralviewthattheselfisfractured.Thus,neithertheAristotelianconceptionof

ethosnorpoststructuraltheoriesofselfsupportthekindofintersectionalityinhabitedby

rhetorssuchasDoloresHuertaorUFWpresidentCesarChavez.

Inhighlightingsophisticrhetoricandspecificallytracingitsconnectiontoboth

feministstandpointtheoryandpositionality,SusanJarrattandNedraReynoldsoffera

pathwayfortheinclusionofintersectionalworkandembodiedrhetoricintothe

conversation.Theircontributionaidsinconceptualizingthemultiplewaysof“reading”

Huerta’srhetoricalprowess.In“TheSplittingImage,”JarrattandReynoldsarguethat

feministrhetoricissupportedthroughsomeoftheearliestteachingofrhetoricfromthe

sophists.Morespecifically,accordingtoJarrattandReynolds,“theessentialistdefinitions

andhierarchiesofknowledgecontaminatingAristotle’srhetoric”areabsentfromsophistic

rhetoric;further,theyassertthat“ratherthanfocusingonthesplitbetweenagenuine,fully

formedcharacteranditsrepresentation,sophisticrhetoricexplainstheprocessof

characterformationthroughlearningtospeaktotheinterestsofthecommunity”(44).

48

However,itshouldnotbeoverlookedthatthesophistswerecastoutfromfavorinpart

becausethey“sold”theirrhetoricaleducation,whichineffectcalledtheirethicsinto

question.Whilesophisticrhetoricfelloutoffavorearlyinhistorybecausemany,especially

Plato,critiquedthesophistsforteachingandpromotingdeception,JarrattandReynolds

arguethatrhetoricdoesnotteachnorendorsedisingenuousdiscourse.Instead,theyargue

thatsophisticrhetoricexplainsthatarhetorutilizestheirmultiplepositionstoconnect

withdiverseaudiences:

Thealliancebetweenfeminismand(sophistic)rhetoricthusmakessensehistorically.Itispreciselytheconceptofethosinrhetoricthattheorizesthepositionalityinherentinrhetoric—thespeakerhavingbeencreatedataparticularsitewithinthecontingenciesofhistoryandgeography.(47)

Theycontinuetoexplainthattheyarenotsuggestingthatarhetorspeaksfromalocation

inbetweenthestablemoralnotionofselfandtheconstructedversionthatmightbe

misleadingornegativelydeceptivetoanaudience;instead,theyclarifythat“this

positioningisaconstantawarenessthatonealwaysspeaksfromaparticularplaceina

socialstructure—anawarenesscommontorhetoricandtopost-modernfeminisms”(47).

Inotherwords,sophisticrhetoricpromotesethicalandmoraldemonstrationsoftheself,

butalsoacknowledgesthewaysinwhichtheselfshiftsinresponsetocontextualdemands.

ThisobservationbyJarrattandReynoldsisparticularlysignificantforamarginalized

rhetorlikeHuertabecause,aswewillseeinsubsequentanalysis,Huerta,aformally

educatedwoman,oftenvoicedadeepsuspicionfortheindoctrinatingfunctionofeducation

andcautionedpotentialsupportersaboutbeingtoorational,andconsequentlyignoring

theirintuitionabout“rightandwrong.”Intersectionalityaidshereinconceptualizinghow

suchfluiditycanbeaccountedforandhowsomebodiesaremorepracticedinshifting

betweensensesofselftherebyremaininggenuine.Huertaindeedbenefitedfromher

49

education,butalsoemphasizedanddeemphasizedtheroleeducationplayedinherlifein

ordertomeetthecontextualdemandsoftherhetoricalactshewasperforming.

Intheirwork,AlcornandJarrattandReynoldsarguethattherhetor’s“self”is

neitherautonomousnorstable,yettheyalsorecognizethatitisimportanttomaintain

someconceptionoftheselfinordertoconstructanethos,evenifthatconceptionis

shifting/fluid.BecauseofHuerta’sintersectionality,mestizaconsciousness,andembodied

differencehersenseofselfwasnecessarilyprojectedtoheraudiences.AsNedraReynolds

arguesinherarticle,“EthosasLocation,”inordertobuildcredibilityfromalocationinthe

margins,onemustdealwithhis/herlocationexplicitly.Inotherwords,peoplewhodonot

traditionallyholdpower(e.g.peopleofcolor,women,disabledpeople,etc.)areactually

empoweredbyexplicitlyattendingtotheelementsoftheiridentitythatputthemoutside

oftherealmofthetraditionallypowerful.Aswewillsee,thisisastrategyHuertautilized

often.Ultimately,Reynoldsarguesthatethoscan“openupmorespacesinwhichtostudy

writers'subjectpositionsoridentityformations,especiallytoexaminehowwriters

establishauthorityandenactresponsibilityfrompositionsnottraditionallyconsidered

authoritative”(326).LocatingthebodyandhowitaffectshervaluesiscentraltoHuerta’s

ethosconstructionaswellasherself-definition.Becauseself-definitionisintrinsicallytied

toqualitiesofcharacterarhetorcanauthenticallyemit—giventhatwecannotpresent

ourselveseffectivelyassomeonewedonotbelieveourselvestobe—italsodemonstrates

thecomplexityofestablishingandrecognizingthecharacterofleadersofasocial

movement.

Acknowledgingtheimportanceofself-definitionaddstotheconceptofethosas

dwellingbecauseitplacesfocusontherhetor’sconstructionof“self”basedonboth

50

physicalandculturalexperiences.Accountingforthemanyaspectsthataffectethos

enrichestheunderstandingofrhetoricalstrategybydrawingattentiontoboththe

constructedelementsofrhetoricandthosethatareatworkbeyondconstruction.Inother

words,examiningethosspecificallycontributestodiscussionsofrhetoricalstrategythat

movebeyondperformanceandincludecrucialobservationsofculturalcontextsthatare—

forthemostpart—beyondthecontroloftherhetor.Intheirimportantarticle,“Balancing

MysteryandIdentification”communicationscholarsErinDossandRobinJensenclosely

examinewhattheyidentifyasDoloresHuerta’sshiftingpersonasinordertodemonstrate

herabilitytoconnecttoaudiences.Intheirexamination,DossandJensenforegroundthe

performativenatureofHuerta’spersonasanddonotincludehowHuerta’slived

experiencescontributedtohersenseofself-definition,andsubsequently,character.Thus,I

extendDossandJensen’sstudybyincludingtheimpactofHuerta’slivedsacrifice—her

consciouschoicetoliveinpovertyforexample—asaidingherrhetoricaleffectiveness.

DossandJensendiscussHuerta’sshiftsinappealstotheaudiencethroughtheframesof

personainordertoaddressthewaysinwhichHuertapresentedherselfandheraudience.

Thestrategyofpresentingherqualitiesandthequalitiesoftheaudienceenabledherto

exemplifythevirtuesthattheysharedwhich,accordingtoReynoldsandHalloran,is

necessarytoethosconstruction.Specifically,in“Aristotle’sConceptofEthos,orifnotHis

SomebodyElse’s,”Halloranexplainsthat,“Tohaveethosistomanifestthevirtuesmost

valuedbytheculturetoandforwhichonespeaks…”(60).BecauseHuerta’sidentities

requiredhertocrossmanybordersbothfigurativelyandliterally,shewasableto

seamlesslyandauthenticallyspeaktoandincludethevaluesthatsheassessedorperceived

asmostdeartoheraudience.Thisqualityalsospeakstothesocialphenomenathatare

51

affectedbyexaminingHuerta’sethosthroughintersectionality.Itispreciselybecauseof

Huerta’sintersectionalidentitiesthatHuerta’sleadershipeffectssocialchangebynaming

andattendingtoheridentitiesofdifferenceandutilizingherintersectionalitytomake

genuineconnectionswithhermultipleaudiences.

LikeHalloranandReynolds,DossandJensenalsodemonstratetheimportanceof

sharingvalueswithanaudienceinordertoberhetoricallyeffective.DossandJensen

closelyanalyzetwotextsfromHuertaandtheroleofwhattheycallher“shifting

transcendentpersona.”AccordingtoDossandJensen,

Definedaccordingtothreekeyelements,thetranscendentpersona(a)drawsfromarhetor’sboundary-breakingexperiences(“thismightinvolvebeingthe‘first’orthe‘only’persontohaveaccomplishedsomething,”oratleastthecreationofaperceptionthatthisisthecase),(b)requirestherhetortobothbuilddiscursivedistancefromaudiencemembersandmaintainidentificationwiththem,and(c)isusedtointroducean“alternativevisionofsociety”thattherhetorhasseenthankstoatranscendentexperience.(4)

UltimatelytheauthorsarguethatHuertawasabletoconnectwithheraudiencesgenuinely

despitehershiftingpersonasbecauseofhermestizaconsciousnessandtheconsequent

fluidityofhercharacter.WhileDossandJensenutilizetheroleofwhattheytermpersonas,

theirworkinformsmyanalysisbecauseconceptuallypersonaandethosarecloselyrelated.

AsRogerCherryexplainsinhisarticle,“Ethosvs.Persona,”

Twotermsfordescribingself-representation—ethosandpersona—arecommonlyconflated,despitethefactthattherearegoodhistoricalandconceptualgroundsformaintainingadistinctionbetweenthem.Ahistoricalexaminationofthetwotermsshowsthatethosandpersonaderivefromdifferenttraditionsandthereforeprovidedifferent(butcomplementary)perspectivesonself-representationinwrittendiscourse.(232)

Further,Cherrydistinguishespersonafromethosthusly,

Withitsrootsintherhetoricaltradition,ethosreferstoasetofcharacteristicsthat,ifattributedtoawriteronthebasisoftextualevidence,willenhancethewriter’scredibility.Persona,ontheotherhand,tracesits

52

rootsthroughliteratureandliterarycriticismandprovidesawayofdescribingtherolesauthorscreateforthemselvesinwrittendiscoursegiventheirrepresentationofaudience,subjectmatter,andotherelementsofcontext.(258-269)

Likewisethisworkextendsthenotionofmestizaconsciousnessfromanindividuallybased

performanceofselftoacollaborativelynegotiatedconstructionofethos.DossandJensen

discussHuerta’sshiftsinappealstotheaudiencethroughtheframesofpersonainorderto

addressthewaysinwhichHuertapresentedherselfandheraudience.Althoughtheir

examinationfocusedonhowHuerta’sshiftingpersonasfacilitatedherabilityto“identify”

withmultipleaudiencesandthusaidedinherrhetoricalefficacy(2),theiranalysisalso

infersthatthroughidentificationshewasabletodemonstratethepracticalwisdom,virtue,

andgoodwillnecessaryforconstructingethos.Addingtotheimportantfindingsofferedby

DossandJensen,thisprojectbuildsontheirworkbydepartingfromthemore

performativeandindividualbasisofpersonaandinsteadmovestowardamatrix

orientationforanalysisthatengageswiththecollaborativepracticeofethosconstruction

vis-a-visintersectionality.Thus,similarly,butalsodistinctly,IlookspecificallyatHuerta’s

ethos,orcharacterand/orcredibility,asaresultofboththeidentitycategoriesshe

embodiesaswellasherlivedexperiencesplacedwithinspecificcontexts.Workingfroma

perspectivethatrequirestheincorporationofmultiplelived,habituated,andembodied

aspectsinthediscussionofHuerta’srhetoricalprowessleadstoanenrichedunderstanding

ofrhetoricalstrategy,especiallyinregardstomarginalizedrhetors.

EthosfromaFeministPerspective

Scholarsincontemporaryfeministandrhetoricalhistoriography,suchasGesa

Kirsch,JacquelineJonesRoyster,JessicaEnoch,andChristinaRamirez,amongothers,call

attentiontothenecessityofincludinghistoricalfiguresoftensilencedoroverlookedin

53

variousdisciplines.Further,feministandculturalrhetoricianshighlighttheimportanceof

representinghistoricalfiguresasfullyaspossibleinordertorevealthenuancesof

rhetoricalstrategyand,perhapsmoreimportantly,toavoidthemanytrapsof

essentializationorofflatteningouttheexperiencesof“othered”populations.

Attendingtothecomplexityofethosasitisconstructedfromamarginalizedbodyis

oneofthemajorconcernstakenupinCarolynSkinner’srecentbookWomenPhysiciansand

ProfessionalEthosin19thCenturyAmerica.Skinner’sbook,andmorespecificallyher

mappingofwhatshecallsafeministmodelofethos,laysacrucialfoundationformy

analysisofHuerta’sethosconstruction.Aftercarefullydetailingtheprocessinwhich

womenphysicianscraftedaprofessionalethosdespitebeingfemaleandgenerally

consideredasunauthorizedtobemedicalprofessionals,Skinneridentifiesfivefeatures

thatcontributetoafeministmodelofethos:

1. Arhetor’sethosisshapedbythematerialresourcesavailabletoherandthepopularbeliefsaboutthoseofhersocialposition.(173)

2. Ethosoftenisnotcraftedinresponsetoacoherentandidentifiablesetofaudiencevaluesbutinsteadiscomposedinadynamiccontextthatincludesmultiplecompetingideasaboutthe“best”virtues;consequently,ethosformationfrequentlyinvolvesvaluenegotiationsaswellasreciprocitybetweenrhetorandaudienceidentityconstructs.(175)

3. Ethosandgenreareintertwined.(177)4. Theethoschoicesanindividualrhetormakesinfluencenotonlyhisorher

immediatecommunicativesituationbutalsothebroadercontextandthepersuasiveoptionsavailabletootherpotentialspeakersandwriters.(178)

5. Ethoscanbecollectivelydevelopedanddeployed;consequently,arhetorcandevelopherethosindirectly,byshapingheraudience’sperceptionofthegrouptowhichshebelongs.(180)

Collectively,thesefeaturesoutlinedbySkinnerworktorecognizethemostevidentethos

strategiesemployedbytraditionallymarginalizedrhetors,andtheyaddtoour

understandingofhowthebodyiscentraltothediscussionofethosbecause,asindicatedby

Skinner,thebodycannotbeunaddressed.Inotherwords,eachfeature—tovarying

54

degrees—requirestherecognitionofthemarginalizeddimensionsoftherhetor.WhileI

considereachofthefeaturesoutlinedbySkinnerinmyexaminationofHuerta,Ialsoaddto

hermodelbydemonstratingtheneedforfurtherdevelopinghowlanguageandlanguage

differences,suchasbilingualismormultilingualism,alsoaffectethos.Tothispoint,in

subsequentchapters,IarguethatHuertaandtheUFWwereabletoleveragetheirlanguage

diversitytosymbolizeaglobalandsustainableorganizationalethos.Forexample,across

thearchivalmaterials,lettersfromHuertaoften(ifnotalways)includedsalutationsor

valedictionsthatwerewritteninSpanishandonoccasioninTagalog.Thedecisionto

includenon-Englishtermsandphrasesactsasasignificantsymboltobothmonolingual

andmultilingualaudiences.Specifically,itappearsthatwhetherornottherecipientwas

SpanishspeakingdidnotaffectHuerta’schoicetoincludeSpanishphrasesthatwere

integraltotheorganization,suchas“VivalaCausa”(Longlivethecause),“Vivael

boycoteo,”(longlivetheboycott),andofcoursethephrasemostassociatedwiththeUFW,

“SiSePuede”(Yesweareable).Ofcoursetherearemanyexamplesofhowlanguageserves

asbothconnectiontoanddistancingfromheraudiences,thusitisundeniablethatHuerta’s

cultural—andembodied—identityisnotonlyhighlyvisible,butisalsoanimportant

elementofherethosconstruction.

Studiesofmarginalizedrhetoricians,likethestudyofHuertainformingthis

dissertationproject,couldbeconsideredagreatsourceofempowermentforoppressed

populations.Thisisbecausewhatisdeemedrhetoricalcanbecontested,andthereforeso

toocanthosewhohaveaccesstoauthority.Inparticular,thenotionofethosgetsmuddled

whenthemarginalizedrhetormaynolongerfitinwithtraditionalnotions,notionsthatare

rootedinancestralbloodline,educationalpedigree,socialclass,gender,andracialidentity.

55

Eveniftherhetoricalstrategiesutilizedareseeminglytraditional,thebodyofthe

marginalizedrhetorcan,simplyput,lookdifferentthanthatofthehistoricallytraditional

rhetor—thatis,theWhite,upper-middleclass,able-bodied,educatedmale.Calling

attentiontothebodyinrhetoricalstrategyoranyconceptionofethosrequiresusto

acknowledgeprivilegeaswellassubordination.Thisacknowledgmentaidsincontinuing

theevolutionofconceptionsofethosandexpandswhatrhetoricaltoolsareavailabletoa

varietyofrhetors.

Becauseoftheunderlyingtensionsthatcanarisewhenseekingmoreinclusive

practicesincontemporaryfeministandculturalhistoriography,itiscriticaltomakeclear

thataddingvoiceslikeHuerta’sdoesnotservetobreaktheboundariesoftraditional

rhetoricalstrategy.Traditionalandcanonizedrhetoriciansarenotreplacedbyincludinga

morediverserangeofrhetoriciansinourscholarship.Instead,includingrhetorslike

Huertaaimstobendthetradition,toevolvedefinitions,and,ultimately,toenrichthework

thatwedoandtheknowledgethatwebuild.Therefore,thisdissertationprojectaimsto

examineDoloresHuerta’sethosconstructioninordertorevealhowethosisaffectedbythe

embodiedidentitiesoftherhetor,andinsodoingcontinuestobendourunderstandingof

character/ethoscreation.

56

ChapterThreeMatrixThinking:Intersectionality,MestizaConsciousness,andDiscoveringHuerta

ButforthosewhohavemadePlatoandAristotlethecenterofacanonandthearchitectsofanepistemology,thebodyisadistractionor,worse,adeterrencetoclearthought.

~JayDolmage

Asdiscussedpreviously,lookingtoethosconstructionandthepowerofmoving

peopletoactionisimportantforunderstandinghowpowerstructuresworkandhowthey

canbedisrupted.Further,lookingtoDoloresHuertaaidsinourunderstandingofhow

rhetoricworksand,morespecifically,howwemightreframeourunderstandingofethos

construction.Indeed,oneofthemostcentralquestionsofthisprojectisthis:Wheredoes

Huerta’sethoscomefrom?Determiningethosanditsconstructionisnosmalltaskand

mustbeattributedtomultiplesources,includingthespeaker/author,place,time,and

politicalenvironmenttonamejustafew.Tracinghowethosisinfluenced,constructed,or

perceivedcanbesodifficultthatmanymightquestionthepurposeofdoingso.Infact,in

theirintroductiontoEthos,JamesBaumlinandTitaBaumlinask,“Doesethosremaininany

way,adefinable(ordefensible)rhetoricalconcept?Isitatalluseful?”(xxvii).Ofcourse,

oneofthepurposesoftheiranthologyistosupportthatthestudyofethosisindeedan

importantandusefulendeavor,andtherobustcollectionaffirmstherelevanceof

understandingethos.Thisprojectcontributestotheconversationandfindsthatethos

analysisisincrediblyfruitfulinpartbecauseitexposeshowthosewhoaredisassociated

withauthority—bodiesthatdonottypicallyinhabitpublicleadershippositions—canand

domakeimportantsocietalchange.Morespecifically,thestudyofethosreadthroughthe

lensofthebodyisespeciallysignificantformarginalizedrhetorsbecausetheirbodiesand

identitiesoftenworkagainstthembeforetheyevenaddresstheiraudiences;thus,building

ethosisaparticularlyprecariousendeavor.

57

AnalyzingHuertaforherethosconstructionrequiredacombinationofmethods

becausesheisalivingandhistoricalfigure.Firstandforemost,thisworkisarchivaland

drawsonarchivalmethodsnotonlyfortechniquesinfindingandtracingrelevanttextsbut

alsoforethicalguidanceinthetreatmentofthosetexts.Likewise,maintaininganapproach

groundedinfeministtheorybringsanevengreaterattentiontothenecessityofreflecting

on,andexplicitlyattendingto,myownstandpointandinherentbiases.Thus,reflectingon

myownunderstandingofbeingChicanaisalwaysatplaywithmyanalysisofhowHuerta

attendstoher“Chicananess.”Lastly,itisimportanttopointoutthatwhilethisproject

primarilyfocusesonstrategiesofethosformation,itisdeeplyinformedbytheworkof

scholarsinfieldsthatareinvestedinsocialjusticeandracialequality.Inotherwords,while

thisworksituatesHuertaasarhetoricalfigureinthefieldofrhetoricandcomposition,it

doessobycombiningworkfromthefieldsofcriticalracetheoryandChicanafeminism

alongwithfeministrhetoricaltheoryandrhetoricsofsocialmovements.Insum,this

projectisahistoricalrecoveryandinsertionofaLatinarhetor,andisaprojectthatreveals

thenuancesinvolvedinrhetoricalstrategyandethosconstructionwhencentrallyplacing

thebodyinthediscussion.Ineffectthisprojectplacesfocusonthenuancesofrhetorical

strategyemployedbyHuertathatcomplicatetheimageofauthorityandrequireexplicit

attentiontotheembodiedidentitiesofmarginalizedrhetors,suchasrace,class,andgender

inordertobuildcredibility.

Whenconsideringtheconnectionbetween“character,”asMarshallAlcornand

othershavedefinedit,andtheethosofaspeaker,thequestion,“WheredoesHuerta’sethos

comefrom?”becomes,“HowdidHuerta’spositionality,ormorespecifically,embodied

identitiesaffecthercredibilityorcharacter?”Thelatterquestionnotonlyfirmlygrounds

58

thisinquiryintoHuerta’sethosconstructionintermsofherbodyandselfbutalsoguided

themethodsforthisresearch.

LookingforHuerta:FeministHistoriographyandSearchingintheArchives

Inherbook,TheFantasyofFeministHistory,JoanWallachScottarguesthatfantasy

playsanimportantpartinunderstandinganddeconstructinggenderroles.Shedefines

fantasyasareferencetothe“playsofthemindthatarecreativeandnotalwaysrational”

(Scott48).Fantasynotonlyoffersawaytounderstandtheutilityofgendercategorizing

butalsothetroublewith“fixed”categoriesbecauseitfillsinwhererationalityfallsshort

andthusisflawed:

[P]eoplearenotmerelyrational,goal-orientedbeings,butsubjectsofunconsciousdesire—desirearticulatedintermsof,butnotdefinedby,thesymbolic,inwhichtherelationshipbetweensignifierandsignifiedcanneverbeclear.Thuspeoplearen’tmobilizedaccordingtopurelyobjectiveinterests,butratheraccordingtointerestscreatedforthembycollectivefantasies.(19)

Scott’sinfusionoffantasyintotheworkofhistoriographysupportsthecallfromJacqueline

JonesRoysterandGesaKirschtousecriticalimaginationasapointforinquiry.

InRoyster’searlierwork,TracesofaStream,criticalimaginationisdefinedasa

strategyforinquirythatacknowledgesthelimitsofknowledgeandallowsforspeculation.

Specifically,inFeministRhetoricalPractices,RoysterandKirschdrawonRoyster’searlier

definition,andthenemphasizethat“theconceptofcriticalimagination[i]saninquirytool,

amechanismforseeingthenoticedandtheunnoticed,rethinkingwhatisthereandnot

there,andspeculatingaboutwhatcouldbethereinstead”(20).RoysterandKirschprovide

severalquestionsdesignedtoclarifythescope,nature,andprinciplesoftheworkof

feministrhetoricalhistoriographer:

59

Whenwestudywomenofthepast,especiallythosewhosevoiceshaverarelybeenheardorstudiedbyrhetoricians,howdowerendertheirworkandlivesmeaningfully?Howdowehonortheirtraditions?Howdowetransportourselvesbacktothetimeandcontextinwhichtheylived,knowingfullwellthatisnotpossibletoseethingsfromtheirvantagepoint?Howdidtheyframe(ratherthanweframe)thequestionsbywhichtheynavigatedtheirownlives?Whatmorelingersinwhatweknowaboutthemthatwouldsuggestthatweneedtothinkagain,tothinkmoredeeply,tothinkmorebroadly?Howdowemakewhatwasgoingonintheircontextrelevantorilluminatingforthecontemporarycontext?(20)

Manyoftheseimportantquestionscontinuetoinformmyapproachtotheanalysisof

Huerta’stextualartifactsandlivedhistory.BuildingonRoyster’searlierworkwithcritical

imagination,KirschandRoysterofferawaytoapproacharchivalworkthroughstrategic

contemplation.Morespecifically,KirschandRoysterpointoutthatcriticalimaginationis

notanendpointbutisinsteada“mechanismforenablingandenergizingwithinscholarly

processesaspaceforrigorouscontemplation,withtheeffectactuallyofcreatingageneric

spaceinwhichtousealiterateformdesignedtodrawmethodically,vibrantly,and

creativelyfromwell-groundedscholarlywork”(21).Theyassertthatstrategic

contemplationasamethodologicalpracticeoverlapswithcriticalimaginationbecauseit

alsofocusesonwithholdingjudgmentandresistinghastyconclusions(85).

Strategiccontemplationdiffersfromcriticalimaginationwithitsovertconnections

toboththebodyandtotime.Inotherwords,asKirschandRoysterexplain,“Strategic

contemplationfurthersuggeststhatwepayattentiontohowlivedexperiencesshapeour

perspectivesasresearchersandthoseofourresearchsubjects.Wecallforgreater

attentiontolived,embodiedexperiencebecauseweconsiderittobeapowerfulyetoften-

neglectedsourceofinsight,inspiration,andpassion”(21).Therearemanyquestionsthat

arecentraltostrategiccontemplation:

60

Whatdowenoticewhenwestandbackandobserve?Howdoweimagine,connectwith,andopenupaspaceforthewomen—andothers—westudy?Howdoestheirworkspeaktoourminds,ourhearts,andourethos?Whatismostprominent?Whatlingersatthemargins?Whatcanourownlivedexperienceteachus?Howdowerespondto—andrepresent—historicalsubjectswhenwediscoverthatwemaynotsharetheirvaluesorbeliefs?Howdowehonor,ordojusticeto,thosewhonolongercanspeakbacktous?Howcananethosofhumility,respect,andcareshapeourresearch?Howdopastandpresentmergetosuggestnewpossibilitiesforthefuturewhenwecreatetimeandspaceforcontemplation,reflection,andmeditation?(KirschandRoyster22)

DrawingonthequestionsputforthbyKirschandRoyster,myanalysisofHuerta’sethos

constructiontookseveralturnsandre-directionsasIsatwiththematerialsandconsidered

whatwasrisingasmostprominent.Forinstance,inresponsetothequestion,“Whatis

mostprominent?”Inoticedthatmanyofthematerialsincludedwereperiodicalarticles

aboutHuertaandtheworkoftheUnitedFarmWorkers(UFW).Whileconductingmy

analysis,IfoundthatIcontinuallyreturnedtoseveralperiodicalarticlesasrepresentations

bothofhowHuertadefinedheridentitiesandthewaysinwhichheridentitieswere

defined.

ThecollectiveworksofScott,Kirsch,andRoysterhavegreatlyinfluencedthe

methodologicalapproachesIadoptinthisdissertation.Sincemuchoftheinvestigationin

thisdissertationrequiresbothanattentiontoandproblematizingofgenderconstructions,

fantasyasdescribedbyScottsupportstheutilizationofgenderandevenrace/ethnicityas

keycomponentsofunderstandingethos.Inotherwords,wecanunderstandHuertaandher

ethosasbeingbasedonherowninterestsandherownestablishedstrategiesformobilizing

others;however,wemustalsoconsiderthevarious“collectivefantasies”ofHuertaheldby

others,includingcollectiveimaginationpertainingtowhatitmeanstobeamotheranda

Chicana.Thisnotionoffantasy,ofcourse,canalsobeappliedtocontemplatingthe

61

subjectivitiesofresearchers.PartofthereasonIwasdrawntoresearchingHuerta,for

instance,isbecauseidentitycategoriesthatinclude“woman”and“Mexican-American”

meansomethingtome.Scottdrawsourattentionto“fantasy”aspartoftheidentification

process,and,byextension,Iarguethatthesefantasizeddefinitionsalsoinfluenceethos

creation.

Itwasonlyaftersittingwiththeinformationandallowingpatternstoemerge—

patternsthatoftenplacedHuerta’sidentityascentraltodiscussionsofherworkandrole

withtheUFW—thatIwasabletovisualizetheconnectionsbetweenHuerta’sethos

constructionandherembodiedidentitycategories.AsRoysterandKirschexplain,strategic

contemplationreclaimsmeditation,whichrequires“takingthetime,space,andresources

tothinkabout,through,andaroundourworkasanimportantmeditativedimensionof

scholarlyproductivity”(21).Ineffect,recognizingthecentralityofHuerta’sembodied

identitiesledtotheinquiryofhowHuerta’srace/ethnicity,class,andgenderaffecther

ethos.Suchanexaminationispartofcontinuingtheworkofinsertingwomen—specifically

ethnicminoritywomen—intothegrowingandevolvingrhetoricaltradition.Moving

beyondmereinclusion,thisprojectalsoconsidershowherstrategiesaddtoour

understandingofrhetoric,especiallywhendeployedfromabodydisassociatedwithpower

andauthority.However,beforeIcouldrecognizeoranalyzetheroleofherembodied

identitiesinherethosconstruction,Ihadtofirstunderstandthetimeperiod,thelabor

movement,theworkingconditionsofthelaborers,thecomplexityoforganizingpeopleto

action,andthesheermagnitudeoftheprocess.Inotherwords,inthespiritofKrista

Ratcliffeandothers,“listening”tothearchivalmaterialfromtheUFWandDoloresHuerta

facilitatedmyunderstandingofHuerta’srhetoricalsituation.

62

Inthefollowingsection,IdrawonBarbaraL’Eplattenier’s“AnArgumentfor

ArchivalResearchMethods”tosharemyprocessofcollecting,viewing,andworkingwith

thearchivesfoundattheWalterP.ReutherLibraryatWayneStateUniversity.

L’Eplattenierarguesthatalthoughscholarsinthefieldofrhetoricandcompositionhave

workedwitharchivesextensively,thefieldhashistoricallylackedscholarshipthat

providedclearmethodsforsuchwork.Thus,L’Eplattenierprovidesnecessaryguidancefor

archivalmethodsandultimatelyprovidedmuchofthescaffoldingneededformy

recountingandsharingoftheworkdoneinandwiththearchives.Inordertoprovidemore

supportforarchivalwork,L’Eplattenier,AlexisRamsey,LisaMastrangelo,andWendy

Sharerco-editedthecollectionWorkingintheArchives:PracticalResearchMethodsfor

RhetoricandComposition.EachofthefoursectionsinWorkingintheArchivesoffers

practicalandexperientialknowledgeabouthowtoapproacharchivalworkandhowto

responsiblycollect,process,share,andstewardhistoricaltexts.Specifically,inCheryl

GlennandJessicaEnoch’schapter,“InvigoratingHistoriographicPracticesinRhetoricand

CompositionStudies,”theauthorsemphasizethevalueofworkingwitharchivalmaterial.

Theyalsocallforresearcherstocontributetothepreservationandcollectionofarchives

andtoconsiderhowpeopleoutsideoftheformalinstitutionsofteninvolved—e.g.,

universitylibraries,librarians/archivist,andresearchers—canbeaffectedbythework

beingdonewithandsharedthroughresearch.GlennandEnoch’scallforaddingtothe

networkandawarenessofarchivalmaterialsisimportant,andIhopetocontributeto

ReutherLibrarybyofferingtheimagesItookofvarieddocumentsincludedinHuerta’sfiles

aspossibleadditionstotheirdigitalarchives.However,whilecontributingtothedigital

accesstoarchivalmaterialsisimportant,itisGlennandEnoch’scalltobeawareofthe

63

effectstothoseoutsideofformalinstitutionsthatIcontinuetobemostmindfulofwithmy

work,especiallyasIconsiderapublicaudience.ItisimperativethatImaintainarespectful,

measured,andthoughtfulorientationtotheknowledgeandinterpretationssharedabout

Huerta,Chavez,andthepeopleoftheUFW.

InMay2013,Ispentapproximatelyoneweekexaminingthearchiveshousedinthe

ReutherLibraryandworkedwiththecollection,orseries,titled,“DoloresHuertaPapers:

1970-1995.”Accordingtothelibrary’swebsite,“TheWalterP.ReutherLibraryofLabor

andUrbanAffairswasestablishedastheLaborHistoryArchivesatWayneStateUniversity

in1960,withthegoalofcollectingandpreservingoriginalsourcematerialsrelatingtothe

developmentoftheAmericanlabormovement,”andis“thelargestlaborarchivesinNorth

Americaandishometothecollectionsofnumerousunionsandlabor-related

organizations”(AboutUs).TheDoloresHuertaPapersconsistedof32linearfeet(32

bankersizedstorageboxes)ofmaterialsandevenmorewhenincludingaudio/visual

items.TheDoloresHuertaPapersincludespapersthat“primarilydealwithboycotts,

strikes,andtheongoingstruggleforworkers’rightsandorganizationsinvolvedinsuch

matters”(FindingGuide).TheHuertaseriesincludesitemsthatrangefrommeeting

minutestoradioshowtranscripts.Ihadseveralexchangeswiththearchivistin

preparationofmytriptotheReutherLibraryandwasabletoarrangeforafindingguide

thatlistedtheboxesbetweentheearliestyearsoftheUFWtojustbefore1980.Ifocused

myinquiryonthoseyearsforthreereasons:first,theUFWwasjustbeingdeveloped;

second,thoseweretheyearsHuertawasmostintegraltotheunion;andthird,itwasthe

timeperiodinwhichtheUFWhaditsstrongestpoliticalforce.Narrowingmyscopebytime

periodwashelpful,butnonethelessmanymaterialsremainedtobecanvased.Duringmy

64

visittotheReutherLibrary,Inotonlyreviewedthedocumentsincludedinthefiles

selectedbytimeframe,butIalsoreviewedapproximatelyeightitemsfromthe

audio/visualfilesnotincludingmiscellaneousphotographs.Whiletheaudio/visualitems

werecompelling,manyweresporadicinnature(clipsthatcutfromspeakertospeaker)

and/orincomplete.Further,theaudio/visualfileswererequiredtoremaininthearchives

andthereforewerenotavailableforreexaminationatalaterdatewithoutreturningto

Detroit.Therefore,forpracticalpurposesIchosetofocusmystudyonitemsIcould

physicallydocumentbytakingdigitalphotosthatIcouldreturntoforreexamination.

InordertorecordtheresearchIwasdoing,Icreatedaspreadsheetthatincluded

thefollowingcategories:titleofthecollection,descriptionofthedocument,titleofthe

document,publication,author,date,location/regionoffocus,media,boxnumber,folder

numberortitle,whetherornotItookapicture,andnotes.Further,fordocumentsIfound

likelytobecentraltomyresearch,Itookpictures—sincecopieswereprohibited—and

savedthemtoazipdrive.Uponreturninghome,Iprintedtheimagesandamasseda

personalarchiveof57documents(totalingjustunder100pagestotal).Inadditiontothe

materialsIcollectedfirsthand,IalsoexaminedthetranscriptsfromHuerta’stestimonyto

theU.S.Senate’ssubcommitteeonmigratorylaborandtextsreprintedintheDolores

HuertaReadereditedbyMarioT.Garcia.

Ispentnearly23hoursoverfourdaysinthearchivesandcountlessmorewiththe

artifactsthatIhaveimagesof,andaccessto,sincethatvisit.However,lookingsolelyto

textsanddocumentsfromthepastcannotprovideacompleteandobjectiveoutlineofany

historicalfigure.Thus,duringmyresearchintoHuerta’srhetoricalsituation,Iallowed

myselfthespaceandtimetoworkthroughthediscoveryofHuertawithoutmakinghasty,

65

predeterminedconclusions.Forinstance,insteadoflookingforarchivalevidenceof

Huerta’s“fiery”nature—atermoftenusedtodescribeher—Isimplyorganizedthe

archivesbytype,suchasminutes,pressreleases,magazinearticlesabouther,interviews,

letters,memos,etc.Whilemostofthedocumentsheldinthearchiveswereingoodphysical

condition,somelikethemeetingminuteswerenotcomprehensiblebecauseHuertatook

theminshorthand.Inaddition,statisticalreportsandminutesweresimplynotdirectly

relatedtoherethosconstruction.Althoughitcouldbearguedthatthoseminutesillustrate

that,asawoman,Huertawaswellsuitedfortheearly“secretarial”roleshehadintheUFW,

sheofcoursedevelopedbeyondthatrole.Butitemssuchasmeetingminutesandbudget

reportsdidlittletodemonstratethecriticalroleHuertamaintainedand/orhowshe

viewedherroleontheexecutiveboard.Further,hertestimonytotheSenate’s

subcommitteeonmigratorylaborwasfartooextensivetoaddtothisexaminationasit

includedresponsesfromsixsittingU.S.Senators,includingSenatorWalterF.Mondale,and

wouldrequiresignificantcontextualizationofitsown.Whilethesubcommitteemeeting

wasincrediblyinteresting,itwarrantsastudyofitsown—onethatIhopetoconductata

laterdate.

DuringtheexaminationoftheresearchthatIgathered,itbecameexceedinglyclear

thatnoneoftheleadersoftheUFWorlabormovement,includingChavez,wereworking

alone.Inotherwords,eachspeech,letter,andprotestposterwasoftenacombinationof

research,experiences,templates,andstrategiesfrommultiplesources.Forexample,it

appearsthataletterwassuppliedtoalliesoftheboycottfromtheUFW,butnoauthorwas

attributedandthesignaturelinewasleftblankpresumablyfortheally’ssignature.Of

course,thisiscommonpracticefornearlyanyletterwritingcampaign;nonetheless,this

66

posedsomedifficultyindiscerningwhetherHuerta—oranyotherUFWleader—wasthe

oneresponsibleforcraftingthe“boilerplate”memo.Thearchivalmaterialsalsoincluded

“factsheets”thatcontainedtestresultsfromgrapesthathadtracesofpesticides.The

informationfromthefactsheetswasoftenusedinmultipletextsasevidenceofthedanger

ofsellingproducetotheaverageconsumerwhenthepickingandpackingprocesseswere

performedinunsanitaryconditions.Becauseofthevolumeandvarietyofmaterials

included,itwasimportantthatthematerialsIselectedcouldbeexaminedwithoutmuch

questionofauthorshipand/orauthenticity.

Understandingthemagnitudeoftheworkthatthefarmlabormovementrequired

madeitdifficult,ifnotpointless,toparseoutwhatwas“original”toHuertaoranyofthe

otherUFWleaders.Limitingmyexaminationtodocumentsthatarehighlylikelytohave

beenprimarilyauthoredbyHuertaand/orincludedirectquotesfromheryieldedtwelve

periodicalarticles,elevenpersonallettersaddressedtoChavez,severalmemosdirectedto

ChavezandotherswithintheUFW,andtwospeechesthatshedelivered.Additionally,itis

importanttorememberthatdespitethefactthatstatementsmadeorspeechesdelivered

mayhavebeencomposedcollaboratively,Huertawasoftenselectedtodelivermanypublic

addressesandthuslentherethosand/orcharactertothelargerorganization.Therefore,

whenconsideringHuerta’sethosconstruction,itbecameapparentthatitwasnot

constructedfromonlyhercharacterorbeing;rather,itwasboundupwiththeUFW,

Chavez,andthelargermovement.

Workingwithandwithintheconstraintsandlimitationspresentedbythearchives

broughttobearwhatNealLernerreferstoas“thesocialprocess”thatispartofarchival

research.Inhischapter“ArchivalResearchasaSocialProcess”fromWorkinginthe

67

Archives,Lernerexplainsthatarchivalresearchrequiresagreatdealofcollaborationboth

inthesenseofthereadingandanalysisofmaterials,andinthegatheringandmaintenance

ofdocuments:

WhatIhavecometorealizeisthatthesocialforcesthatshapearchivalresearcharemany,fromaresearcher’sexperiencesandexpectations,tocontemporaryevents,tothechoicesmadebythosewhohavedonatedpaperstoanarchive,leadingtofragmentsofinformationthateventhebestarchivewilloffer.Inotherwords,archivalresearchisnotmerelyabouttheartifactstobefoundbutisultimatelyaboutthepeoplewhohaveplayedaroleincreatingandusingthoseartifacts,whethertheirauthors,theirsubjects,theircollectors,theirdonators,thereaders,orahostofotherplayersinthesocialworldsrepresented.(195-96)

Lerner’sobservationisparticularlyimportanttoconsiderwhenresearchingtheworkof

Huertabecauseitemphasizesthesocialdimensionsthatwerefurtheraffectedbyher

embodiedidentities.Archivalworkandthecollectionofmaterialsdeemedimportant

enoughtoarchiveisindeedasocialpractice.Andwhilethisprojectisnotmeanttodeeply

investigatethearchivalcollectionandmaintenanceprocess,itdoesbegthequestions:How

werethesematerialscollected?WhatroledidHuertahaveinsecuringthecollection?How

did/doesherembodiedidentitiesinfluencethecollection?Itremainsperplexingthat

insteadofhavingarobustcollectionofspeechesthatweredeliveredandcraftedbyHuerta,

therewereinsteadtextsabouther(suchasperiodicalarticlesaboutherandtheUFW),

shareddocuments(suchasformlettersandboilerplatememos),andorganizational

documents(suchasreports,meetingminutes,andtemplates).Again,whilethisstudydoes

notdelvedeeplyintothisinquiry,itdoesrevealthelimitedaccesstodocumentsauthored

anddeliveredbyHuertadespiteherhigh-rankingoffice.

AfterpiecingtogethertherhetoricalsituationHuertawasapartofduringthe

creationoftheUFW,Iwasabletodeterminetextsthatprovidedconcreteexamplesfor

68

examination.Inchapterfour,Iprimarilyfocusonartifactsthatdemonstratethedeeply

influentialforceHuerta’sappearanceandembodiedidentitiesoccupiedinestablishingher

character.Iexaminetheelementsthatinfluenceethosbasedonperceptionsofembodied

identities,suchasthecategoriesmotherandChicana.TheseelementsofethosthatIhave

conceivedaregenerallyconstructedbeforetherhetorarrivesandarelikelytopersist—

albeitnotwithoutalteration—aftertherhetorisgone.Insodoing,Iconnecttheroleof

collectivefantasiesandculturallyconstructedconceptionsofidentitytoethosconstruction.

Inchapterfive,Iaddtotheanalysisfromchapterfourbyexaminingtheeffectsofboth

genresonhowHuertanegotiatedrepresenting/definingherselfinconjunctionwith,andin

responseto,herembodiedidentities.Overthecourseofchaptersfourandfive,Ilookto

traditionalandnon-traditionalrhetoricaltextsbothbecauseHuertawasengaginginboth

setsconsistentlyandbecausefocusingstrictlyontraditionalrhetoricalactsnegatesthe

importanceoflessexaminedsitesofrhetoricalaction.

PiecingtogetherHuerta’sethosstrategiesthroughthesematerials—asopposedto

strictlytraditionalrhetoricalactssuchasthespeechesshedelivered—isrootedinfeminist

methods,whichcallfordiscoveringalternativerhetoricallyusefulchannels.Mostnotably,

inthe1990sCherylGlenn,SusanJarrett,andJacquelineJonesRoysterarguedthatbecause

womenoftenlackedaccesstotraditionallyrhetoricalpositions,evidenceoftherhetorical

workwomenengagedinrequireslookingtonewplaces.AlthoughHuertaoccupiedthe

positionofVicePresidentfortheUFW—whichgaveheraccesstotraditionallyrecognized

rhetoricalperformances—shealsooccupiedabodyfromatraditionallyunauthorized

position;therefore,itwasenlighteningtoexaminehowshebuiltherethosthroughless

69

traditionalchannels.InWomenPhysiciansandProfessionalEthos,CarolynSkinner

commentsontheobstacleswomenfacebuildingethos:

Becausewomenbegintospeakandwritefromadifferentstartingpointthanmostmendoandbecausetheyconfrontfundamentalobstaclestobeingacceptedasrhetors,women’srhetoricoftenentailsthedevelopmentofalternativecommunicativestrategies.Thisisespeciallytrueofethos,sinceitispreciselythecharacteristicsofagoodspeakerthathavehistoricallybeendeniedtowomen.(171)

Huerta,likethephysiciansstudiedinSkinner’stext,utilizedbothtraditionalandnon-

traditionalchannels.Examiningtextsfromaspectrumofdeliverychannelsaidsin

understandingethosconstruction,especiallyasitpertainstomarginalizedrhetors.

Inchapterfour,Iuseseveraltextsfromthearchivestoprovidesupportingevidence,

butIfocusmyanalysisprimarilyoninterviewsandarticlespublishedinperiodicalsduring

thetimethattheUFWwasgainingstrength.Includedinthearchivesweretwelvearticles

thatfeaturedHuerta:fourmagazinearticles,fivenewspaperarticles(ofvaryingcirculation

sizes),andthreenewsletter/organizationalpublications(suchasunionpublications).

Interestingly,allofthepublicationsincludedwerewrittenbetween1968and1978.This

maybeinpartbecausethepeakoftheUFW’smembershipandpoliticalforcewasfrom

1973-1985.However,becauseoftwolarge-scaleboycotts,theyearsleadingupto1973and

immediatelyafterwerelikelytocarrythemostpublicinterest.Aftertakingcarefulnotes

andrecognizingthetrendsthatwereapparentacrossarticles,especiallythosethat

includeddirectquotationsfromHuerta,fiveofthepublicationsprovidedvaluabledatafor

examiningherethosconstructionbyofferingstrongrepresentationsofhowshewas

positionedconsistentlyaswellashowshepositionedherselfduringthemostpivotalyears

fortheUFW.

70

WhiletheperiodicalsdemonstratehowHuertawasoftenpositionedbyothersand

howsherespondedtosuchpositioning,inchapterfive,Ilookspecificallyattheinfluence

genrehasonethosandhowHuertaworkswithinandagainsttheconstraintsand

possibilitiesthatgenrespresent.Moreexplicitly,Itakeinconcerttheconventionsofgenre,

thenotionofaudiencebasedongenre,anditsrhetoricaleffectsonethos.Forexample,the

elevenpersonalletterstoChavezanthologizedintheDoloresHuertaReadercollectively

demonstratehowHuerta’smultiplerolesandidentitiesaffectedherworkwiththeUFW

andhowsheconsistentlyworkedtoassureChavezofhercommitmentandabilitytoserve

thecause.HuertaconstructedherethosforChavezand,becauseofherconsistent

demonstrationsofsacrifice,wasabletogainhissupportforthemorepublicperceptionsof

hercharacter.ValidationfromChavezlikelyprovidedHuertawithboththepersonal

confidencetoremainactiveandcentraltotheUFWandservedasanaffirmationofher

credibilityinthepublicarena.WhiletherelationshipbetweenHuertaandChavezhasbeen

welldocumentedasstrongyetvolatile,itappearsthatitwasmutuallybeneficialforthe

leaders.UnliketheperiodicalsthatIexamined,theprivatelettersofferapersonallycrafted

senseofselfbyHuertathat—tothebestofourknowledge—werenotmeantforpublic

viewing.Unliketheletters,theinterofficememosincludedinthearchivesofferedaviewof

anofficialchannelofcommunication.Perhapsironically,intheinterofficememoexchanges

betweenthetwoleaders,thereseemedtobemoreposturingofauthoritythanthepersonal

letters.Perhapsduetotheofficialnatureoftheinterofficememo,bothleadersappearedto

demonstrateauthoritativeandsometimeshostilecorrespondence.

Lastly,inthearchivesIlocatedfiverequestsforHuertatospeakatengagements

betweenOctoberandDecember1972andonefromFebruary1973.Moreoftenthannot,

71

Huerta’srepliestothoserequestswereenthusiasticbuttentative.Forexample,ina

responsetoDr.JanHowardoftheUniversityofCalifornia,SchoolofMedicineSan

Francisco,Huertawritesthefollowing:

DearDr.Howard, JerryLacknerjustcalledandIhadn’trealizedthatyoudidn’thearfromusaboutthespeakingengagement.Iwilltryveryhardtobethere,andforsuretherewillbesomeonefromtheunionwillbethere[sic]ifIcan’t.IhavejusttakenonsomenewresponsibilitiesandcannotseejustyethowfreemyschedulewillbeinearlyDecember.

Theresponseabovewasquitetypicalofherletters.Often,whenaskedtobeaspeakerfora

specialengagement,HuertawasverypositivebutalsoincludedacaveatthattheUFWmay

needtosendanalternaterepresentative.WhileIwasnotabletodeterminewhymore

requestsforspeakerswerenotcontainedinthecollectionIaccessed,itcanbeassumed

thatHuertaspokepublicallyoftenwhetherbyinvitationorinanofficialcapacityforthe

UFW.Aspreviouslymentioned,whileattheReutherLibraryIwasabletoviewseveral

videoclipsfeaturingHuertaandstillphotographs.However,whileIdidfindclipsofHuerta

addressingvarioussizedaudiencesIdidnotfindcompletespeechesnordidIfind

transcriptsoftheclips/speeches.Nonetheless,basedonHuerta’spositionasVicePresident

fortheUFW,variousclipsofheraddressingthepublic,andclusterofspeakingrequests

locatedinthearchives,itislikelythatHuertaoftenspokeatpublicengagements,yetIwas

onlyabletolocatetwocompletespeechesdeliveredbyHuerta:theAPHAspeechdelivered

in1974andonespeechtentativelytitled“TheImportanceofUnionOrganizing,”audience

anddateunknown.Becausethecontextsurroundingthesecondspeechwasunavailable,I

turnedmyexaminationtoaspeechincludedintheDoloresHuertaReaderthatwas

deliveredtoUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngelesstudentsin1978.

ConstructingEthos:Intersectionality,IdentityCategories,andMestizaConsciousness

72

Asintroducedinchaptertwo,intersectionaltheoryandVivianMay’smatrix

orientationto“doing”intersectionalanalysisundergirdtheanalysisinthisproject.In

effect,thisworkispurposefullypoliticalandarguesthatwhenrhetoricaltheoryisread

throughthebodyitistransformed,especiallywhenthebodyoftherhetoristraditionally

marginalized.However,inordertoconceiveofthecomplexitythatintersectionalitybrings

tothestudyofethos,itremainsnecessarytodrawonafewgeneralizedcategoriesand

classificationsofidentity.Ofcourse,categoriesandclassificationscancarryseveral

drawbacks,especiallywhenusedtoclassifypeopleorcommunities.Classificationscan

haveahomogenizingeffectandcaninadvertentlyfocustheattentiontoonarrowlyonone

aspectofapersonorcommunity.Nonetheless,identitycategoriescanalsobegenerative

becausetheyareoftenthefirstwaywebegintounderstandor“know”arhetor.

Forexample,ina1968letteraddressedsimplyto“Boycotters,”Huertawritesan

updateoftheboycottactivityinNewYork.AftersharingthattheNewYorkboycottwas

gainingmomentum,Huertadescribesonesuccessfulprotest:

Richardhadaswinging,loud,noisy,super-militantpicketlinegoingina[sic]middleclassareaoftheBronx(white)andboydidithurt.Fromthiswehavecometotheconclusionthatabrownorblacklineinanallwhiteareaisextremelyeffective.

Asdemonstratedintheexcerptabove,Huertaidentifiedtheethnicandracialidentityofthe

protestorsasinfluencingtheeffectivenessofthedemonstration.Understandingthepower

intheembodiedidentitiesofherselfandofthebodiesinvolvedwasfurtherdemonstrated

intheletter:

A“LeafletingLine”isdifferentfromapicketlineinthatitrequireslesspeople2,3or4preferablythehousewifetypebutotherscanalsobeusedandtheyapproachpeopleandtrytogettothembeforetheygointothestoreandthemtheleaflet.

73

Again,inthepassageaboveweseeHuertaspecificallyrequesttheuseofprotestorsthat

“appear”tobehousewives.Itcouldbeargued,then,giventhatHuertaidentifiedthe

significanceofhowaperson“appeared,”thatshewouldalsounderstandtheimportanceof

herown“appearance”—andbyextension—embodiedidentities.Thatsaid,whileitwas

temptingtoexamineHuerta’sethosconstructionthroughdiscretelenses,anysuch

organizationfellshortwhenaccountingforHuerta’sintersectionalidentity(Crenshawand

May)andthemultiplepartsofthe“self”thatwereatplay.Putmoresimply,Huertaisnever

only“awoman.”AnygeneralizationmadeaboutHuertathatemphasizeshergender

withoutalsorecognizingtheinterplaywithotheridentitymarkerssuchasraceandclass

onlyperpetuatesstaticnotionsofwomanhoodandignoresdiversityofexperience.Oneof

thelargestpitfallsofworkingfromdiscretecategoriesisan“essentialization”ofpeople

thatshareone—ormultiple—identities.

BecausethisexaminationisnotmeanttoessentializeHuertaoridentitybutrather

toheightentheawarenessofthecomplexnatureofrhetoricandexperiences,itis

necessarytoexplicitlystatetwomajorpremisesinformingtheanalysisforthisresearch

project:first,identitycategoriesaidintheunderstandingofcharacter/self;andsecond,

identitycategoriesarefluidandarepartofarichmatrixofintersectionsbetweenone

anotherandthecontext.Thisworkbroadlyreliesonidentitycategoriesasanorientation

toHuertaandtheculturalscriptsthatshenegotiatedbutalsoactivelyworkstonuance

howtheintersectionsofHuerta’sidentitiesworktobuildherethos.Inaspeechdelivered

byHuertain1978attheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles(UCLA),Huertaappearstobe

encouraginganaudienceofChicanostudentsand/oradvocatestobelievebigchangecan

comefromsimpleacts.HuertasharestheeffectivenessofChavez’sfastandthegrape

74

boycott—whatshereferstoas“simplethings.”Ineffect,Huertademonstratesthat

seeminglyeasyactions,suchasaskingpeoplenottoeatgrapes,provedtobeveryeffective.

BysharingthestoryofhowChavezandtheUFWsparkedchangethroughsimpleactions,

Huertaprovidesinspirationforyoungadultstofeelempowered.

Whilethespeechisrichwithelementstoanalyze,someofwhicharefurther

developedinchapterfivewherebyIemphasizetheroleofgenreinethosconstruction,I

insertthefollowingpassageheretodemonstratehowHuerta’sintersectionalidentities

affectedbothherself-definitionandherorientationtotheaudience.Morespecifically,in

thefollowingpassagenoticethewaysinwhichHuertapositionstheuniversityand

corporationstogetherandindirectconflictwiththeracedandclassedissuesofthefarm

laborers,issuesthatshealsoalignswiththestudentsinheraudience.

Andyouhavetorememberthatwhenyouaredealingwithcorporationsandyouaredealingwithbusinessesyoucan’t[sic],likewhenyougotoschoolyouaretaughttoberational,tobeobjective,tobelievewhatyoureadandtoweighthings,anddoallofthesethings.Youhavetobeverycarefulwhenyouareinschoolandlearnallofthesethingsbecauseitcanbeanentrapment.Luckily,farmworkersmanytimes—becausetheydon’thaveschooltheygobytheirguts—theyknowwhat’srightandtheyknowwhat’swrongandtheyaren’tafraidtotakeaction.(DoloresHuertaReader245)

Whenreadingtheabovepassage,itisalsoimportanttoconsiderthefollowing:first,Huerta

wasspeakingtoaChicanoaudiencethatwaslikelyattendingUCLA;second,Huertaearned

herteachingcredentialandwasformallyeducated;third,Huertawasneverafarmlaborer.

However,becauseofHuerta’sembodiedidentities—andmostlikelytheembodied

identitiesoftheaudience—shewasfamiliarwiththemultipleoppressionsexperiencedin

thenameof“rationality”andinstitutionalauthority.Thus,thepointabovebecomesasite

forconnectionratherthancontention.Inotherwords,whilesheandheraudiencewere

educated,theyalsounderstoodthepotentialtrappingsofinstitutionalindoctrinationthat

75

couldinterferewithbasicsocialjusticeaction.Despitebeinginasettingofhigher

education,Huertaandheraudiencecouldbetterrelatetothefarmlaborersthantothe

powerfulmajority.“Doing”intersectionalityasdescribedbyMayallowsforthesekindsof

contradictionstobewitnessedandbetterunderstoodasmeaningfulratherthanmere

inconsistencies.

Valuingandvalidatingtheindividualandcollectiveexperiences—especiallyasthey

relatetoidentity—thatwebringtoourresearchandscholarshipisoftenatthecenterof

feministandcriticalstudies.Itisdifficultyetimperativetostrikethedelicatebalance

betweenacknowledgingcommunalandsharedexperiencesthroughrace,gender,ability

etc.whileavoidingessentializingtheverysamepopulationswhoaremostatriskofbeing

misunderstoodandoppressed.AbbyKnoblauchaddressesthisinherdiscussionof

embodiedrhetoric:

[E]mbodiedrhetoricasksoftherhetor,toreconnectourthinkingwithourparticularbodies,understandingthatknowledgecomesfromthebody.But,lestweforgetthesearebodiesbothshapingandshapedbyculture.Andthesebodies,andtheculturestheyinhabit,arecomplexentities,nottobereducedtosingularessentialtagssuchas“woman”or“Chinese.”(60)

ThisexaminationofHuerta’sethoscomplicatesanddeepenstheunderstandingofhow

ethosisconstructedbymarginalizedpeoplebyfocusingontheintricateandintersectional

relationshipofauthority,credibility,andidentification—allqualitiesthatareimperativeto

ethosconstruction.Itisbyfirstexaminingthedeeplywovenrelationshipthatcanbe

partiallyunderstoodthroughparticularidentitycategoriesthatwecanthenpointtowhat

ismissedwhenwefocustooheavilyonthosecategories.Inotherwords,weneedto

considereachidentitycategoryevenifitisjusttorecognizetheirinadequacybecause,as

JoanWallachScottadvises,“Normativecategoriesseektobringsubjects’fantasiesinline

76

withculturalmythandsocialorganization,buttheyneverentirelysucceed”(20).

Throughoutthisproject,IoftenrelyonHuerta’smostgeneralandrecognizableidentity

categories,Chicana(race/ethnicity),socialclass,andwoman(gender).

IdentitycategoriescanalsobeseenasanimportantstartingpointforKenneth

Burke’stheoryofidentificationbecausetheyrepresentaspecificsenseofselfandother.

Whilewemayallagreethatthereisnofixeddefinitionofmother,wedoseemto

understandand/orexpectsomecommonalitiesamongagrouplabeledas“mothers,”

whetheritiswarrantedornot.Likewise,categorizationsofrace,educationlevel,and

genderactasknowablerepresentationsofselfandothersinsomuchastheyprovidekeys

towhoweimaginethatpersontobe.Althoughthemeaningofanyclassificationevolves

overtimeandplace,eachlabelornamedoesappeartocontainakindofstableconception

ofthethingthatitrepresents.Inotherwords,classifications—especiallyastheyrelateto

people—offeranopportunityforidentificationfromaudiencesthatshareinthe

experiencesofthem.Aswewillseeintheanalysisprovidedinchapterfour,Huertaand

thosethatwroteaboutheroftendrewonsomeofthemostcommonconceptionsofher

embodiedidentitiesinordertoestablishaconnectionwithheraudiences.

AccordingtoBurke,akeycomponenttosuccessfulpersuasionisidentification.InA

RhetoricofMotives,Burkeprovidesthisexample:“Aisnotidenticalwithhiscolleague,B.

Butinsofarastheirinterestsarejoined,AisidentifiedwithB.Orhemayidentifyhimself

withBevenwhentheirinterestsarenotjoined,ifheassumesthattheyare,orispersuaded

tobelieveso”(20).Wheneffective,rhetoricmovespeopletochange.Burkearguesthat

deeplyidentifyingwiththerhetorisnecessarybutalsowarnsthatidentificationdoesnot

predicatesamenessorharmony(20-21).Inotherwords,itisnotasimplecalculationthat

77

createsaconnectionfor“identification”betweenrhetorandaudiencebutinsteadisabelief

thattherearesharedvaluesandtrustbetweenthemdespitetheirdifferences.Thispoint

fromBurkeisespeciallyimportantwhenconsideringembodiedrhetoricbecauseitisnota

forgoneconclusionthatidentificationisachievedsimplybecauseHuerta’saudiencewas—

orwasnot—madeupofpeoplethatsharedherconceptionofmotherhoodand/orof

peoplethatsharedherrace/ethnicity.Forinstance,usedhereasbothanexampleofthe

complexityofethnicityanditssignificance,Idrawonanexcerptfroma1973interview

withHuertaaboutthepoliticalinvolvementofChicanosforasmallChicanoRights

publication,LaVozdelPueblo:

TheworstthingthatIseeisguyswhosay,“Man,theydon’thavenoChicanosupthereandthey’renotdoingthisorthatforChicanos.”Butthe“vatos”arejustcriticizingandthey’renotinthereworkingtomakesurethatithappens.Wecriticizeandseparateourselvesfromtheprocess.We’vegottojumprightintherewithbothfeet.

Mostofthepeopledoingtheworkforusare“gabachillos.”WhenwegetChicanovolunteersit’sreallygreat.ButtheChicanosthatcomedowntoworkwiththefarmworkershavesomehang-ups,especiallytheguysthatcomeoutofcollege.Enprimerlugar,letienenmiedoalagente.[firstofall,theyareafraidofthepeople.]Unlesstheycomeoutofthefarmworkercommunitiesthemselves,theygetdownthereandthey’reafraidofthepeople.(DoloresHuertaReader173)

ItappearsthatHuertadidnotavoidissuesofcontentionwithintheChicanocommunity,

especiallywhenaddressingaChicanocommunityspecifically.Further,theexcerptabove

leadstoseveralpointsregardingthenecessityofmaintainingamatrixorientationtothis

rhetoricalanalysis.First,whileitisimportanttomovebeyondlabelsandcategories

especiallyastheyrelatetoidentity,thosecategoriesoftenserveassymbolicstartingpoints

becausewefirstbeginto“know”throughnaming.Thus,Huertaidentifiesthecommunity

sheisreferringtoasChicanosandcontinuestoprovideageneralpositionthatmightbe

heldbyaparticularfaction.EvenmoretellingisHuerta’suseof“vatos”—Spanishslangfor

78

man,similartodudeorhomie—andherdecisiontoincludetheterm“gabachillos”—aform

ofslangforyoungassimilatedChicanos—andthesubsequentstatementinSpanish.Each

timeHuertaswitchesfromEnglishtoSpanish,wegainaslightunderstandingofthe

splinteredidentitycategoryof“Chicano.”Second,intheexcerptabove,weseeanother

instanceofHuerta’ssuspicionofcollegeandeducation,and,again,heraudienceismost

likelyLatinosattendingcollege.

Huertaacknowledgestheimportanceofsolidaritybydemonstratingtheconcern

fromChicanosaboutpoliticalleadersnotsupportingtheircausesbutalsoacknowledges

thehypocrisyofthecriticismsbeingmadebyChicanosthatarenotpoliticallyactive.Thus,

HuertaleveragesheridentityasapoliticallyactiveChicana,andthereforeisauthorizedto

makesuchclaims,albeitwiththepossibilityofidentification,division,and/orthein-

between.Strategicuseofidentitycategorieshasbeenawell-establishedtechniquefor

buildingconnectionsandauthoritybasedongenerallybelievedconceptions.Thatsaid,this

techniqueisaslipperyslopebecause,inanefforttobuildsolidarity,therecanbean

inadvertentreifyingofhomogeneityamongoppressedpopulations.GayatriSpivakfirst

coinedthetermstrategicessentialism,whichrecognizedtheneedtodrawonessentialist

definitions/thinkinginordertopromotesolidarityandprogressiveaction.Likewise,

AdrienWingexplainscriticalracefeminism:

CriticalRaceFeminists(CRFs)aregenerallyantiessentialismbecausethe“essential”femaleisalmostalwayswhiteandmiddleclass.However,itisunderstoodthatitissometimesnecessarytobestrategicallyessentialistinordertoavoiddiscussingexperiencesassimply“individual.”(7)

Wingexposestwokeyfactorsforunderstandinghowtoreconciletheneedforsolidarity

whilealsomaintainingthatnotallminorityexperiencesarethesame.First,Wingamong

manyothersrecognizesthatwhenaskedtoimagine“woman,”sheisalmostalwaysWhite.

79

Second,thereisstrengthinstrategicallydrawingonsharedexperiencesbetweenpeople

thatcanbecategorizedtogether.Asdiscussedmorethoroughlyinchaptersfourandfive,

despitedrawingonshareddefinitions,Huertaalsoworkedtoredefinethegeneral

perceptionofherroles.Thusinanefforttomaintainanintersectional/matrixlensthrough

thisexamination,IpurposelyfocusonmomentsinwhichHuerta’sself-definitionaidedher

ethosconstructionandevencomplicatedthewaysinwhichwemightconceptualizeethos.

WhileMayemphasizestheusefulnessandimportanceofintersectionality,shealso

cautionsthatitisoftenmisusedordeployedsuperficially.Doingintersectionalityrequires

fluidlanguageandtheabilitytoshiftinperspective.Onewaytoaccountforshifting

betweenandamongidentitiesisbyapplyingGloriaAnzaldúa’sconceptofmestiza

consciousness.Mestizaconsciousnessprovidesuswithawaytodiscussthefluidityof

identity,whereasintersectionalityasksustoconsiderthecompoundingeffectsofmultiple

identities.

Mestizaconsciousness,asdevelopedbyAnzaldúa,“isaconsciousnessofthe

Borderlands"(Borderlands,99).Thesebordersarebothfigurativeandliteral,which

Anzaldúaexplainsmorespecifically:

Attheconfluenceoftwoormoregeneticstreams,withchromosomesconstantly“crossingover,”thismixtureofraces,ratherthanresultinginaninferiorbeing,provideshybridprogeny,amutable,moremalleablespecieswitharichgenepool.Fromthisracial,ideological,culturalandbiologicalcross-pollinization,an“alien”consciousness,unaconcienciademujer.(99)

UnderstandingtheconceptofmestizaconsciousnessshedslightonhowandwhyDolores

Huertacouldeffectivelyandauthenticallyemphasizevariedattributesofherselfthatwere

dependentonherperceptionofaudience.Inthinkingaboutthemultipleidentitiesthat

Huertainhabits,weareforcedtoseetheinterplayofthoseidentitieswiththetargeted

80

audience.PartofthereasonthatHuertawasandiscomfortablewithshiftingpersonae

and/oremphasisisbecauseshehaslivedalifeontheborders.Sheisinabodythatis

alreadyperceivedasblendedinmultipleforms(suchasrace/ethnicity)andinmultiple

ways(suchasculturaltraditions/language).InBorderlands,Anzaldúaestablishesthe

uniqueandoftentryingpositionofnegotiatingmultipleidentities,especiallythosethat

competeforsupremacy:

Thenewmestizacopesbydevelopingatoleranceforcontradictions,atoleranceforambiguity.ShelearnstobeanIndianinMexicanculture,tobeMexicanfromanAnglopointofview.Shelearnstojugglecultures.Shehasapluralpersonality,sheoperatesinapluralisticmode—nothingisthrustout,thegoodthebadandtheugly,nothingrejected,nothingabandoned.Notonlydoesshesustaincontradictions,sheturnstheambivalenceintosomethingelse.(101)

LikeAnzaldúa,Huertawasborninaborderstate.Asachild,shemovedwithhermotherto

thecentralvalleyofCalifornia—anareaknownforitsdiversemixofLatinosandAnglos.

Hence,Huertawaswellpracticedinnegotiatingwhichofherselvestoemphasize.As

establishedinchaptertwo,thestudyofethosisprimarilyconcernedwiththerhetor’s

credibilityandquality,orhabit,ofcharacter.BecauseofherexperienceasaChicana

growingupincommunitiesthatbothembracedandrejectedherbasedonculturaland

gendereddifferences,Huertaactedfromamestizaconsciousness.Huerta’smestiza

consciousnessprovidesherwiththeabilitytoshiftcomfortablyand—perhapsmost

importantly—authenticallybetweencultures.Ultimately,mestizaconsciousnessprovidesa

place/spaceinthemind/bodyfromwhichshegainsstrength,ability,authenticity,and

opportunitiesforgenuineidentificationwithheraudience.

Inthisanalysis,focusingonembodiedidentities,intersectionality,andmestiza

consciousnessemphasizeshowmarginalityaffectsHuerta’sethosconstruction.Asa

81

Chicanaandmother,Huertaoftenfoundherselfdefendingherchoice—andright—tobe

involvedinthefarmlaborermovement.Attendingtoandclaiminghermarginalitywasan

importantpartofHuerta’sethosconstruction.In“EthosasLocation,”NedraReynolds

acknowledgesthat“Claimingmarginalityhasbecomeapotentdeclarationofauthorityfor

thosewriterswhohavenothistoricallyoccupiedthecentersofpower”(332)butalso

assertsthatitisnottheonlymeansinwhichcredibilityisbuilt.Further,Reynoldspoints

outthatethosisnotconstructedforanyrhetorfromorinasinglelocation,andshe

recognizesthatsimplyspeakingfromthemarginsisnotnecessarilyempowering:

Justaslearnersandwritersshiftpositionscontinually,ethosisnotconstructedonasinglesite,fromanunchangingvantagepointonthemargins.Another“site”forethoscanbetterhighlightthemultiplenegotiationsthatgoonbetweenselfandsociety,betweenwriterandreader,betweenandamongoverlappingdiscoursecommunities.(332)

Reynoldsdrawsattentiontotheimportanceofmultiplenegotiations“betweentheselfand

society”(332).Andinordertoconsiderhowaneffectiveethosisconstructed,itis

imperativetoexaminehowconceptionsofidentityareshapedbyothersandself-defined

bytherhetor,aswellashowthoseinformorrelatetodefinitionsfromsociety.Therefore,

anyexaminationofHuerta’sethosrequiresattentiontohermultipleidentitycategoriesin

ordertomaintainanintersectionalandmatrixorientation.

Intheirarticle“BalancingMysteryandIdentification,”communicationscholarsErin

DossandRobinJensennotonlyarguethatHuerta’sshiftingpersonaeaidedinher

rhetoricalefficacybutalsoarguethatHuerta“leveragedherborderexperiencesand

ideologyasrhetoricalresources”(1).Ineffect,DossandJensencontendthatbyworking

fromamestizaconsciousness,Huertawasabletoshiftpersonaeinamannerthat

effectivelyinfluencedheraudiencetoperceivethemselvesinaparticularrole(advocates,

82

caregivers,supporters,etc.)andinfluencedthemto“perceiveherownexceptional

normalcy”(DossandJensen1).DossandJensen’sresearchoffersdetailedanalysisofhow

Huerta’sabilitytoshiftbetweenidentitiesaidedherrhetorically,asalsodemonstratedby

theexcerptsincludedinthischapter:

Actingfromamestizaconsciousness,Huertahadtheabilitynotonlytoremainflexible,but,asAnzalduatheorizes,to‘‘shiftoutofhabitualformations,’’movingfromanalyticalthinkingtodivergentthinking.Theseevolvingpatternsofthoughtwerereflectedinheruseofdiverserhetoricalpersonae,whichallowedhertoembracea‘‘morewholeperspective,onethatincludes—ratherthanexcludes’’andthatcouldpersuadeheraudiencestoembracesuchaperspectiveaswell.Inthisrespect,herrhetoricelucidatesboththepotentialconsequencesanddiscursiveresourcesinherentinborderlivingandboundarycrossing[emphasisadded].(2)

AscautionedbyMay,itisimportantnottotakeonan“additivenotion”toidentities.Inthis

example,Huerta’sabilitytoremainfluidaidedherrhetoricalprowessasopposedto

compoundingheroppression.Inmanycases,Huerta’s“Chicananess”andbyextension

mestizaconsciousnesswasanassetinsteadofaliability.

Inthiswork,Iexaminehowtheconceptofmestizaconsciousnessinformsour

understandingofHuerta’sethosconstructionand,throughmyanalysis,Iworktoextend

JayDolmage’spointthat“Anzaldúaalso,importantly,centersthebodywithinhertheoryof

knowledge,refusingthe‘dichotomybetweenideasandfeelings’(Lu24),focusingon

Otheredbodies,andsuggestingthatembodieddifferenceispower”(19).LikeReynolds,

Dolmagepointsoutthatutilizingtheexperiencesofthebodyandincludingsuch

experiencesexplicitlycan,andoftendoes,leadtoempowerment.Throughtheanalysisthat

follows,itbecomesapparentthatHuertadidinfactleveragetraditionalconceptionsofher

embodiedidentityinordertoidentifywithheraudienceandestablishhercredibility.

83

However,becauseHuertadidnotoccupyheridentitycategoriesin-linewithtraditionally

sharedconceptions,shealsosimultaneouslydisruptedshareddefinitions.

Conclusion

IntheintroductiontoADoloresHuertaReader,MarioGarciashares,“Huerta

understoodwhatChicanascholarscalledthetripleoppressionofChicanasandother

minoritywomen:race,class,andgender.SheunderstoodthatChicanas,especiallyinfarm

labor,sufferedfromracism,classexploitation,andgenderdiscrimination”(xxiii).What

Garciaidentifiesas“thetripleoppressionofChicanas,”asexperiencedbyHuertaandother

minoritywomen,canalsobeunderstoodthroughwhatcriticalracefeministscall

intersectionality.AssuggestedbyGarcia,andasoutlinedinthischapter,intersectionalityis

criticaltounderstandingHuerta,andbyextension,herethosconstruction.

Inanefforttocontributetothelongandcomplicatedscholarshipontherhetorical

constructionofethos,andtoincludeLatinarhetorDoloresHuertaintorhetoricalstudy,my

researchandmethodologicalprocessesdrawfromaconstellationoftheoriesemerging

fromrhetoric,criticalracestudies,feminism,andarchivalstudies.Asdiscussedinthis

chapter,Itreatarchivalresearchandintersectionalanalysisasasocialprocesswhereby

Huerta’sidentitymarkersandidentificationprocessesunderinvestigationareattendedto

asconstructionstobebothdefinedandstrategicallyproblematized.Undoubtedly,such

complexityisneededwheninvestigatingtheembodiedidentitiesofmarginalizedrhetors

andpublicfigures.

Althoughidentitycategoriescouldbeconsideredtoofixedand/orlikelyto

essentializecommunities,Iarguethatbyusingcategorieswecantalkmoreexplicitlyabout

howintersectionalityworks.Ineffectusingidentitycategoriesactuallyaidsusindoing

84

analysisthroughanintersectionalormatrixlens.Conductingmyanalysisthroughamatrix

lensultimatelyhighlightscontradictionsandworkstodisrupttraditionallydominant

definitionsofidentities.Further,Iexaminethenot-always-rationalwaysinwhichrhetors

suchasHuertamayhavetoattendtotheiridentitiesinordertobuildcredibilityfroma

marginalizedbody.Morespecifically,throughoutthisprojectIlooktoHuerta’sembodied

identitiesandtheirrelationshipwithethosbecauseoftenherappearanceandher

embodiedidentitieswerebroughtupinpublicdiscussions,andthusrequireddirect

attention.

85

ChapterFourInescapableBodyandSelf-Definition

PreviouslyItracedtherelationshipbetweenethosandtheselfinordertoillustrate

theintrinsictiebetweenthetwo,andtodemonstratetheusefulnessofastudyofethosread

throughthelensofthebody.MorespecificallydrawingontheworkofMarshallAlcorn,

JamesBaumlin,andSusanJarrattandNedraReynolds,Iarguethathowarhetor

understandsanddefinestheselfissignificantforethosconstruction.Consideringhow

identitiesareoftenidentifiedthroughgenerallabels,suchamother,woman,Latina,Ialso

arguethatfantasizeddefinitionsinfluenceethoscreation.Byconnectingcriticalrace

feminism’sconceptofintersectionality,theroleofidentitycategories,andAnzaldúa’s

mestizaconsciousness,Iarguethattherolesrhetorsembodycomplicate,dictate,and

nuancetherhetoricalstrategythatcanbedeployedfromanygivenrhetoratanygiven

time.Notingthecriticalroleoftherhetor’sidentityintheconstructionofethosandthe

powerfuleffectofthebody,inthischapterIfocusonhowHuertawasdefinedbyothers

andemphasizehowHuertaextends,bends,andultimatelyredefinestheidentitycategories

thatshemostvisiblyembodied.

Asdemonstratedbytheanalysisinthischapterandthenext,despitethe

intersectionalandfracturednatureoftheself,itappearsnecessarytoprevailonstandard

andsometimesrigidconceptionsofidentitywhenconstructinganethos.WhileIamnot

arguingthattheselfismadeupofstablenotionsofidentity,Idoarguethatitcanbe

productivetoconsidernormativeconceptionsofidentityevenifjusttoworkagainstthem.

Poststructuralistsswungthependulumawayfromthecentral,stableselfbyarguingthat

individualsaremerelyaproductoffractureddiscourse,butinsodoingtheyalsodevalued

theimportanceofrecognizingthatnotallbodiesarereceivedthesamebytheaudience—

86

asiftosaythereis‘one’theoreticalsubjectthatisremovedfromall“politicalandethical

realities”(JarrattandReynolds38).PlacingHuerta’sbodyintheanalysisofherethos

constructionforcesustolookbeyondconventionalconceptionsofauthorityandinstead

recognizethattheselfisacombinationofbothmutableandimmutableformationsthatare

builtinconjunctionwithculturaldiscourse.Inotherwords,utilizingclassifications—either

pushingagainstthemorevenstandingincontradictiontothem—iseffectiveinconnecting

toandwithanaudience.

DrawingfromCarolynSkinner’sfeaturesofafeministmodelofethos,thischapter

arguesthatHuertaprevailsonheridentityinpartbecauseitwasanelementofthe

“materialresourcesavailabletoherandthepopularbeliefsaboutthoseofhersocial

position”(173).Skinner’sfirstfeatureoffeministethossupportstheanalysisofthis

chapterbyhighlightingthenecessityofmarginalizedrhetorsattendingtotheirsocial

position.Thus,byfirstdemonstratingtheprevalenceofpublicdiscussionsofHuerta’s

appearance,itcanbereasonedthatHuertanecessarilyattendstoherphysicalfeatures.

Additionally,Skinnerpositsasecondfeatureoffeministethos:

Ethosoftenisnotcraftedinresponsetoacoherentandidentifiablesetofaudiencevaluesbutinsteadiscomposedinadynamiccontextthatincludesmultiplecompetingideasaboutthe“best”virtues;consequently,ethosformationfrequentlyinvolvesvaluenegotiationsaswellasreciprocitybetweenrhetorandaudienceidentityconstructs.(175)

AsSkinneridentifies,theidentityconstructsbetweentheaudienceandrhetorare

continuallynegotiatedbetweenthem.IaddtoSkinner’sobservationbyalsonotingthatthe

rhetor—inthiscaseHuerta—stronglyguidedheraudience’sperceptionsofheridentity

categoriesbyexplicitlydefiningthemwheneverpossible.Inwhatfollows,Iamworking

fromaperspectivethatSkinner’sfeministmodelofethosisusefulforunderstandingthe

87

complexwaysinwhichHuertabuiltherethos.Andtherefore,afterexamininghowHuerta’s

appearancesetupheraudiencestoidentifyherinparticularways,Imovetowardhow

Huertarespondedtosuchcategorizations.

AnInescapableBody:Huerta’sBodyasaKeyto“Knowing”Her

Ethosisdeeplyconnectedtothebodiesthatweare

in.Thus,whenphysicaldescriptionsofHuerta’sbodyare

includedintextsabouther,theyarenotbenign.While

notingthephysicaldistinctionsorqualitiesofarhetorisnot

inherentlynegative,theemphasisonracial,classed,and

genderedqualitiesofthebodycouldbeinterpretedassuch.

Thiscouldbeespeciallytrueduringthetimeperiodwhen

Huertawasenteringthepublicsphereasaleaderofthefarm

laborermovement:atimeinwhichwomen,theworking

class,andracialminoritieswerevigorouslyfightingfor

equality.AsSusanKatesarguesin“TheEmbodiedRhetoricofHallieQuinnBrown,”

consideringrhetoricas“fullyembodied”leadstotheexposureofthepoliticsembodiedin

knowledge;or,morespecifically,drawingonHaraway’suseofsituatedknowledge,Kates

explains,“Harawaydescribesthepoliticsembodiedinknowledge…inwhichtheideological

implicationsofcertainkindsofseemingly‘disinterested’knowledgearemadeexplicit”

(61).Recognizingthat“certainkinds”ofidentitieswerevalueddifferentlythanothers—

and,inthecaseofHuerta,wereperceivedasdeficient—exposesthepotentiallyevenif

inadvertentdamagingeffectsofpresentingHuertathroughthephysicaldescriptionsthat

highlightedherembodiedidentities.

Fig.#1.DoloresHuertac.1970fromReutherLibraryPhotographerunknown.Fig.#1.DoloresHuertac.1970fromReutherLibraryPhotographerunknown.

88

Thefactthatthebodyplaysavitalroleinrhetoricisnotnew.Infact,Debra

Hawhee’sBodilyArtsdemonstratesthatthetrainingofthemindandbodywereclosely

connectedinancientGreekculture,emphasizingtheimportanceofthelinkage.However,in

theintroductiontoRhetoricalBodies,acollectionofessaysfeaturingstudiesofembodied

andmaterialrhetorics,JackSelzermakesthefollowingobservation:

Eventhoughrhetorichaslongbeenconcernedwiththesituatednessofliterateactsandtherealeffectsofdiscourseratherthanwiththeidealpossibilities,therelationshipofrhetoricaleventstothematerialworldthatsustainsandproducesthemhasnotoftenenoughbeenfullyelaboratedorclearlyarticulated.(9)

WhileSelzeracknowledgestheworkofmanyscholarsthathaveincludedthebodyin

discussionsofrhetoric,healsosupportstheneedtofurthertheorizeandmakeexplicit

thoseconnections,especiallyasitpertainstomarginalizedpopulations.Andwhilethe

worksoffeministrhetoricsscholarssuchasEnoch,Glenn,Kates,Logan,andRoysterhave

placedthebodiesofmarginalizedwomeninthehistoryofrhetoric,thereremainsaneed

forcontinuedattentiontohowintersectionalityaffectsrhetoricalstrategy.AsJayDolmage

pointsout,oftenconversationsinrhetoricalstudiescontinuetoomitthosethatdeviate

fromthedominantculture’svisionof“normal”andinsteadprivilegebodiesandidentities

thatareable-bodiedWhitemen.Ibuildontheworkofthesescholarsbyexamininghow

Huerta’sembodiedqualitiesarerepresentedinmultipletextsandhowshedefinesand

establishesherselfinresponse.

Itishardlyarguablethatthebodiesoffemalepublicfiguresareoftenunequally

emphasizedindiscussionsoftheirworkwhichsuggeststhattheirbodiesarecentralto

knowingthemandtheworkthattheydo.Thus,itmaynotcomeasanysurprisethatmany

ofthearticleswrittenaboutHuertabeginbyprovidingaphysicaldescriptionofher.In

89

otherwords,weareintroducedtoherthroughherphysicalappearance—asopposedtoher

officialpositionintheUFW,herothercredentials,ortheevent/workthatshewasdoing

thatpromptedthearticle.Inthissection,Idrawonacollectionoffivearticlesfrom

periodicalsthatrepresentavarietyofdistributionsizesandaudiences.Theperiodicals

includedinthissectionservetwoprimarypurposes:first,theyprovideevidenceofthe

prominentrolethatHuerta’sbodyoccupiedformanyaudiences;andsecond,thearticles

serveasastartingpointforsubsequentanalysiscenteredonhowHuertaestablished

herselfinconjunctionwith,inresponseto,andinoppositiontothemostvisiblequalitiesof

heridentity.Inallfivearticles,picturesaccompanythetext,andinfourofthefive,the

picturesareprominentlyplaced.Itislikelythatinthelate1960sand1970s,muchlikeitis

today,includingimagesinarticleswasstandardpractice;however,Ihighlightthepresence

ofpicturesinordertoemphasizetheunnecessaryinclusionofaphysicaldescriptionin

manyofthepublicationsexamined.Organizedbythereachoftheirdistribution,eachof

thesearticlesplacesherphysicaldescriptionintheirintroductions,andsometimes

throughoutthearticle,whichsuggeststhatHuerta’sbodyisasimportantforusto“know”

astheworkand/orroleshewascarrying.

Seafarer’sInternationalUnionofNorthAmerica,February1968[Internationaldistribution]

ThefirstpublicationcomesfromtheSeafarerInternationalUnionofNorthAmerica

(SIU),whichwascharteredin1938andstronglysupportedtheeffortsoftheUFW,as

reportedintheirpublication.Whilespecificcirculationnumbersfortheirpublicationwere

notavailable,thelonghistoryoftheirunionandaffiliationwiththeAFL-CIOdemonstrates

thattheywereastable—andmostlikelyformidable—unionorganization.Further,theSIU

hadaninternationalaudiencewithtiestoolderandlargerseafarerunions(Bunker).Given

90

thattheSIUclearlyvaluedunionmembership,therighttoprotest,andadvocatedforsafe

workingconditions,thejournalist(anonymous)andpublicationcanbeconsideredalliesto

HuertaandtheworkoftheUFW.

Thefive-pagearticlefeaturestheUFW’snationalboycottingeffortsandHuerta’s

roleasheadoftheboycottteamthathadjustarrivedinBrooklyn,NY.Thearticleservedas

anintroductiontothecampaign’spurposeandthepoorworkingconditionsoffarm

workers.ThemajorityofthearticlefocusesontheUFWasawholeandprovides

compellingevidenceofthenecessityforanationalboycottbydetailingthestrikesin

CaliforniathatprecededtheteamsofboycottersarrivinginBrooklyn.Inaddition,the

articleemphasizedtheneedforunitedsupportoftheireffortsandintroducesHuertaasa

vitalleader.Onthefirstpageofthearticle,Huertaisintroducedthusly:“Attheheadofthe

boycottteamisMrs.DoloresHuerta,adynamic,dark-hairedwomanof37,motherofseven

youngstersandvicepresidentoftheUnitedFarmWorkers”(“FarmWorkers:TheUnion

MakesThemStrong”2).NotonlydoesHuerta’sgenderedroleasmotherprecedeherrole

asvicepresidentoftheUFWinthearticle,butsotoodoesherhaircolor.Thisdescriptive

setupofHuertaisintendedtohelpthereaderunderstandher,anditfunctionstoprioritize

aspectsofher.Movingfromherpersonalityandbeautytoherroleasamothertoher

positionasthevicepresidentoftheUFW,thearticlemaysuggestthatHuerta’s

administrativeroleisnotnecessarilytobeunderstoodashermostsignificantquality.

TheNation,February23,1974[National:USbaseddistribution]

In1974,afteradecadeoforganizingandactivism,theUFWsuccessfullylaunched

andfacilitatedanationwideboycottofgrapesthatwasestimatedtoinclude17million

AmericansandwasgainingmomentuminthelettuceandGallowineboycotts(UFW.org).

91

Astheatrociousworkingconditionsofthefarmworkersweregainingawareness,sotoo

weretheunhealthyandunsanitaryprocessesinwhichthegrowerswereengaging.Asvice

presidentandheadofmanyoftheboycottoperations,Huertawasintegraltothesuccess

theUFWwashaving,anditisnotsurprisingthatshecaughttheattentionofTheNation

Magazine.Now,witha150-year-oldhistoryofreportingoneventsandfiguresthatwere

shapingthepoliticalandculturaltimes,TheNationisthelongestestablishedpublication

thatfeaturedHuertathatIwasabletofind.In1974,TheNationreportedlyhad24,292paid

subscriptionsandatotaldistributionof28,842,whichincludedmagazinespurchasedby

dealersandcarriersaswellasthosegivenawayforfreeassamples(TheNation,October

26,1974edition,410).Asevidentthroughthepaidsubscriptions,thecirculationofThe

Nationwasrobustandfar-reaching.Themagazineboastsitslonghistoryinarecent

anniversaryeditionanddescribesthemagazinethusly:

Ourveryfirstissuedescribed“theconflictoftheages,thegreatstrifebetweenthefewandthemany,betweenprivilegeandequality,betweenlawandpower,betweenopinionandthesword.”Thisanniversaryissueisarecordofthelast150yearsofthatconflict—andaslongasTheNationisaround,thatfightwillgoon.Withyourhelp,we’llbefightingforanother150yearsandbeyond!(TheNation150thAnniversary)

Morespecifically,inthe1960stomid-1970s,themagazinewasundertheeditorial

directionofCareyMcWilliamsandwasconsideredquiteliberal.Inthespecialeditionofthe

magazine,EricFonerwrites,“TheNationfullyembracedthemilitantphaseofthecivil-

rightsmovementunleashedbythesit-insof1960.…TheNationbecameavoiceof’60s

protest.AndMcWilliams’sownlongstandingexamplehelpedtoinspirepractitionersofthe

decade’sengaged,radicaljournalism”(“TheNationandTheNation150Years”42).Given

thedirectionofthemagazine,itisnotsurprisingthatjournalistsBarbaraBaerandGlenna

Matthewsweregrantedasix-pagespreadtocoverHuertaandtheroleofwomeninthe

92

UFW.Intheirextensivearticle,BaerandMatthewsincludeseveraldirectquotationsfrom

Huerta,aswellasotherwomenthatwereworkingwiththeUFW.Intotal,Baerand

Matthewsbringinthevoicesofsevenwomen,althoughmostofthespaceisdedicatedto

Huerta.

Intheirarticletitled“YouFindaWay:TheWomenoftheBoycott,”Baerand

Matthewsbeginwiththefollowingdescription:

DoloresHuerta,vicepresidentoftheUnitedFarmWorkers,wasstandingonaflat-bedtruckbesideCesarChavez.Shedidn’tshowhereight-and-a-halfmonths’pregnancy,butshelookedverytiredfromthedaysandnightsoforganizingcross-countrytravelplansforhundredsofpeoplewhowerenowwaitingintheparkinglotalongsidetheunionheadquartersatDelano,Calif.Sheleaneddownandtalkedwithchildren,herownandothers.Smallchildrenheldsmallerones,fatherscarriedbabiesontheirshoulders.(232)

Inthisintroductoryparagraph,weareintroducedtoHuertathroughherroleastheUFW

vicepresident,throughherpregnancy/motherhood,andthroughherphysicallyevident

tiredness.BaerandMatthewsplaceheradministrativerolefirst,asmightbeexpectedfrom

apublicationthathasahistoryofsupportingsocialjusticeissuesandreportingonevents,

organizations,andpeoplethatweresignificanttotheculturalandpoliticalmoment.

Nonetheless,Huerta’sbodyispositioned,intentionallyornot,asdifferentand

compromised—aclassificationandpositioningthatshefrequentlycombats,whichwewill

seeinlateranalysis.Theemphasisonnotlookingeight-and-a-halfmonthspregnantagain

placesfocusonHuerta’sphysicalconditionandspecificallyactsasareminderofher

female-ness.Ofcourse,thiskindofpositioningisabsentwhenweareintroducedtoChavez

intheexcerptabove,aswellasinthesecondparagraphofthesamearticlebelow.Here,we

areprovidedwithmorephysicaldescriptorsofHuerta:

PeoplesangstrikesongsandChavezspoketothemabouttheboycott.Doloreslistenedintently,nodding,brushingherstraightblackhairaway

93

fromherfacefromtimetotimeandsmilingsoftlyatthechildren.Apriestblessedthecarsandbusses.(BaerandMatthews232)

Chavezismentionedbutnotphysicallydescribed;instead,theemphasisisputonhisaction

ofaddressingtheaudienceabouttheboycott.Incontrast,thedescriptionofHuerta

brushingherhairawayfromherfaceandsmilingsoftlybothfeminizeandsexualizeher,

especiallywhencomparedtoatraditionalmaleauthorityfigurewhomightstereotypically

bedescribedasdistanced,professional,incharge,orevenhardened.Forexample,no

mentionofChavezincludeshisroleasafatheroradescriptionofhimasaslightman,nor

dotheauthorscasuallyaddresshimasCesarbutratherasChavezorCesarChavez.And

whilethisarticledoesemphasizetheimportantrolethatHuertaandotherwomenplayed

inthesuccessoftheboycott,theauthorsstillpositionHuertaas“soft”whilealso

addressingherasDoloresorDoloresHuertainthearticle.ThecasualuseofHuerta’sfirst

namesubtlyworkstodeemphasizeherauthorityandrighttolead.Despitethearticle’s

focusonthecriticalworkthatwomenweredoingaspartoftheunion,byincludingthese

specificphysicaldescriptionsofHuerta,BaerandMatthewscontributetotheemphasison

women’sphysicalityandthussubtlydemeanHuerta’sethosevenwhiletryingtobolsterthe

importantworksheandotherswereengagedin.

BaerandMatthewscontinuetodrawattentiontoHuerta’sphysicality—aswellas

thephysicaldescriptionsoftheotherwomeninterviewedforthepiece—throughouttheir

article.Infact,theyincludenearlyanentireparagraphtopositioningherbody:

WhenDoloresbeganorganizing,shealreadyhadsixchildrenandwaspregnantwithaseventh.Nearlytwentyyearslater,therearetenchildren,andDoloresisstillsoslimandgracefulwefindithardtoimagineherinheryouth,theageofherdaughter.Shehasnotsavedherselfforanything,hasletthelifedrawandstrainhertoafineintensity…Herlongblackhairisdrawnbackfromhighcheekbones,herskinistannedreddishfromthesunonthe

94

picketline,andinherdeepbrowneyesisaconstanthumorthatrelievesherseriousmanner.(BaerandMathews233)

Asillustratedinthepassageabove,theauthorssituateHuertaasamaturemotherwho

somehowstrikesabalancebetweentenderandfierce:twoqualitiesthatstronglyrelateto

characterbutarerepresentedthroughherappearance.Tobeclear,theauthorsdonot

solelyfocusonHuerta’sperson.Themajorityofthesixpageswerededicatedtotwo

purposes:first,arguingfortheUFW’scause;andsecond,allowingHuerta’svoicetobe

heard,whichisdiscussedfurtherinchapterfive.

Ms.,November1976[National:USbaseddistribution]

AyearafterbeingfeaturedinTheNationmagazine,theUFWwasbeginningtolose

momentumandfunding.AccordingtoBarbaraBaer’slaterarticle“StoppingTraffic,”the

UFWdeclinedsharplyinmembership,fallingfromitspeakoffiftythousandmembersin

1973tojusttenthousandby1974(DoloresHuertaReader97).However,Huertacontinued

tobesoughtafterbyreporters.Fouryearsafteritsinception,Ms.Magazinededicatedfive

fullpagestocoveringHuertaandherroleintheUFW.AlthoughHuertawasinitially

skepticaloffeminism,shemetGloriaSteinemandrealizedthevalueofthewoman’s

movement.Huertaeventuallyjoinedforceswiththefeministmovement,albeitshe

reportedlydidnotsharealltheidealsespeciallythoserelatingtobirthcontrol.Thesupport

fromSteinemandtheMs.staffwasverifiedwhenHuertareflectedonhertimeheadingthe

boycottinNewYorkCity:“GloriaSteinemandtheMs.womenatlunchtimewouldcome

downandpicket”(Clemmons1-B).

SimilartothesanctioningprovidedbyTheNation,beingfeaturedinMs.signals

Huertaasanallytothereadershipofthemagazineandorientsthenationalaudienceto

Huertathroughfeminismandsocialjustice.InSeptember1975,JudithCoburnshadowed

95

Huertaforseveraldayswhileshecampaignedforunionelectionrightsforfarmworkers.

Ms.MagazinewasinitsearlyyearswhenitcoveredHuerta,anditwasawildlysuccessful

content-basedpublicationthatworkedtominimizetheinfluenceofadvertisers.Ontheir

website,Ms.describesitsentryintothemagazinelandscape:

Ms.wasabrazenactofindependenceinthe1970s.Atthetime,thefledglingfeministmovementwaseitherdenigratedordismissedinthemainstreammediaifitwasmentionedatall.Mostmagazinesforwomenwerelimitedtoadviceaboutsavingmarriages,raisingbabies,orusingtherightcosmetics.

WhentheMs.previewdebutedcarryingarticlesonsubjectssuchasthehousewife'smomentoftruth,“desexing”theEnglishlanguage,andabortion,thesyndicatedcolumnistJamesJ.Kilpatrickjeeredthatitwasa“Csharponanunturnedpiano,”anote“ofpetulance,ofbitchiness,ornervousfingernailsscreechingacrossablackboard.”(“About”)

WhiletheMs.articleprovidesmanyrichdetailsofHuertaandherroleintheUFW,it

alsoincludesmanyaspectsofherpersonallife.GiventhatMs.isafeministpublication,it

maynotbesurprisingthatHuerta’sphysicaldescriptionisminimalandisnotfounduntil

thesecondpage/sixthparagraph.Coburnsketches,“Dolores’schiseled,burntsiennaface

suggestsmoreherfather’sIndian/Mexicanheritagethanhermother’sSpanishblood”(11).

Inthisdescription,weseeanexplicitlinkingofHuerta’sphysicaltraitstoherethnicityand

lineagebutalsoanomissionofhergenderedattributes.WhenCoburndescribesHuertaas

resemblingherfatherratherthanhermotherwhohadsomeSpanishblood,she

overshadowsthefactthathermotherwasalsoMexican-AmericanandnotsolelyofSpanish

descent—adetailthatHuertabringsupinherowndescriptionofhermother.Thus,the

colonizedhistoryofMexicoisovershadowedbythephysicaltraitsdisplayedbyHuerta

(and,evidently,herparents).WhilethisdescriptiondoesnotdisparageHuerta,itdoes

placeherphysicalbodyinthediscussionofherleadershipandineffectforegroundsher

race/ethnicity.Whilenotingrace,ethnicity,orgenderisnotinherentlynegative,therehas

96

beenalonghistoryofdiscreditingthecharacterofbothwomenandLatinos.AsJessica

Enochpointsoutinherchapter“ClaimingCulturalCitizenship,”afterTexasjoinedthe

UnitedStates,therewere“virulentdiscriminatorydiscoursescirculatingtheUnitedStates

concerning‘theMexican’”(129).ThehistoryofnegativedepictionsofMexicansaslazyand

unintelligenthaslastedseveralgenerationsandcontinuestobepervasive.Therefore

emphasizingHuerta’sethnicitytomanyreaders—especiallythosethatwerenotapartof

thefarmworkercommunity—wasaprecariousmoveandmayhavecausedadditional

obstaclestoherclaimingcredibilityandauthorityasaleader.Thatsaidhowever,because

Ms.magazinewaslikelytohavereadersthatwereinclinedtosupportsocialjustice

initiativesandtheplightofpeopleofcolor,itisalsolikelythatsuchpositioningoffered

Huertatheopportunitytoprovidecounter-depictionsofMexicans.AlthoughHuerta’s

marginalizedidentitiesmayhavesetheratadisadvantageinthepublicarena,theyalso

offeredavenuesforsocialchangewhenaddressed.

TampaTimes:February1,1978[Regional:City-based]

Thenextarticleexaminedinthissectioncomesfromthe1978TampaTimes.Unlike

theprecedingpublications,theTampaTimeswasalocalFloridapaperthatwaslikelyto

havealessexplicitaffiliationwithliberalorconservativepolitics.AccordingtotheNew

YorkTimes,theTampaTimesstoppedproducingitsdailynewspaperin1982afteraninety-

yearrunduetoalackofcirculation.Justfouryearsbeforeitsclosure,staffwriterNedra

ClemmonsreportedthestoryonHuertaandtheUFW.

In1978,theUFWwasbeginningtoreboundfromthedeclineinmembershipit

sufferedjustafewyearsearlier.AccordingtoauthorFrankBardacke,theUFWregained

politicalinfluenceinthelate1970sandearly1980sfromorganizingfarmworkersin

97

Salinas,CA,butultimatelycollapsedinthemid-1980s(7).ItislikelythatbecausetheUFW

wasbuildingitssecondwaveofmomentum,Huertaagaincaughttheattentionofmedia

outlets.Interestingly,intermsofreadership,theTampaTimesisthemostmainstream—as

suggestedbythemainaffiliationbeinggeographicalratherthananexplicitideological

link—andwasthestrongestexampleoftheexplicitcominglingofHuerta’sroleofmother

andUFWvicepresident.Inthearticle“DoloresHuertamothers11kids,onelaborunion,”

journalistNedraClemmonsbegins,“She’sthemotherof11childrenandonelaborunion,

thissmall,unassuming,dark-hairedpersonwiththewarmbrowneyes”(1-B).By1978,

HuertahadbeenorganizingtheUFWandcampaigningforfarmworkers’rightsalongside

Chavezforsixteenyears,yethergenderedphysicalpresenceandmotherlyroleare

inescapableconversationstartersforClemmons.Asisapparentfromitstitle,thisarticle

beginswithaheadlinethatimmediatelycominglesHuerta’smotheringwiththeUFWand

representsherleadershiproleintheUFWasanextensionofhermotherlyidentity.

Clemmons’schoicetointroducetheaudiencetoHuertathroughherphysicaldescription

onceagainprioritizesHuerta’sbodyoverherwork,potentiallyde-legitimizesherauthority

byplacingherstrictlyinamotherlyrole,andthusinfluenceshowHuertaneedsto

strategicallynegotiateethosconstruction.

IncontrasttothearticlesfromSIU,TheNationandMs.,theTampaTimesarticlewas

relativelybrief,asitonlycomprisedaboutoneandahalfpages.Inthatbriefspace,

however,ClemmonsnearlyexclusivelyframesHuertathroughherroleasamother.Inthis

case,weseelessofaconnectionbetweenthevalueoftheUFW’scauseandtheleadership

providedbyHuertaandmoreontheconnectionbetweenHuertaasamotherandvice

president,whichcanbeseeninthesecondparagraphofthearticle:

98

AndDoloresHuertaisstillthelongdistancemanagerofboth[familyandUFW]—roamingthecountryasthevicepresidentoftheUnitedFarmWorkers(UFW);crossingpathswiththethreechildrenshealreadyhasfollowingherunionfootsteps;keepingtabsontheotheroffspringwhorangeinagefrom1to27.(Clemmons1-B)

ClemmonsoffersspaceforadirectquotationfromHuerta,writing,“I’mtryingtogetallmy

kidstostayintheunion,”butthenclosesthequotationbywriting,“assertsthegentlebut

sturdywoman”(1-B).LookingcloselyattheTampaTimesarticleandthepositioningof

Huerta’smotherlyidentitybyClemmonsisaninterestingexampleofthecomplexity

involvedinconstructingethos.Inthiscase,maintainingamatrixorientation—onethat

allowsforcontradictionsandimagination—isnecessaryforunderstandingthisarticleas

anopportunityforHuertatostrengthenhercharacter.Aswewillseelaterinthischapter,

whengiventheopportunityandspacetoaddresshowbeingamotheraidedherinthe

UFW,Huertaoftenturnedtoherroleasamotherasevidenceofhergenuineconcernfor

thewellbeingoffamiliesandespeciallyofchildren.

DailyPioneer,May1974[Highlylocal:university-based]

Thelastexampleistheshortest(approximatelyonehalf-page)andfromthemost

localizedpublication.Locatedinthebayarea,theCaliforniaStateUniversity4(CSU),

Hayward’snewspaper,TheDailyPioneermostlikelyhadasmallreadershipgiventhatat

thetimeofpublicationtheuniversitywasonlyapproximatelytwentyyearsold.Today,

manyoftheCSUcampusesenroll10–25,000studentseachyear,butinthe1970sthe

enrollmentatmostpublicuniversitieswasbetween500–2,000students.In1974,Huerta

wasspeakingatralliesandprotestsoftenandwasworkingashardasevertomaintainthe

UFW’smomentum.Itislikelythatinanefforttoreachbroadaudiencesandcontinueto4In2005CaliforniaStateUniversity,HaywardwasrenamedCaliforniaStateUniversity,EastBay.

99

recruitfromsitesthatwerelikelytobealliesoffarmworkerrights,Huertatookthetimeto

speakataCincodeMayorallyatCSU,Hayward.Inthearticlecoveringherspeech,Huerta

isdescribedas“dressedinapairofbluejeansandaredvestemblazonedwiththeUFW

symbol.Asmallwomanwhoseheadbarelyroseoverthepodium”(Chui1).Whilethe

descriptionitselfdoesnotdisparageHuertanordoesitoverlygenderizeher,itdoesonce

againbegthequestion,“Whyisaphysicaldescriptionnecessarywhenapicture

accompaniesthearticle?”Inthisinstance,thereisanemphasisonHuerta’soutfit,andthe

emphasisonjeans—whetherintentionalornot—positionsheroutfitagainstamore

professionalauthorityfigurewhomightwearasuit.However,becausethedescriptionalso

suggestsherworking-classposition,itdoesplaceherinthecommunityinwhichsheis

advocatingforchange.

Giventhelocationoftheuniversityandthecultureofcollegestudentsduringthe

1970s—largelyaffectedbythecivilrightsmovementandsocialactivism—itislikelythat

thereporterGlenndaChuiandthereadershipoftheDailyPioneerweresympathetictothe

farmworkers’cause.Furtherevidenceofthesupportfromtheintendedaudiencecanbe

gleanedfromthefactthattheCSU,Haywardheldathree-dayCincodeMayofestivalin

whichseveralspeakersandentertainersparticipated.Inaddition,theCSUsystemoffered

analternativetomoreexpensiveprivatefour-yearuniversities,andoftenthestudentbody

wascomprisedoflocalresidents.Itisstriking,then,thatthedescriptionofHuertapeering

overthepodium—asshewaspositionedinthearticle—suggestsachildlikephysiqueor

onewhoissmallphysicallyandthereforetangentiallylackingauthority,knowledge,and—

dependingontheaudience’sconsciousandsubconsciousnotionsofrhetorsandethos—

eventherighttospeak.Inthisway,Huertaisclearlyphysicallypositionedastheopposite

100

ofwhatanaudiencemightimaginetobeatraditionalleader,vicepresident,orevena

speaker.Inotherwords,suchaninclusionnotonlyputsHuerta’sbodyfirmlyinthe

conversationbutalsodemonstratesherassmallandcasual,whichcouldfunctiontodiffuse

ordiminishherauthority.Further,thedescriptionisanunnecessarydistractionfromthe

causethatHuertawastheretoaddress.Incontrast,whenChuiintroducedamaleunion

organizerinasubsequentpassage,shewrites,“PrecedingtheHuertaspeechwasashort

talkbyFredEyster,alocalUFWorganizerwhostrodetothepodiumwavinga‘Justicefor

Farmworkers—BoycottGallo’sign”(2).Thestarkdifferencebetweenthetwo

introductionsprovidesadditionalevidenceofwell-intentionedauthorssubtlyundermining

Huerta’sauthority.

Whatisperhapsthemostshockingtrendacrossthefivearticleswasthatdespite

beingallies,and/orthedistributionalreachofthepublication,everyinstanceofHuerta’s

physicaldescriptionwasusedasanintroductiontoherroleasvicepresidentintheUFW.

However,becausedefinitionsofidentitiesarevariableandalwaysinfluxthereareseveral

possibilitiesforbothnegativeandpositiveassociationstobemadeaboutHuerta’s

identities.Thus,thetargetaudienceofthepublicationplayedanimportantroleinhow

thosecharacterizationsweretakenup.Forexample,inthecaseoftheTampaTimesarticle,

agenerousreadofthephysicaldescriptionsofHuertacouldhumanizeherormakeher

relatabletoothermothersandwomen,whichwouldthereforeserveasaninstanceof

positiveethosbuilding.However,itisjustaslikelythatsuchapositioningofHuerta

underminesherethosasaformidablecontractnegotiatorandleaderbyperpetuating

already-tenuousversionsofheridentitiesthataredisassociatedwithpowerandauthority.

101

Ineacharticle,Huertaisdescribedasasmall,racedmotherandisoftenfeminized

andsexualizedinsodoing.Thedescriptionsofheractionsthatplacetheaudience’sgazeon

herchildrenorpositionherasChicanaallworktotellussomethingaboutwhoHuertais

andhowpublicauthorities(journalists)interprether.Whatitrevealsforaudiencesis

highlyvariablebecauseitwillultimatelydependonwhomthereader/audiencememberis

andhowshedefineseachofthecategorieslabeledthroughherphysicality(thereadersand

hers).ConsideringHaraway’ssituatedknowledgeorKates’sembodiedknowledges,itis

importanttorememberthataudienceshaveconsumeddecadesofculturalnarrativesthat

describebothwomenandethnicminoritiesasdeficient.Thus,callingattentiontothe

embodiedidentitiesofHuerta,especiallyherethnicityandgender,wasparticularly

meaningful.Ineffectwhiletherewasand/orisadangerofthatdeficiencyperpetuatingthe

already-engrainedconceptionsofthosecategories,suchpositioningalsoprovidedHuerta

theopportunitytorewritethosescripts.

Takencollectively,thetrendsetbythejournalistsisclear:wemustknowHuerta

firstthroughherphysicallyidentifiableidentitiesandthenconsidertheworkshe’sdoing.

Huerta’sembodiedidentities,especiallyasrepresentedbyothers,affectherethosby

drawingtheaudience’sattentiontoherphysicalityandtherebyopeningspacesforHuerta

torespond.Thequestionthen,shiftsfromhowHuertaconstructsherethostohowHuerta

constructedherethosinresponsetoherpositioningbyothers.Despitethefactthatthese

descriptionsmaysubtlydelegitimizeherworkandinvokeculturalscriptsthatforeground

herbody,beauty,andmotherhood,Huertaactuallyleveragesthetraditionaldefinitionsof

heridentitybyrewritingthosescriptswithself-definitionandsubsequentredefinition.

(Re)DefiningtheSelf:HuertaandHerPositioningofSelfthroughIntersectionality

102

ItisevidentuponutteringhernameorseeingherimagethatHuertaisidentifiedas

non-White.HerdarkskinandeyessignalherChicananess,andthesequalitiesareoften

notedinarticleswrittenabouther,asillustratedabove.Inthissection,Icontinuetofocus

onhowHuertapositionedherselfbyexploringtheconnectionbetweenHuerta’sidentity

andherethosinordertohighlightthefragmented,fractured,yetalsodeeplyentwinedand

blendednatureofheridentity.ThefollowinganalysisofHuerta’sethosconstructionwill

primarilyexaminedirectquotationsfromHuertarespondingtoorexplicitly(re)defining

herselfinavarietyoftextualartifacts,includingthearticlesexaminedabove,aprinted

interview,andpersonalletters.

Huerta’sfracturedandcommingledidentityisonethat,asaChicana,Iunderstand

firsthand.Asmentionedinchapterthree,thenamingandlabelingisonewayinwhichwe

begintoknowathing.Asaresult,theimportanceoflabelingandnamingoneself—orthe

powertodefine—isofparticularsignificancetocommunitiesthatlackpower.The

connectionbetweennamingandself-definitionisespeciallycriticalforminoritygroups

whohavebeenlabeledornamedinwaysthatperpetuateoppression.Thenamingchoice

and/orself-declarationoftherace/ethnicityofarhetorcansignalagreatdealabouthow

therhetorviewsherownidentity.Thus,therhetormaintainssomeagencyforself-

(re)definition.Forinstance,HuertareferstoherselfasChicanaonseveraloccasionswhich

suggestsaconsciousreclaimingoftheterm“Chicano,”atermimbuedwithpolitical

meaningandfractureddefinition.Because“Chicano”wasonceatermusedtosignifylow

class,Huerta’sethosispartiallyconstructedbyheruseofthistermtoidentifyher

racial/ethnicheritage.Huerta’sroleasaleaderintheUFWandastheirchiefnegotiator

workstofurtherreclaimthetermthatwasonceusedtodisgraceMexican-Americans.

103

Huerta—alongwithmanyparticipatingintheChicanomovement—complicatesthe

definitionandexpectationsforChicanos.Hence,weseeHuertaworkbeyondher

prescribedplaceandhistoricalversionof“self”insocietyandconstructaselfthatenforces

change.Aseventhisbriefexamplebeginstoindicate,Huerta’sintersectionalitymakesher

anexcellentexampleforexaminingethosconstructionasafluid,notstatic,enterprise.AsI

willdemonstrate,whileoutsideforcesprescribeHuerta’sidentityroles,shemaintains

agencybybothacceptingthoserolesandthentransformingthemwithherlived

experiences.Huertathuschangestheverydefinitionofthoseprescribedroles,which

ultimatelyaddstoherethosconstruction.

Becauseidentitycategoriesarerarelyinnocuous,manyheateddebateshave

occurredoverwhattermtousetoidentifypeoples’raceand/orethnicity.Inthe

introductiontoLanguageofOppression,HaigBosmajianaddressestheimportanceof

namingandidentification:

Thepowerwhichcomesfromnamesandnamingisrelateddirectlytothepowertodefineothers—individuals,races,sexes,ethnicgroups.Ouridentities,whoandwhatweare,howothersseeus,aregreatlyaffectedbythenameswearecalledandthewordswithwhichwearelabeled…Theword“define”comesfromtheLatindefinire,meaningtolimit.Throughdefinitionwerestrict,wesetboundaries,wename.(9)

Bosmajianexposestheissueofpowerthatliesinterminologyandespeciallythatwhich

referstoone’sethnicityorrace.

Technically,Latinoisnotaracebutratheranethnicity.However,whatthatmeans

andtowhomvarieswidely.Forthesakeofthisproject,whatisimportantistheperception

ofrace/ethnicitybytherhetorandtheaudience.ThedifferencesbetweenChicano,Latino,

Hispanic,andMexican-Americanarebothconnotativeanddenotative.InDeColoresMeans

AllofUs,ElizabethMartinezdedicatesherfirstchaptertoexaminingwhatshecalls“the

104

greatterminologyquestion.”Inanefforttoanswerthequestion,“whatisChicana/o?”

Martinezoffersthefollowing:

Forstarters,wecombineatleastthreeroots:indigenous(frompre-Columbiantimes),European(fromSpanishandPortugueseinvasions),andAfrican(fromthemanyslavesbroughttotheAmericas,includingatleast200,00toMexicoalone).AsmatteringofChineseshouldbeadded,whichgoesbacktothesixteenthcentury;MexicoCityhadaChinatownbythemid-1500s,somehistorianssay.Anothermestizaje,ormixing,tookplace—thistimewithNativeAmericansofvariousnations,pueblosandtribeslivinginwhatisnowtheSouthwest—whenSpanishandMexicancolonizersmovednorth.LaterourChicanoancestorsacquiredyetanotherdimensionthroughintermarriagewithAnglos.(1)

MartínezprovidesimportantdetailsabouttheancestryofChicano/as,andbuildsfrom

whatGloriaAnzaldúabeganoveradecadebeforeher.Anzaldúabroughtattentiontothe

manyintersectionsofidentityandtherolesofethnicandraciallineageinher

groundbreakingbookBorderlands/LaFrontera:TheNewMestiza.Here,Anzaldúadescribes

theuseofChicano:

Whennotcoppingout,whenweknowwearemorethannothing,wecallourselvesMexican,referringtoraceandancestry;mestizowhenaffirmingourIndianandSpanish(butwehardlyeverownourBlackancestry);Chicanowhenreferringtoapoliticallyawarepeoplebornand/orraisedintheU.S.;RazawhenreferringtoChicanos;tejanoswhenweareChicanosfromTexas.(“HowtoTameaWildTongue”reprintedinAvailableMeans,365)

BothAnzaldúaandMartinezhighlightthepoliticalnatureofchoosingChicano/a.Anzaldúa

furtherexplains,“Chicanosdidnotknowwewereapeopleuntil1965whenCesarChavez

andthefarmworkersunitedandIAmJoaquinwaspublishedandlaRazaUnidapartywas

formedinTexas.Withthatrecognition,webecameadistinctpeople”(365).Itisofnosmall

consequencethatChavezandthefarmlabormovementwerecreditedwithbringing

Latinostogetherandpoliticizingthem.Infact,accordingtoMartínez,theonlysignificant

differencebetweenMexican-AmericanandChicano/aisthepoliticalconnotation.Martinez

105

explains,“Chicano/aonceimpliedlower-classstatusandwasattimesderogatory.During

the1960sand1970s,inaneraofstrongpressureforprogressivechange,thetermbecame

anoutcryofprideinone’speoplehoodandrejectionofassimilationasone’sgoal”(1-2).

WhileMexican-AmericanandChicano/acanbeinterchangedratherseamlessly,itis

importanttorecognizethatthechoicetouseoneortheotherispoliticalandhighly

contextual.Inotherwords,howthesetermsareunderstoodorperceivedcanvarygreatly

dependingonwhoisusingthemandwhen.Therefore,Huerta’schoicetolabelherselfand

othersasChicanowasnotonlyintentionalbutalsopoliticalandstrategicsinceit

representedherasanempoweredfigurewhoheldthekindofrecognitionandpositionality

forwhichsheandChavezwerefighting.

WhiletherearemanydocumentsfromtheChicanoMovementthatcanillustrate

boththeimportanceofnamingandthesignificanceofwhatitmeanstobeChicano,asmall

publicationfromNorthernCaliforniaplaysaparticularlyimportantroleinhowwemight

understandHuertaandherethosasaChicana.InFebruary1970,agroupofChicano

MovementactivistslaunchedapublicationcalledLaVozdelPueblo.Thepapergrewoutof

theFrenteFoundation,whichwasagroupofChicanosfromtheUniversityofCalifornia,

Berkeleyandwasmeanttodirectlyaddressissuessurroundingthemovement.Inthefirst

volume,secondissue,authorandactivistManualDelgadoexplainstheChicanoMovement:

ThereisoneissueconcerningtheSpanish-speakingAmericanthatisofsuchimportancethatitrequiresimmediateattentionbyallconcerned.Thisisthe“ChicanoMovement.”

Neverbeforehassomuchconfusionexistedconcerningtheidentityofourpeople.Neverbeforehastherebeensomuchthoughtgiventoourindependence,botheconomicandpolitical.

Theabundanceofideasandargumentsnowbeingpresentedasthe“politicalthought”ofMexicanAmericansisasvariedandcomplexasourculturalandracialheritagethatmakeusauniquepeople.Thedevelopment

106

ofnewsymbolsandthenewmeaningsgiventooldoneshascreatedmoreanxietythantheintendednewmeaningandintendednewpride.

TheFrenteFoundation,alongwiththeirpublication,LaVozdelPueblo,wasgearedtoward

anaudiencewhowasinterestedin,andpartof,theChicanoMovement.Further,articlesfor

LaVozwerelikelytobewrittenbycollege-educatedreporterswhohopedtospreadthe

wordabouttheMovementandwerelookingtogainsupport.Itisimportanttonotethe

obviouschoiceofDelgadotocallattentiontothe“ChicanoMovement”butalsotoinclude

thealternateclassifications:“Spanish-speakingAmericans”and“MexicanAmericans.”

WhileitdoesnotappearthatHuertawaspartoftheFrenteFoundation,shewas

interviewedbytheirreportersafewtimesandshewaswillingtobeopenwiththem.Inan

interviewthatHuertagavetoLaVozdelPuebloin1973,thejournalistreportedthatHuerta

engaged“inanunusuallycandidconversation,little-knownfactsaboutherlifeandher

work”(DoloresHuertaReader163).Again,becausepowerandauthorityarealsostrongly

related,understandingHuerta’schoicetouseaspecifictermforherethnicity,orthatof

others,isimportant.Indeed,Huertareflectsonherearlyeducation:

IwasalittlebitluckierthanmostChicanosbecauseIwasraisedinanintegratedneighborhood.AlltheChicanoswhowenttoschoolwhereIdidareallmakingit.IgrewupinStocktonbutweweren’tinaghetto.Inourschool,therewasMexican,Black,White,Indian,Italian;wewereallthrownintogether.(DoloresHuertaReader164)

Huertacontinuestoreflectonhereducationalexperiencesastheyrelatedtoherethnicity

andultimatelyshares,“Icouldn’tbe[politically]activeinCollegethough,becauseitwas

justtooearly.IwastheonlyChicanoatStocktonJuniorCollege”(164).Becauseweknow

Huerta’saudiencewaslikelytoalsobeChicano,orpeopleinterestedintheChicano

Movement,herdisclosureofbeinginanintegratedschoolinadditiontothe

107

acknowledgementofbeingthe“onlyChicanoatStocktonJuniorCollege”mayhaveoffered

herreadersapointofconnectiontoher—awaytoidentifytheirexperienceswithhers.

WhilethepoliticalnatureofChicanoisgenerallyagreedupon,Latino,Hispanic,and

Mexican-Americanareslightlymorecomplexandnuanced.Latino/aandHispanicare

broadercategoriesthatincludeMexican-AmericanandChicano/a,aswellasthosewith

linkstoovertwentycountries,includingMexico(Martínez,2).Martínezdifferentiates

betweentheterms:

Manyofusprefer“Latino”to“Hispanic,”whichobliteratesourindigenousandAfricanheritage,andrecognizesonlytheEuropean,thecolonizer.(Brazilians,ofcourse,reject“Hispanic”stronglybecausetheirEuropeanheritageisPortuguese,notSpanish.)“Hispanic”alsocarriesthedisadvantageofbeingatermthatdidnotemergefromthecommunityitselfbutwasimposedbythedominantsocietythroughitscensusbureauandotherbureaucracies,duringtheNixonadministrationofthe1970s.(2)

LikeBosmajian,Martínezhighlightstheroleofpowerindefinitionthatismaintainedand

typicallypossessedbythosewhoholdauthority.Civilrightsactivistshavebeenconcerned

withnamingformanydecadesbecause,asBosmajianshares,“Self-determinationmust

includeself-definition,theabilityandrighttonameoneself;themaster-subject

relationshipisbasedpartlyonthemaster’spowertonameanddefinethesubject”(9).To

takethispointabitfurther,wemightsurmisethatself-definition,then,iscrucialto

knowingone’sselforselves.Andknowingandgenuinelybelievingone’sselfiscrucialto

ethosconstruction.

Theability,oraudacity,tobeself-determinateandbelieveinself-definitioncan

empowerthoselikeHuertaandChavezandleadtorealandsustainablechange.Indeed,

rhetoricandethosaremeanttosparkchangeandtosomedegreecontrolwhatcountsas

knowledge,andnamingisonewayinwhichwebegintoknow.Thusaself-determinedand

108

collaborativelydevelopedconceptionofidentity—onethatisnegotiatedandagreedupon

ratherthangiven—isimportanttotheoriesofrhetoricorethos.Huerta,Anzaldúa,and

countlessotherChicanasstandonhighlycontextualandshiftinggroundwhenitcomesto

understanding,valuing,andultimatelydefiningtheself.Tracingtheconflictedrelationship

ofnamingorlabelingHuertaasaChicana—oranyothernameforsomeonefromMexican

descent—demonstratestheveryfracturedandcomplicatedconceptofwhosheisorhow

wemightknowher.

Likewise,ideographic5termssuchas“mother”or“woman”have,andcontinueto

have,evolvingandpoliticaldefinitions.Asapowerfulandpoliticalwomaninthepublic

sphere,Huertawasnotlivingthetraditionalversionofmother.Yet,Huertaofteninvokes

thepowerfulconceptionsof“woman”asethical,patient,andpolite.WhenHuertaspeaksof

womanhood,sheoftenreliesheavilyontraditionalconceptionsthatrelyontheconflation

ofwomanandmother.LindalBuchananandCarolMattinglyarguethatwomenrhetors

oftenutilizedtraditionalconceptionsofwomeninordertoenterthepublicsphere.

Buchanandescribesthisinmoredetail:

Womenweretoldthattheirinherent“submissivenessanddomesticity”disqualifiedthemfromthecontentiouscivicarenabutthattheir“purityandpiety”simultaneouslymadethemmen’smoralsuperiorsandguides(Welter152).Ironically,itwasasenseofmoraldutythateventuallycompelled(orjustified)women’smovementfromprivatetopubliclocations.(109)

Likewise,Enoch,Kates,andSkinnersupportfindingsthatmanyofthepositionsthat

womenenteredwithinthepublicspherewereoccupationswithprecedenceforfemale

5The“ideograph”wasfirstconceptualizedbyMichaelMcGeeinhis1980article,"The"Ideograph":ALinkBetweenRhetoricAndIdeology."Iusethetermheretosignifytermsthatareimbuedwithstrongculturalideologiesthatarehighlyvariable,yetareoftendeployedbyspeakers/rhetorsasaunifiedconcept.

109

involvement,suchasteachers(EnochandKates)andphysicians(Skinner).Ineachofthe

rhetoricalhistoriesfromBuchanan,Mattingly,Enoch,Kates,andSkinner,thewomenwho

enteredthepublicspherealsoreshapedandevolveddefinitionsof“woman.”Inother

words,thefemalefiguresrecoveredbythesescholarsandmanyothersaidedinthe

evolutionofwomen’sacceptablerolesbycontinuallypushing,crossing,andredrawing

culturalboundaries.Huerta,likemanywomanhistoricalfigures,oftenleveraged

generalizationsaboutwomenasthemoralsuperiorsofmentojustifytheirinclusioninthe

struggle.ReturningtotheMs.Magazinearticlefrom1976,Huertaremarks,“Womenhave

oneadvantageovermen—theiregosaren’tsoinvolved.Theycancompromisetogetwhat

theywantinsteadofforcingashowdownallthetime”(13).Huertareliesonacommunally

agreed-upondefinitionofwomenthatincludestheabsenceofanego,andinsodoing,

leveragestheverystereotypessheoftenstandsincontradictionto.Yet,thisabsenceofego

positionsherastrustworthy.

InlookingatHuerta’spublicizedinterviews,weseeaconsistentfocusonthe

traditionaldefinitionofwomaninordertoestablishthebenefitsofincludingwomeninthe

campaignforfarmlaborer’srights.TwoyearsbeforethearticleinMs.,Huertadiscussed

herroleasawomanandchiefnegotiatorintheUFW.InTheNation,Huertasharesher

perspectiveonwhywomenareeffectivenegotiators:

Ithinkwomenareparticularlygoodnegotiatorsbecausewehavealotofpatience,andnobigegotripstoovercome.Womenaremoretenaciousandthathelpsagreatdeal.Itunnervesthegrowerstonegotiatewithus.Cesaralwayswantedtohaveanall-womannegotiatingteam.Growerscan’tswearbackatusorateachother.Andthenwebringintheethicalquestions,likehowourkidslive.Howcanthegrowersreallyargueagainstwhatshouldbedoneforhumanbeingsjusttosavemoney.(236)

110

Huertadependsonaverytraditionalconceptionofwomantomakehercase,illustrating

howshe/theyusethetraditionalconceptionsofwomantobenefitthecausebyappealing

tothegrowers’desiresfortheethicaltreatmentofwomenandchildren.Intheheightofthe

women’smovement,Huertaleveragesthepressaboutwomeninvolvedintheboycottby

explicitlyaddressingthetangibledifferencesofhavingwomenparticipateinthe

negotiations.Keepinginmindtheaudienceofthemagazineandcauseatlarge,Huerta

appealstowomenbydescribingthemastheywouldliketoseethemselves:patientand

relevant.

NotingHuerta’sconflationofwomanwithmotherisparticularlyimportantgiven

Huerta’sownpositionalityasboth.Whenplacingherselfinthecompanyof“growers,”

Huerta’sbodysymbolizestheirbasicconceptionofwomenasmothers,orpotential

mothers,andthusinfluencesthetypeofcommunicationtheycanhave.Additionally,by

invokingherroleasamotherandprevailingonacommonlyhelddefinitionofmother,

Huertavalidatesthatherconcernisforthegreatergoodasopposedtopersonalinterests.

Inthe1978interviewwiththeTampaTimes,Huerta’srelianceontraditionalroles

forwomenwasbeneficialalongtwoimportantstrandsofargument:first,itjustifiedher

inclusioninthemovement;andsecond,itofferedanimportantemphasisoftheUFW’s

commitmenttonon-violence.DuringthesecondwaveofmomentumfortheUFW,oneof

thecritiquesthatwaslobbiedattheorganizersandprotestorswasthatthefarmworkers

wereusingintimidationtactics.However,recordsshowthattheUFWwasnotfound

responsibleforanyinjuriesofpeopleinvolvedinthenegotiationsandprotests.Huerta

usedtheconcernforchildwelfaretobridgedifferencesbetweensocioeconomicclasses.In

addition,Huertaceasestheopportunitytotalktomothersabouttheworkthatsheandthe

111

UFWweredoing,and,bydrawingonthecommonareasthatexistamongmothers,she

simultaneouslyappealstoboththemaleandfemaleaudiencesthatmayquestionthe

protestors’tactics.Shedoesnotclaimtobeanexemplaryformofmother,nordoesshe

impressuponthejournalisttheworkthatshewasdoingwasoutsideofthemotherly

sphere.Instead,sheembracesthecategorizationsofbothwifeandmotherandthendraws

onthesharedvaluesofheraudience.IntheTampaTimesarticle,Huertaclaims,“women

talkintermsofchildren,”andthen,“Ican’tthinkofanywomanwhoismarriedtoafarm

ownerwhowouldwanttoseewomensuffer”(Clemmons1-B).Thus,Huertacreatesaset

ofcommonvaluesamongheraudiencethatwouldbedifficulttoargueagainst.Later,

Huertaalsoexplains,“‘Womenprovidedanawfullotofleadershipinkeepingthestrikes

non-violent.Whereyouhavewomenyoualsohavechildren,andchildrenbringouta

differenttypeoffeeling,’”(2-B).Inthiscase,Huertaworkstoestablishauthorityasa

womanwhoplaceschildrenfirstandiscommittedtononviolentprotest,andseizesthe

opportunitytoprevailontraditionaldefinitionsofwoman/mothertoassistinbuildingan

effectiveethos.

ByvirtueofbeingaChicanainthemiddleofthecivilrightseraandfightingforfarm

laborers,Huertawasalivingcontradictiontomanyofthetraditionalconceptionsof

women.AsmentionedintheexcerptfromMs.Magazine,Huertawasknownforher

“combativeness”yetemphasizedwomen’sabilitytobepatientandnon-egotistical.Huerta

wasabletoinhabitthesecontradictoryrolesauthentically,inpartbecauseofhermestiza

consciousnessandmetaphoricalborder-crossingexperiences.Avaluablecharacteristicof

differencecomesfromthepowerofnotbeingboundbyconventions—evenifstable

conceptionswereutilizedfromtimetotimeascommonplaces.Dolmagesupportsthispoint

112

bydrawingonAnzalduaandthemalleabilityofthemestiza.Morespecifically,Dolmage

explains,

Inresponsetoantagonismandinthefaceofculturalforcesthatvalue“purity”and“coherence,”Anzaldúarecognizestheneedtofanidentityandalanguagewith“amalleabilitythatrendersusunbreakable”(Borderlands64).TheMestiza/Mestizoraceisavisionofmodernmêtiswhich,“ratherthanresultinginaninferiorbeing,provideshybridprogeny,amutablemoremalleablespecieswitharichgenepool,”resultinginan“alienconsciousness”oftheborderlandallculturesatthesametime(Borderlands77).(Dolmage19)

WhileHuertaprevailedonculturallyagreed-upondefinitionsofselvesoridentitiessuchas

womanormotherinordertobuildethosonoccasion,shealsoopenedupnewspacesfor

identificationthroughherextraordinaryabilitytocontradictthosedefinitionsbyexample.

WhilegenderwasobviouslyoneoftheidentitiesthatHuertaconsistentlyhadto

attendto,sotoowasherrace/ethnicity.Andassuggestedthusfar,noneofthesecategories

arediscrete.Inthefollowingexcerpts,notehowHuertaworkstoleverageherappealby

drawingonexperiencesprimarilyfromclassandgender.Organizedchronologically,the

firstexcerptisfromtheinterviewgiventoLaVozdelPuebloin1973.Asevidenceofher

rhetoricalability,HuertautilizesLaVozasachanneltoreachouttotheChicanopublic.As

sharedpreviously,LaVozwasasmallpublicationthatreachedadvocatesoftheChicano

movementandassuchwasanoutletforHuertatoleveragehersharedracial/ethnic

experiences.Unlikeherothermagazineandnewspaperinterviews,Huertaattendsto

issuesofraceandethnicityoftenandexplicitlyintheLaVozinterview.

Earlyintheinterview,Huertasubtlyconflatesraceandclassbystating,“WhenIgot

intoHighSchool,thenitwasreallysegregated.Therewastherealrichandtherealpoor.

Wewerepoortoo,andIgothitwithalotofracialdiscrimination”(DoloresHuertaReader

164).Inthispresentationofraceandclass,thepunctuatedpointseemstobethatshe

113

suffereddiscriminationontwofrontsasopposedtoasinglesource.Intheremaining

severalpages,HuertaspeaksopenlyaboutthechallengesthatChicanosfaceandthe

fracturedstateoftheChicanomovement.Therefore,thenextexcerptfromLaVoz

emphasizesHuerta’sawarenessofaudiencebyofferingacontrastingexampleofher

attentiontoChicanoissues.Morespecifically,Huertasharesherperspectiveaboutthe

ChicanomovementandarguesthatChicanosaredividedonwhichissuestoaddressfirst

andhow.Further,shearguesthatmoreChicanosneedtogetinvolvedinpoliticsinorder

forchangetooccur.AlthoughHuertadirectlyidentifiesthefarmworkerissueasaChicano

issue,shecertainlydoesnotclaimitistheonlyoneand,infact,laterarguesthat

disorganizationispartofwhatcontinuestoholdChicanosbackfrombeingpolitically

effective:

IknowthefarmworkerissueisnottheonlyChicanoissue.ButintermsofthevisibilityoftheChicanoissues,Ithinkfirstofalltherewasn’tanagreementamongtheChicanosthemselvesonwhattheissueswere.Somepeopletalkedaboutbilingualeducation,otherpeopletalkedaboutsomethingelse.(DoloresHuertaReader171)

Inthisexcerpt,weseeHuertadirectlyaddressthecomplicatednessofprioritizing

oppressionsthatneededattentionbutdonotseeanexplicitattempttodownplayraceor

extendracialissuestoclass.TheLaVozinterviewprovidesimportantinsightsintohow

Huertapresentedherselfwhenaddressinganaudienceofreaderswhowerelikelyalliesof

themovementandsharedherethnicity.Further,italsoprovidesevidenceofHuerta’s

awarenessofthepotentialpitfallsofaligningtoocloselywiththelargerChicanoMovement

whenaddressingaudiencesthatarelikelynottobeethnicminoritiesorsympatheticto

issuesaffectingethnicminorities.

114

Returningtothedetailed1974articleinTheNationMagazine,inwhichthe

readershiptendedtobesupportiveofthecivilrightsmovementandfightinginequity,

HuertapresentstheinclusionofwomenintheUFWasacceptablebasedonclassvalues.

Thearticletitled“TheWomenoftheBoycott”featuredHuertabutalsoincludedinterviews

fromotherwomeninvolvedintheboycott.UnliketheLaVozinterview,Huertaspends

littletimediscussingraceandethnicitywithTheNation,butdoesofferthefollowing:

(1974)Excludingwomen,protectingthem,keepingwomenathome,that’sthemiddle-classway.Poorpeople’smovementshavealwayshadwholefamiliesontheline,readytomoveatamoment’snotice,withmorecouragebecausethat’sallwehad.It’saclassnotanethnicthing[emphasisadded].(234)

Intheabovequotation,thereisaclearlinkingofethnicity,gender,andclass,butsheplaces

emphasisonthewider-reachingissuesofclass.Inthisway,whetherknowinglyornot,

Huertademonstratestheintersectionalforcesatplaywhenattemptingtodefinebasedon

fixedidentitycategoriesandthuseffectivelydisruptstheattempttodisqualifywomenfrom

beinginvolved.

Likewise,inthefinalexcerptfromthe1978articleinTampaTimes—thepublication

witharguablytheleastdefinedaudience—weagainseethegroupingofethnicity,gender,

andclass.However,thistimeHuertaemphasizesbothgenderandclassoverrace.

Effectively,shedemonstratesthattheissuesofthefarmworkersarenotisolatedto

Mexicans:

(1978)Withpoorpeople—allpoorpeople,notjustMexicans—because

peoplearestillinthesurvivalstage,womentakeamuchmoreactivepartin

that.I’vethoughtaboutthatalot.Likeinmineworkers’unions:mostworkers

aremen,butwomenhavealwayshadanactiverole.(Clemmons2-B)

115

Whileitisevidentthrougheachoftheseexamplesthatethnicityandraceareaconcernfor

Huerta,sheisalsokeenlyawareoftheinterconnectednessofrace,gender,andclassand

thustailorsherapproachbasedonwhatarelikelytobeheraudience’svalues.Throughher

tailoringefforts,Huertaisabletoconstructanidentifiableandrelatableethosthatcombats

thedamagingculturalscriptsinvokedbyemphasizinghermostvulnerableidentity

categories.

Beyondworkingwithinandagainstvariousdefinitionsofheridentities,Huertaalso

builtherethosbydrawingontheauthorityofotherrhetors.Asawomanenteringintothe

politicalsphere,Huertaoftensharedstoriesofhowshewassupportedineffortsto

organize.Insteadofrelyingonherownauthority,Huertaoftenbuildshercredibilityby

citingCesarChavezorotherauthorizedmalecommunityorganizers.Forinstance,when

discussingherroleasvicepresidentoftheUFWwithareporterfromtheAmericanReport

in1973,HuertaquicklyadmitsthatshedoubtedherselfbutwasaffirmedbyUFW

PresidentCesarChavez.Whilethecirculationdataisunknownforthispublication,itdoes

offeranexampleofthenarrativethatHuertasharedaboutherjourneyofbecomingvice

president.Whenasked,“ArepeoplewithintheUFWmovementsurprisedthatawoman

wouldrisetothepositionyouhold?”Huertarespondedwiththefollowing:

Thehang-upwasmineinitially.Duringthefirstfewyearsofmyorganizingfarmworkers,IfeltIcouldn’tbeaseffectivebecauseIwasawoman.AndCesarwastheonewhoreallystraightenedmyheadoutaboutthat.Hesaid,“Ifthefarmworkerscouldhaveorganizedthemselves,thentherewouldbenoneedforyoutobehere.Thefactthattheyhaven’tbeenabletodoitmeansthereisaneedforyoutobehere.”ThefarmworkersknewIwastheretohelpthemgettheirrightsand,ofcourse,theyresponded.AndIthinktheywouldhaverespondedtoanyoneinthatposition.Aslongastheyknowyou’rehonestandtheretotrytohelpthem,whyshouldtheynotreceiveyou?AtfirstIdidn’twanttorunforofficebecauseIdidn’tthinkIcouldgetelected;andyetthehang-upwasmine.Cesarsaid,“what’sthematterwithyou?You’reoneofthefirstpersonstohelporganizedtheunion.Youshould

116

runforoffice.”AndIwaselectedoverwhelmingly.(“ConversationwithDoloresHuerta”5)

BeingofficiallysanctionedbyChavezaffirmsherauthorityandplaceintheunionand

movementandinvokesSpivak’sconceptof“strategicessentialism.”Inotherwords,

becauseHuertawasultimatelysubservienttoChavez,shewasstillwithintherealmofa

traditionalwoman’splace—albeitwithagreatdealofpower,authority,andmoxie.Infact,

withinthemovement’sinnercircle,itwaswellknownthatHuertaandChavezwereof

equalforce.

Approximatelyoneyearlaterina1974interviewwithTheNation,Huertacredits

herinvolvementwiththemovementtoorganizerFredRoss,awell-knownandimportant

communityorganizer.Infact,acrossmanyofficialandunofficialbiographiesandshort

historiesofHuerta,Rossiscreditedwithrecruitingherintocommunityorganizing:

IfIhadn’tmetFredRossthen,Idon’tknowifIeverwouldhavebeenorganizing.Peopledon’trealizetheirownworthandIwouldn’thaverealizedwhatIcoulddounlesssomeonehadshownfaithinme.Atthattimewewereorganizingagainstracialdiscrimination—thewayChicanosweretreatedbypolice,courts,politicians.Ihadtakenthestatusquoforgranted,butFredsaiditcouldchange.SoIstartedworking(BaerandMatthews232).

Intheexampleabove,weseethreeimportantwaysinwhichHuertacontinuestobuildher

ethos.First,sheexplainsthatRosshad“faith”inherthatsheherselfdidnotpossessatthe

time.Second,shereinforcesthatsheisjustlikeanybodyelseasshemakesthestatement,

“Peopledon’trealize…”whichindicatesthatmanyneedtobeencouragedtofeel

empoweredtomakechange.Lastly,Huertaappealstothefeelingofpowerlessnessthatis

oftenfacedbyoppressedpeople,illustratingthatshetoooncefellpreytosuchfeelingsbut

begantohelpworkforchangewiththeencouragementfromothers.

117

ReturningtoakeypassagefromherinterviewwithTheNation,Huertaaddresses

howshebegannegotiatingthecontractsfortheUFW:

WhenCesarputmeinchargeofnegotiationsinourfirstcontract,Ihadneverseenacontractbefore.Italkedtolaborpeople,Igotcopiesofcontractsandstudiedthemforaweekandahalf,soIknewsomethingwhenIcametotheworkers.CesaralmostfelloverbecauseIhadmyfirstcontractallwrittenandalltheworkershadvotedontheproposals.Hethoughtweoughttohaveanattorney,butreallyitwasbettertoputthecontractsinsimplelanguage.Ididallthenegotiationsmyselfforaboutfiveyears.Womenshouldrememberthis:beresourceful,youcandoanything,whetheryouhaveexperienceornot.Cesaralwayssaysthatthefirsteducationofpeopleishowtobepeopleandthentheotherthingsfallintoplace.(BaerandMatthews236)

HuertareferstoChavezfourtimesintheshortspanofthepassage.Shefirstuseshimto

demonstratehisconfidenceinappointinghertonegotiations,butshealsodemonstrates

herstrengthbysharingheroppositiontohisdesiretohaveanattorneywritethecontracts.

ChoosingtoshareherinteractionwithChavezinthemannerthatshedidlendstoherethos

constructionbyclearlyillustratingtheconfidencethatChavezhadinher;yet,perhaps

moreimportantly,shesimultaneouslyemphasizesherfocusonthefarmworkersby

disagreeingwithChavezandinsistingonaccessiblelanguage.Highlightingher

disagreementwithChavezultimatelyplacedherallegiancetothefarmworkersfirst.While

theseareseeminglysmallmoves,eachoftheillustrationsofherinteractionswithChavez

buildstheaudience’sunderstandingofwhosheisandallowsthemtodeterminewhether

ornotsheistrustworthy.Inotherwords,HuertaconsistentlyutilizedChavez’ssupportto

validatethetacticsandstrategiesofincludingwomenininstrumentalrolesforthecause,

whichstrengthenedratherthanweakenedhercredibility.

Inthepreviousexamples,theauthorizationfromRossandChavezisexplicitand

direct.However,inseveralothertexts,theauthorizationisimplicit.Returningtothe

extensive1976articleaboutHuertainMs.Magazine,Coburndedicatesseveralpagesto

118

providingdetailsabouttherigorousandcomplicatedschedulethatHuertakeptandgives

thereadera“birds-eye”viewofaweekinthelifeofHuerta.Interestingly,however,inthe

conclusionofthearticle,aftersharingHuerta’sabilitytoremainpositiveandmotivated

despitemultiplesetbacks,CoburncloseswithaquotationthatHuertagavefromChavez:

Whenshegetsdepressed,shesaysshethinksaboutthetime10yearsagowhentheunionwasdowntofewerthan20membersandhowtheylosttheirfirststrikewhentheworkersvotedtogobackwithoutacontract.“That’swhyCesaralwaysremindsusofthatdicho:Haymastiempoquevida”(Thereismoretimethanlife).(16)

Uponafirstreadingofthisarticle,theclosurewithChavez’svoicestruckmeasoddand

troublingbecauseitseemedtounderminethefocusonHuerta.However,afterclosely

consideringhowHuertabuilthercredibility,signingoffwithaquotationfromChavez

provestobeeffectivebecauseitbothsignifiessolidaritybetweenthetwoleadersand

placesthefocusbackonChavez.Hereagain,weseeHuerta’sacquiescencetoChavez’s

leadershipandtosomedegreethepowerofhisvalidationofherleadershiprole.Further,

perhapsitispreciselybecauseHuertaembodiestheidentityofwomanthatshemust

developastrategytoovercomeitsperceiveddeficitinordertobuildanauthoritativeethos,

apowerthatisgrantedbyamoreconventionalversionofauthority:aman.

Conclusion

Huerta,intentionallyornot,wasoftenintroducedtoheraudiencesthroughher

physicalidentity.Thisistruewhetherornothertextsweredeliveredthroughwrittentext

orinperson,giventhatsheinhabitedanobviouslyracedandgenderedbody.Further,

becauseHuertainhabitedabodygenerallydisassociatedwithauthority,partofher

rhetoricalstrategywasnecessarilyattendingtohermostvulnerableidentitiesdirectly.The

precedinganalysissuggeststhatlikethestrategiesandfeaturesthatCarolynSkinner

119

identifiedasfeaturesofafeministmodelofethos,Huertautilizedthematerialresources

availabletoherandnegotiatedconstructeddefinitionsofidentitywithheraudiences.In

effect,self-definitionwascriticaltoHuerta’sethosconstructionandHuertaoftenleveraged

theidentitycategoriesthathistoricallyweredisassociatedwithauthoritytoestablishher

credibilityandrighttobeinvolvedinthemovement.Inchapterfive,Iwillcontinuetobuild

onthefoundationlaidinthischaptertodemonstratehowthegenreofthetextsfeaturing

Huertaand/orauthoredbyherbothinfluencedherethosconstructionandaffectedher

interactionwithmultipleaudiences.

120

ChapterFiveEthosandGenre:Purpose,SocialAction,andtheRhetoricalSituation

DoloresHuertaworkedtoemphasizetoheraudiencessharedvaluesthatwere

understoodaspartofherroleasamotherorasaChicana,yetshealsohadtoattendto

howshecontradictedtraditionaldefinitionsofthoserolesinordertomaintainorestablish

authority.Huerta’sspokenandwrittenlanguagehelpsustounderstandnotonlyhowshe

positionedherselftoheraudiences,butalsohowweasrhetorsarereadandthewaysin

whichweareaffectedbythebodywelivein.Becauseourexperiencesarewrappedup

withinourbodies,rhetoricisembodied.Inotherwords,ourbodiesareexpressiveof

culturalmeaningsthatimpacthowweareinterpretedasspeakers.Furthermore,because

knowledgeissituated,ourembodiedexperiencescontributetothoseknowledges;thus,the

knowledgeclaimswemakearearesultofourownpositionality.

WhileHuertasharedtheracial/ethnicidentitywithmanyofthefarmworkersthat

sherecruitedasmembersoftheUFW,asaChicanashedidnotsharetheethnicidentity

withmostoftheaudienceswhomshewasaskingtojointheboycottortosupportthefarm

workers’movement.Nonetheless,whenrecruitingsupportforthemovement,Huerta

addressedmultipleorganizationsandaudiences,whichrequiredaswiftandinterpersonal

negotiationofidentity.MuchlikethewomenphysiciansexaminedbyCarolynSkinner,

Huertawasskillfulinemphasizingthevaluesshesharedwithherintendedaudience(177).

Specifically,Skinnerarguesthat“developinganeffectiveprofessionalethossometimes

requiredreferencenotonlytoone’sexpertiseandauthoritybutalsotoone’sstatusasa

mother,anAfricanAmerican,aresidentofaparticularcity,orperhapsallthreeatonce”

(177).IaddtothisargumentbynotonlyrecognizingHuerta’sstrategyofconnectingto

121

audiencesbeyondprofessionalaffiliationbutalsobyconsideringhowHuertadefinesand

(re)defineseachoftheidentitycategoriessheconsistentlyreferredto.

Inchapterfour,IexaminedseveraltextsfromandaboutHuertafocusingonhow

Huerta’sidentitieswereestablishedandutilizedaskeystoknowingher.Additionally,I

demonstratedhowHuertadefinedherselfinrelationshiptotheidentitiesthatshe

embodied,aswellashowsheworkedtoredefineelementsofheridentitycategories.To

continuedemonstratingthecomplexityofdevelopingethos,inthischapterIaddtothis

analysisbyspecificallyexaminingtheroleofgenreintheconstructionofethos.Lookingto

genreoffersanadditionallayertounderstandinghowauthorsandrhetorsmustnegotiate

avarietyofenvironmentsandconventionswhenbuildingtheirethosandhowtheyoften

mustworkwithandagainstsocialexpectationstodoso.CarolynSkinner’sthirdfeatureof

afeministmodelofethosstates,“Ethosandgenreareintertwined”(177).Morespecifically,

Skinnerpositsthatnineteenth-centurywomenphysiciansadaptedcommonlyutilized

genresinthemedicalprofessioninordertohelpestablishtheirethos.Forexample,Skinner

writesthatwomenphysicians“oftenemphasizedtheirfemininityintheirhealth

informationtexts,creatinganewsortofethosforthegenre,onesuitedtothewoman

physician’slocationbetweenmedicineandfemininity”(79).Likewise,IarguethatHuerta

bothskillfullyutilizedestablishedgenrestoshapeherethosandsimultaneouslyreshaped

genrestobetterservethesocialactionthatshewasengagedin,whichfurtherestablished

hercredibility.Indeed,whilegenresarefarmorefluidthanfixed,examiningtypified

rhetoricalactionssituatedinspecificgenresoffersanimportantlensthroughwhichwe

mightbetterunderstandthecomplexitiesofethosconstruction.

122

Inthischapter,Ifirstuserhetoricalgenretheorytoestablishhowgenrefunctionsas

socialactionandasanimperativepartoftherhetoricalsituation.Drawingonthis

conceptionofgenre,Ithenrevisitandfurtheranalyzethesamekeyarticlesfrom

publicationsexaminedinchapterfourinordertodemonstratehowthemediatedgenreof

periodicalarticlessignificantlyinfluencesHuerta’sethosinbothsubtleanddramaticways.

Thereisarangeofgenresthatfallbeneathwhatwemightcalljournalisticgenressuchas

features,human-intereststories,straightnews,opeds,etc.Mytaskinexaminingthe

specificgenreofeachtextbecomescomplicatedsincemanypublicationsoftendonot

indicateexplicitlywhatsortofgenreeacharticlerepresents.Thatsaid,whatclearlyunites

thearticlesIexamineherearetheirfocusonsocialissuesandtheirheavyuseofnarrative

andinterviews.Savemyanalysisofthememos,letters,andspeechesinthelaterpartsof

thischapter,eachofthetextualartifactswrittenaboutHuertafeaturedinperiodical

publicationscanbelikenedtofeatures/human-intereststoriesandinterviewarticles.

Interviewarticlescanbeidentifiedbythespacededicatedtothesubject’svoiceandthe

subject’sresponsestospecificquestionsposedbythejournalist.Whileaninterviewarticle

willattimesonlyincludetheactualinterviewquestionsandresponses,ahuman-interest

storywilloftenincludepiecesofinterviewsthataremediatedandcuratedwithadditional

content.Itisalsotruethathumanintereststoriescansometimesfocusonnewscoverage

andextendedjournalisticinvestigationsofso-calledfacelesscurrentorhistoricalevents,

however,mosthuman-intereststoriesindeedhaveafaceandfocusonanindividual’sora

group’sstory.Thatis,human-intereststoriesfocusonhumansandofferastory.Thesocial,

human,andnarrativeaspectsofhuman-intereststoriesmakethemprimecandidatesfor

examiningethosconstruction.Ofcourse,becausethesegenresaremorefluidthanfixed

123

andbecauseotherfactorssignificantlyinfluencetheconstructionofatextthisexamination

oftenincludesfeaturesofthepublication,content,andgenre.

Furthermore,tocomplicatemyanalysisofgenreinkeyperiodicalpublications,I

alsoexplorewhatmaybeconsideredlessmediatedgenrestakenupbyHuerta,including

personalletters,interofficememos,andspeechesshedelivered.Myinvestigationof

Huerta’suptakeofthesegenresfurtherestablishestherolethatgenreinhabitsinthe

constructionofethos—especiallywhentherhetorhasmorecontroloverthetextthatis

craftedandhowitisdelivered.AnisBawarshiexplainsthat“whenwritersbegintowritein

differentgenres,theyparticipatewithinthesedifferentsetsofrelations,relationsthat

motivatethem,consciouslyorunconsciously,toinventboththeirtextsandthemselves”

(17).AsBawarshipointsout,genresupportstheinventionofthewriter;therefore,atext

craftedandsharedinaparticulargenreactsasadisplayofidentity.Hence,highlymediated

genresprovidelessopportunityfortherhetortohaveagencyovertheiridentityand,by

extension,theethostheyconstruct.Ultimately,examiningtheroleofgenreinthe

constructionofethoscomplicatesthenotionofethosandthemannerinwhichitcanandis

constructed.

TheInfluenceofGenreinEthos

LookingatHuertaasarhetor,wearenotonlyforcedtoattendtotherolesofrace,

class,andgenderinadiscussionofethosbutarealsoenrichedbydoingso.Although

Huertainhabitedabodydisassociatedwithauthorityandpower—atleastinUSdominant

culture—hergendered,cultural,andclassedidentitieswereironicallyoftenherbiggest

assetsinbuildingherethos.Analyzingthewaysinwhich,andtowhatextent,eachofthese

categorieswerepositionedanddefinedrevealstheethosstrategiesHuertaemployedto

124

createchannelsofidentificationwithheraudiences,whichallowedhertoeffectively

sidestepthepotentialtrappingsofherintersectionalsubjugation.And,importantly,many

ofthestrategiesandpossibilitiesforattendingtoheridentityinordertoconstructher

ethosweregreatlyaffectedbythegenreinwhichshewasrepresented.Inher

groundbreakingarticle,“GenreasSocialAction,”CarolynMillerexaminesprevious

conceptionsofgenretheorythatconsideredgenreasnotmuchmorethanacataloging

system.Millerextendsourunderstandingofgenrebydrawingattentiontotherhetorical

functionsofgenres.Specifically,Millerposits,“Genrereferstoaconventionalcategoryof

discoursebasedinlarge-scaletypificationofrhetoricalaction;asaction,itacquires

meaningfromsituationandfromthesocialcontextinwhichthatsituationarose”(163).

Recognizingthatgenreisasocialactionlaysthefoundationforunderstandingthecritical

roleitplayedinbuilding—orattheveryleastinfluencing—Huerta’sethos.Further,Miller

explains,“Agenreisarhetoricalmeansformediatingprivateintentionsandsocial

exigence;itmotivatesbyconnectingtheprivatewiththepublic,thesingularwiththe

recurrent”(163).Miller’sextensionofhowgenrefunctionsrhetoricallyleadsustoview

genreasameetingplacethatbringstheprivateselfintodirectcontactwiththepublic

audience,whichpositionsgenreasanagentthataffectsethos.

DrawingonMiller,bothAmyDevittandBawarshicontinuetoadvanceour

understandingofrhetoricalgenreandfundamentallyplacegenreasasignificantconcept

forunderstandingrhetoricalpractice.ForDevittandBawarshi,genrebothshapesandis

shapedbysocialsituation.AsDevittexplainsinherarticle,“GeneralizingaboutGenre,”

“Genreconstructsandrespondstorecurringsituation,becomingvisiblethroughperceived

patternsinthesyntactic,semantic,andpragmaticfeaturesofparticulartexts.Genreis

125

truly,therefore,amakerofmeaning”(94).InmyanalysisofthegenrestakenupbyHuerta

and/orwereaboutHuerta,Iseektoexamineethosconstructionthroughbothgenreand

genrerelatedelements.

Bawarshisupportsthisassertionwhenhecallsintoquestionfocusingononlythe

traditionalcatalogingorcontainerfunctionofgenre.Specifically,Bawarshiarguesthat

genresarenotmerely“transparentandinnocentconduitsthatindividualsusetopackage

theircommunicativegoals”(23).Instead,hepositsthatgenres“shapeandhelpusgenerate

ourcommunicativegoals,includingwhythesegoalsexist,whatandwhosepurposesthey

serve,andhowbesttoachievethem”(23).Bawarshi’sclaimgeneratesanimportant

considerationforhowgenreaffectsethos.Genresshapewritersintermsofwhatthey

write,whytheywrite,andhowtheywrite.Thegenreanauthorusestosharetheirmessage

determinestherhetoricalexpectationsbywhichanaudiencemaygaugetheeffectiveness

oftherhetorandhermessage.Certaingenres,likesomejournalisticgenres,canbeseenas

morerestrictiveintheiralignmentstospecificpublishers,organizations,andsponsors,as

wellastheirreadership.Therefore,genreiscertainlynotinnocentorbenign,especially

whenweconsiderthatgenres—andthetypifieduptakesofthem—helpsdeterminesthe

rhetoricalrulesthatarhetorwillaimtoachieve.Whilegenressuitedforprivate,everyday

usemaybeunderstoodasgivingtherhetormoreflexibilityandagencyinhowmessages

arecommunicatedandrhetoricallyachieved,insomejournalisticgenrestherhetorholds

lesscontroloverwhatgetsincluded,altered,orexcluded.Genre,then,notonlydirectly

affectstheethosofarhetor(asinhowwelltherhetormeetsthecommunicativeand

stylisticexpectationsofthespecificgenre)butalsoaffectsthecontentincludedaswellas

thestrategiesthatarhetormightutilizeinordertoconstructtheirmessageandtheirethos.

126

Itcanbearguedthatgenreinfluencesaudiences’conceptionsofthewriter;thisis

furthercomplicatedwhentheaudienceexperiencesHuertaincertainjournalisticgenres.

Thisisbecauseethosinjournalisticgenresisconstructednotonlybycharacterizationof

Huertaasasubjectbutbytherhetoricalchoicesofthejournalistswriting;furthermore,

additionalfactorssuchasthepublication,thepoliticsofthepublication,thepurposeofthe

piece,andthefigure/rhetor’svoiceareallintertwinedwithgenreand,thus,allimpact

ethosconstruction.Inotherwords,ethosconstructionasunderstoodthroughatextrests

onmorethanjusttheauthor/rhetorandincludestheforcesfromotheraspectsofthe

genreandtext.Likewise,whileitmayappearthatanauthorismoreorlessincontrolof

theirstrategiesemployedtobuildethosinaspeechorpresentation,inactuality,thereare

undoubtedlyotheroutside,seeminglyunrelatedforces,includedgenreitself,atworkin

anycommunicativeact.

Inherarticle“Genre,Location,andMaryAustin’sEthos,”authorRisaApplegarth

recognizestheroleofgenreinethosconstructionandarguesthatethosstrategiesare

indeedstronglyinfluencedbygenre.Notsurprisingly,Ifoundthataclosestudyofseveral

textsfromavarietyofsources(bothaboutandbyHuerta)offeredagreatdealofinsight

intoHuerta’srhetoricalstrategy.Pointedly,Applegarthexplains,“[b]ecausegenres

organizerhetoricalresourcesaswellasstructurerhetoricalconstraints,genres

significantlyshapeone’spossibilitiesforethos.Locatingone’stext—andoneself—ina

genrebeginstheworkoflocatingoneselfrelativetoaparticularaudience”(50).What

Applegarth’sargumentsuggestsisthatitisimperativeforarhetortounderstandthe

genre—andbyextensiontheaudienceforaparticulargenre—inordertoinvent,construct,

oremphasizeappropriatevaluesinacommunicativeact.Asaresult,therhetoricalmoves

127

thatHuertamadetoattendto,define,orredefineherethosvarieddependingonthegenre

withwhichshewasworking.Forinstance,unlikethemoretraditionalgenresofrhetorical

study,suchasthespeechesandlettersthatIexamine,theinterviewsandhumaninterest

storiesfeaturingHuertabroughtanadditionaldimensionofmediation:thatofthe

journalist,publication,audience,and,Iargue,thegenre.Asdiscussedinpreviouschapters,

Huertanecessarilyattendedtothepositioningfromorbythejournalistthatoftenrevolved

aroundherpersonalidentitiesratherthanherprofessionalstature.Wecanfurther

understandthispositioningasasocialactresultingfromthenegotiationofgenre,audience

expectations,andtheauthor’swishesandconstraints.

Ethos,then,isanegotiationbetweenagenerallyperceivedaudienceandtherhetor

andisalso—withinparticulargenres—arbitratedthroughthosethatcontrolthenarrative.

Intheanalysisthatfollows,IexaminethewaysHuerta’sethoswasimpactedbythevariety

ofgenresutilizedbyauthorswritingaboutHuerta,aswellasthosegenrestakenupby

Huertaherself.Ibeginbycontinuingtheanalysisoftheperiodicalspresentedinchapter

fourandthenaddletters,memos,andspeechestothediscussioninordertodemonstrate

therelevanceofgenreinethosconstruction.

Periodicals

Myuseof“periodicals”inthischapterismeanttorefertothevariousgenreswetypically

aligntoprintjournalism.Morespecifically,Iuse“periodicals”and“journalisticgenres”as

umbrellatermsthatincludegenressuchasarticles(news,trademagazine,interview,

humaninterest),letterstotheeditor,opinioncolumns,advicecolumns,andfeaturestories.

Whileeachofthesejournalisticgenresdiffergiventheirrhetoricalsituations,thefeatures

andrhetoricalmovesmadeinjournalisticgenresareoftenaligned,whichinpartexplains

128

whywecanreadamagazinearticleoutofcontextandstillmakeoutitsgenre.Myfocus

hereliesoninterviewarticlesandhuman-intereststories.Beingfeaturedinthesesortsof

journalisticgenresofferedseveralbenefitsforHuertaandtheUFW,particularlyduetothe

socialandnarrativefeaturesbothinclude.Interviewarticlesandhuman-intereststories,as

distinctfromnewsarticles,lendthemselvestohumanisticappealand,thus,ethos

construction.Furthermore,theyhavethepotentialtoserveasrhetoricaleducation(for

moreonthis,seeJessicaEnoch’schapter,“ClaimingCulturalCitizenship,”andCristina

Ramirez’sarticle,“ForgingaMestizaRhetoric:MexicanWomenJournalist’sRoleinthe

ConstructionofaNationalIdentity,”whichbothillustratehowMexicanjournalistsused

newspaperarticlesasrhetoricaleducation).Furthermore,thepromisesofrhetorical

educationinherentinthesegenresarecomplicatedbythenegotiationbetweenjournalist

andHuerta.Iwishtoexplorethenegotiationofethosthatoccurswhenthevoicesfeatured

inthetextaremany—inthiscase,thejournalist(presumablybodiless)aswellasHuerta

(thesubjectbeingfeatured)shapeHuerta’sethosbyhighlighting,defining,andredefining

commonlyheldconceptionsofidentitythroughthepowerofprint.

Todemonstrate,allowmetoreturntothelaboruniontradepublicationexamined

inchapterfour.TheSeafarer’sInternationalUnion(SIU)demonstratestheirsupportof

HuertaandtheUFW,thusactingassponsorofboth.TheSIU’smagazinegenerallyfocused

onissuesfacingseafaringworkers,andtheyalsoendorsedactionsbyotherindustry

unions.Forexample,intheeditionthatincludedthearticleabouttheUFW,theSIU’stable

ofcontentswascomprisedofarticlesabouttheSIUtaxidrivers’division,thehistoryof

seafarers’bravery,andanarticlethathighlightedtheuseofanti-laborpropagandain

education.Itappears,then,thatthepurposeoftheSIU’smagazinewastoinformmembers

129

abouttheworkoftheirunionandsharestoriesabouttheirownindustry,aswellasto

garnersupportfortheworkofotherunionsandthelaborforce.Thepurposeofthe

publicationdirectlyaffectsthelengthandcontentconstraintsframingthevariousarticles

withinit.However,consideringtheroleofgenreinthisexamplefurtherdemonstrateshow

thesocialcontractbetweentextandaudienceexpectationscanfurtherimpactcontentand,

hence,howethosisconstructed.GiventhatthearticleHuertawasfeaturedinwastitled,

“FarmWorkers-TheUnionMakesThemStrong”intheSIU’spublication,itwouldfollow

thatthefocuswouldbeonthemovementandtheUFWasstrategicinordertoreinforcethe

readers’notionofstrengthinunionmembership.Thegeneralargumentofthearticleitself

supportsthisassumption.Indeed,althoughthearticlefocusesinonHuerta,themajorityof

thetextisdedicatedtoillustratingthecriticalrolethatunionmembershiphasplayedinthe

fightagainstdeplorableworkingconditions.Allthatsaid,becauseHuertastandsoutinthe

discussionandbecausethearticleincludesaphysicaldescriptionofHuertaandanexplicit

linkingtoherasa“motherofsevenyoungsters”itisworthconsideringnotjusttheethosof

themovementconstructed,butalsotheethosofHuerta.Morespecifically,asthegenreof

thisfeaturedarticlefocusesonsocialphenomenonandcanbelikenedtoahuman-interest

story,itprovidesinsightintothemanywaysinwhichHuerta’sethoswasconstructedin

printjournalismandjournalisticmediationofgenre.

TheinclusionofafeaturearticleabouttheUFWandHuertaisinlinewiththe

publication’spurposeanditscontent;anditfollowsthatsuchafeaturestorythenfocuses

onthehumanenterpriseofcommunityorganizing.Indeed,thisleadstoryinthisissue

maintainsthegenrefeaturesofahuman-interestarticle.Evenintheissue’stableof

contents,foundinthefrontinsidecoverofthepublication,wecanseethehumanand

130

socialfocusasitincludesaheadshotofHuertaandashort“teaser”advertisingthearticle

abouttheUFWandHuerta,whichreadsasfollows:

HeadedbyDoloresHuerta…theirsoft-spokenvicepresident,fiftyAFL-CIOagriculturalworkershavesetupcampinNewYorkCity.Hereinthenation’smajormarketplace,theyarelaunchinganationalcampaigntoalertthepublictotheshamefulplightoffarmworkers—thenation’sforgottenpeople.Theirtechnique:Aconsumer-produceindustryboycottofunfairfarmproductstopinchthepocketbooknerveoftheindustrythatexploitsthem.Theirgoal:Tomobilizesentimental[sic]behindtheircontinuingstruggleforunionrecognitionadequatewagesanddecentconditionsonthegiantcorporatefarms.(“FarmWorkers:TheUnionMakesthemStrong”1)

ThisexcerptfirstindicateshowHuertaservesasthehumanfocusor“face”ofthislarger

organizationandmovement(thefactthatherpictureaccompaniesthepiecefurther

supportsthisnotion).Further,byplacingHuerta’sphysicalityupfrontinthetext(when

qualifyingherassoft-spoken),itservestoshapetheethosandcredibilityofHuertaby

recognizingherasthevicepresidentoftheunionandpositioningtheworkoftheUFWas

vital.Ofcourse,itistypicalforsuchagenretobeginwiththepersonofinterest.However,

whilethisgenretypicallyfeaturesadescriptionofthesubject,theapproachtodescribing

theindividualisnotdictatedbythegenreconstraints,andsowecannotignorethefactthat

physicalityiswhatthejournalistfocuseson.Whileit’snotinherentlyproblematictobegin

withadescriptionofembodiedidentities,wealsocannotoverlookitsroleinshaping

Huerta’sethos.Thus,whilethesocialcontractofgenreexpectationsremainintact,because

thepositionofvicepresidentfortheUFWwasheldbya“softspoken”woman,themanner

inwhichthejournalistsituatedHuertaultimatelyforegroundsherfemininity.This,thus,

representsarhetoricalmediationbetweenthejournalist,thegenre,andthesubjectthat

resultsinacharacterizationofHuerta.

131

Similarly,TheNationmagazine—awell-establishedmagazinethatcoverssocial

justiceissues—shapesHuerta’sethosbydedicatingmuchofitssix-pagespreadtodirect

quotationsfromHuerta.AccordingthetableofcontentsfortheFebruary23,1974edition

ofthemagazinetherewerefivepagesofeditorials,fourfeaturearticlesthatvariedin

lengthandapproximatelytenpagesofbookandartreviews.UnliketheSIUleadfeature

article,theNationplacedHuerta’sarticlesecondinthefeaturessection.However,the

magazineallocatedthelargestamountofspacetothearticleaboutthewomenofthe

boycott.Inaddition,liketheSIUarticletheNationarticleranasafeaturethatsharedthe

characteristicsofahuman-intereststory.Asafeaturearticlethespaceallocatedandthe

narrativeformprovideagreatdealofagencytothejournalistandeditortomakecreative

decisions.Thisisnotasmallpointbutinsteadbridgesthepublicationatextislocatedin

andtheimportantroleofgenre.Inotherwords,theexpectations—orsocialcontract—for

thecombinedgenresofafeaturearticleandahuman-intereststorycallfornarrativetobe

acentralcharacteristicalongwiththeextendedspaceforthearticle.AddingAsMiller,

Devitt,Bawarshi,andApplegarthhaveestablished,thegenreofatext—andmorebroadly

ofdiscourse—bothaffectsandisaffectedbytherhetoricalsituationthatpromptedit.Of

course,injustaboutanyprintmediumtherearemanychoicesthatarerequiredinorderto

runtext,and,inthecaseofamagazinearticlelikethatofTheNation,suchdecisionsare

generallyoutofthehandsofthefeaturedpublicfigure/rhetor.Therefore,themediation

fromjournalistsandeditors(e.g.,whatquestionstoaskandhowmuchspacetoallot)

framesthefeaturedpublicfigureinveryspecificways.Inaddition,thecurationofthe

rhetor’swords(e.g.,whatdirectquotationstoincludeandhowtheyarearranged)also

significantlyshapehowtherhetorisunderstoodandtrusted.Thus,thegenreofthe

132

feature/human-intereststoryincludescharacteristicsofnarrativethatworktoshape

Huerta’sethosindistinctways.

Thecombinationofhuman-interestandinterviewgenrecharacteristicslikethat

foundintheTheNation’sfeaturearticleaboutHuerta,providedherthespacenotonlyto

nuanceandchallengemanyviewsoftheidentitycategoriesthatsheinhabited,butalsoto

teachandredefinethosecategories.Giventhefluidnatureofgenre,asevidencedby

Bawarshi,Devitt,andothers,itisnotsurprisingtoseethecombinationofthefeature

articlewithhuman-interestandinterviewgenrecharacteristics,butitisenrichingto

examinehowthosefeaturesopenedupimportantopportunitiesforHuertatodirectly

addressherembodiedidentities.TheextensivespacethatTheNationallocatedfordirect

quotationsfromHuertainfluencedherethosinprimarilytwoways.First,becauseofthe

already-establishedmissionandtypifiedactionsoftheNation,itstoodasevidenceforthe

importanceofHuertaandtheUFWbecausethejournalistssanctioned—orsponsored—

Huerta’svoicebyprovidingherwiththespaceandopportunitytoaddressissuesofher

identityinconjunctionwithherpositionintheUFW.Forexample,thesecondpageofthe

articleincludestwocolumnswithapproximatelyelevenparagraphs.Oftheeleven

paragraphs,sixconsecutiveparagraphsweredirectlyfromHuertainresponsetoquestions

presumablyaboutherroleasamother:

Ihadalotofdoubtstobeginwith,butIhadtoactinspiteofmyconflictbetweenmyfamilyandmycommitment.Mybiggestproblemwasnottofeelguiltyaboutit.Idon’tanymore[sic],butthen,everybodyusedtolaytheseguilttripsonme,aboutwhatabadmotherIwas,neglectingmychildren.(BaerandMatthews233)

Second,asisevidentinthepreviousexcerpt,Huertautilizedthespaceaffordedtoherby

addressingsomeofthemostcontentiouspersonalissuesthatshefaced(e.g.,beingaccused

133

ofbeinganegligentmother).Insodoing,Huertautilizedtheinterviewgenreto“invent”

herselfassherespondedtothejournalist’squestions,whichalsoallowedhertoaffectthe

constructionofidentitycategories.Inaddition,bytheendofthesix-paragraphsection,

Huertawasredefiningmotherhoodandwhatcountswhengeneralizingaboutchildrearing.

AfterdetailingmanyofthebenefitsofbeingpartoftheUFWforherchildren,Huerta

providesapersonalanecdoteaboutherdaughterwhowasinvitedtogoshoppingfornew

clotheswithasupporteroftheUFW:

[Mydaughter]wasreallyembarrassed.Weneverbuynewclothes,youknow,wegeteverythingoutofthedonations…Hervaluesarepeopleandnotthings.Ithastobethatway—that’swhyeveryonewhoworksfull-timefortheuniongets$5aweek,plusgasmoneyandwhateverfoodandhousingtheyneedtoliveon,liveonattheminimumtheycan.(BaerandMatthews233)

Overthecourseoftheinterview,Huertaoftencomposedherviewsaboutmotherhood,

race,socialclass,andwomanhoodinrelationtotheUFWandthefightforfarmlaborers’

rights.Theopportunitytoaddresssuchissueswas,inpart,duetotheinterviewgenre.

However,itisalsocrucialtonotethatwhiletheinterviewgenregenerallyincludesthe

voiceofthepersonofinterestandispromptedbyspecificquestionsposedtothe

interviewee,thesubsequentarticlecanbestructuredinavarietyofways,suchasa

question/answerform,exclusivelyquotedmaterial,combinationofnarrativefromthe

journalistandquotedexcerpts,tonamejustafew.Therefore,payingcloseattentionto

boththefeaturesofagenreandthewaysinwhichtheyareappliedprovidesagreater

understandingofhowethosisaffectedbygenreandgenreconventions.

LikethearticleinTheNation,Ms.magazinealsoreservedagreatdealofspaceto

Huerta’svoiceandappearstobeacombinationofbothhuman-interestandinterview

genres,butwasdistinctinthatitwasexplicitlypartofthe“People”section.Underthe

134

headingof“Departments”itappearsthatMs.magazineregularlyfeaturedprominent

figuresinthePeoplesectionanddedicatedmorespacethanjustaboutanyotherarticlein

themagazine.TheorganizingschemeofMs.shedssomelightontherhetoricalinfluenceof

thelayout.Specifically,thetableofcontentsofMs.includesfourheadings:Features,The

Ms.Gazette,Departments,andServices.TheFeaturessectionincludesfourteenarticles,and

onlyoneofwhichislongerthantwopages.Theshortlengthofthearticlesincludedinthe

Featuressectionappearstocountertheexpectationsforfeaturesarticles,whichtendtobe

longerinjournalistgenres,butislikelytohavebeenwhatMs.readershadcometoexpect.

UnliketheFeaturessection,Departmentsseemtobeavarietyofspecialinterestarticles

includingthehuman-intereststoryintheirPeoplesection.IncontrasttotheFeature

articles,thePeoplearticleaboutHuertaisfive-pageswithspacetakenbyonlytwo

advertisements.Ascouldbeexpected,asahuman-intereststorythearticleaboutHuerta

wasextensiveandincludedseveraldirectquotesfromHuerta.Theevidentpopularityof

Ms.MagazineanditsdirectedmissionaddedvaluetothearticleaboutHuertabecauseit

offeredalargedistributionchannelaswellasadirectlinktolikelyallies.Additionally,

featuringHuertaintheirPeoplesectionlikelystoodasevidenceofherabilitiestotheMs.

audience.ThereadershipofMs.waslikelytobeinterestedincivilrightsissuesand

sympathetictothecausethatHuertawaschampioning,buttheymaynothavebeen

familiarspecificallywiththeplightofthefarmworkers.BothTheNationandMs.offera

forumforHuertatoconnectnationallytopotentialsupporters.Becauseboththe

expectationforthecontentofthepublicationandthegenreofthearticlesactasa

location—orgatheringplace—inwhichparticipantsaresomehowconnected,theinclusion

135

ofHuertaandtheframingofhersignificanceinthemovementstronglyinfluencedher

ethos.

Interestingly,theMs.articlefeaturingHuertawasprintedintheNovember1976

issuebutwasactuallywrittenoverayearearlier.Whilethereasonforthedelayinrunning

thearticleisnotprovided,theauthordidofferanupdateonthestatusoftheUFWthat

includedmanyvictoriesintheirorganizingefforts.Thedisclosureregardingtimingdraws

ourattentiontothebroadercontextofthetimeandsuggeststhatahuman-intereststory

mayhavelesspressuretobeprintedinatimelymanner,thusemphasizingtheinfluenceof

genre.Inthestablenotionofgenre,magazinearticlesmightbecategorizedas

informationaltextsthatrelydeeplyontiming.However,understandingthattiming—and

byextensionexigence—canbeconstructedjustasmanyotherrhetoricalappealsare,in

thiscase,thedisclosurefromjournalistJudithCoburnservestoreframethecontextin

whichHuertawascovered.PerhapsincludedasanaffirmationofthesuccessoftheUFW

andHuerta’sroleinit,Coburnclearlyalignsherselfwithsupportersofthecampaignwhen

shewrites,“WhileUFWvictoriespileup,growerandTeamsterlobbyistsinSacramento

succeededincuttingofffundsneededtocontinueelections”(11).Byframingthearticle

throughthesuccessesoftheUFWandHuertaandalsotheobstaclescreatedbyits

opposition(e.g.,growersandTeamsters),CoburneffectivelyaddstoHuerta’scredibility

andcompetencewhilealsoemphasizingtheurgencyofthecause.Itisinpartbecausethis

articleiswrittenundertheexpectationsofahuman-interestgenrethatthenarrativecould

besoheavilyinfluencedbytheauthor.

UnlikeTheNationandtradepublicationfromSIU,Ms.hadahighlypublicizedand

contentiousstart.AccordingtoMs.Magazine,itsfirstissuesweremetwithskepticismfrom

136

some,butthemagazineout-performedtheirexpectations.Ms.detailstheirhistoryontheir

currentwebsite:

AndafterthefirstregularissuehitthenewsstandsinJuly1972,thenetworknewsanchorHarryReasonerchallenged,“I’llgiveitsixmonthsbeforetheyrunoutofthingstosay.”ButMs.struckachordwithwomen.Its300,000“one-shot”testcopiessoldoutnationwideineightdays.Itgeneratedanastonishing26,000subscriptionordersandover20,000readerletterswithinweeks.BythetimeMs.celebratedits15thanniversaryin1987,Reasoner,mediasoothsayers,andthenationhadallbeenpressedtochangetheirtune.(“About”)

Additionally,withoneoftheprimarymissionsofMs.beingtheadvancementof

women,itisnotsurprisingthatCoburnrepresentedHuertathrougha“groundbreaking”

lens.Orrather,insteadoffocusingspecificallyonHuerta’sgender,Coburnemphasizesher

raceandculturaldifferencesaswellasheruntraditionalrolesasexamplesoffeaturesthat

makeherallthemore“exceptional.”Injournalisticgenresthecurationofthematerials,or

thedecisionsofhowmuchofaninterviewtoinclude,thenarrativeincludedthatframes

thedirectquotes,andthearrangementofthearticleaffectthewaysinwhichthereader

understandsthepersonbeinginterviewed.Likewise,themediatednatureoftheinterview

genre,ormorespecificallythedecisionsofthetypesoftextstoinclude,whatquestions

mightbeasked,andtheamountofspacetoallottedtothearticlealsosignificantly

influencehowthereaderviewsthepersonbeinginterviewed.IntheMs.articleweseea

directexampleofhowthehybridhuman-interest/interviewarticleallowsfortheinclusion

oftheinterviewee’svoice.Forexample,besidesdescribingHuertabyheridentifiablyraced

qualities,CoburnalsodirectlyasksHuertaabout“theclashofcultures,”seeminglyto

addresstheracial/ethnicdifferencesbetweenfeminismandtraditionalLatino/avalues.

Huertareplieswithasupportivenoteonfeminismandthenaddressesissuesofclass

ratherthanrace:

137

Iconsidermyselfafeminist,andtheWomen’sMovementhasdonealottowardhelpingmenotfeelguiltyaboutmydivorces.Butamongpoorpeople,there’snotanyquestionaboutthewomenbeingstrong—evenstrongerthanmen—theyworkinthefieldsrightalongwiththemen.Whenyoursurvivalisatstake,youdon’thavethesequestionsaboutyourselflikethemiddle-classwomendo.Andinourculture,raisingkidsisthemostimportantthingyoucando,notlikeamongwhites.(Coburn13)

WhilemuchofCoburn’sarticleisanarrationofwhatsheobservesoverseveraldaysof

shadowingHuerta,shealsoincludeskeypassagesfromHuertaliketheoneabove.The

passageabove—asframedandpresumablycuratedbyCoburn—providesHuertawiththe

spacetorespondtothequestionofaculturalclash,butHuertadeflectsthefocusfrom

strictlyracialtensionsandinsteademphasizestheintersectionalnatureofherpositionby

foregroundingissuesofsocialclass.

Anotherfeatureofmanyjournalisticgenresisthatoftheheadline.Eachheadline

andsubheadlines(thosefoundwithinthebodyofanarticle)actasarhetoricaldevicethat

shapesthefocusofthereader.Ortoputitanotherway,headlinesandsubheadlines

indicatewhatismostimportantaboutthecontentofthearticle.Forexample,Huerta’s

exceptionalfeaturesareoftenemphasizedthroughcategorizationsofherpersonalitythat

aretypicallydisassociatedwithhergender,class,orethnicidentities.Andalthoughmany

ofthearticlesaboutHuertamakeapointtoaddressherintensepersonalityasacritical

elementofwhosheis,theMs.articledrawsattentiontoHuerta’swillingnesstobe

confrontationalbyrunningaheadlineonthefourthpageofthearticlethatreads,“Dolores

Huertaisnotoriousintheunionforcombativeness”(Coburn14).Theprominentaddition

ofsuchaheadlinesignalsHuerta’snontraditionalcharacteristicsandconsequentlyaddsto

herfeministandauthoritativecharacter.

138

Thefeaturesofthehuman-intereststory,especiallyonethatincludesaninterview,

workcollectivelytoshapetheethosoftheintervieweealongwiththeaudience/readers,

journalists,editors,publications,andofcoursethefeaturedperson.Ineachofthearticles

Huertawaspositionedasanatypicalbutcommittedleaderintheunion.Withthe

combinationofboththepublications’missionsandthejournalists’framing,itisapparent

thatallfivearticleswereendorsingtheimportantworkoftheUFW.Additionally,fourof

thefivearticleswerepublishedinperiodicalsclearlyalignedwithideologiesthatare

stronglyconnectedtoidentity.Thus,becausethegenreofperiodicalarticles,andmore

specificallyhuman-interest/interviewarticles,allowforthejournalisttocraftanarrative

aroundtheintervieweeandtoincludethevoiceoftheintervieweeitsignificantly

influencesethosconstruction.Beinghighlighted,supported,andprovidedwiththespaceto

attendtoissuesofidentityinthe“allied”publicationswaslikelytoaidHuerta’sethos

constructionamongtheirtargetedmarketsandserveasverificationofhercredibility.In

otherwords,featuringHuertalegitimizedherroleasaknowledgeableleaderintheUFW,

particularlytotheintendedaudiences,thusinfluencingherethosconstruction.

AsMillerpointsoutin“GenreasSocialAction,”genreisindeedmorecomplexthana

merecatalogingsystem.However,assheandseveralrhetoricalgenretheoristsindicate,

genredoesactasasocialnormingstructureinwhichwelearnwhatisexpectedfrom

specificformsoftextsandwhatisexpectedinresponsetospecificrecurringsituations

(Bawarshi;Bazerman;Devitt;Miller).Thus,periodicalarticles—asevidencedbytheirneed

tobeproducedwithinspecifictimeframes—tendtobecreatedinordertodealwithtime

sensitiveissuesthatwouldbeofinteresttotheirparticularconstituencies.Hence,the

choiceofaneditor,journalist,orpublicationtoincludeanarticlepromotingHuertaandthe

139

farmlaborers’causecontributedtotheexigenceforthemovementandverifiedHuerta’s

authority,buttowhatdegreeandefficacywasdeterminedbyHuerta’slevelof

participationinthegenre.Sowhilethereareseveralcommonalitiesamongtheperiodicals

thatIhaveexaminedforthisproject—suchasmediation,curation,sectionlocation,andthe

sponsorshipofHuerta’swords—therearealsosubstantialdifferencesineachofthe

publications.Ofcourse,somedifferencesaremoredramaticthanothersandnotallare

directlyrelatedtogenre.However,itisimportanttoconsiderthedifferencesineachofthe

publication’sgeographiccirculationandreach,sizeofreadership,andpoliticalaffiliation.

Inaddition,althoughmanyoftheperiodicalsapproachHuertausingtypicaljournalistic

methodsbyincludingpictureswiththearticlesandincludingthevoiceofthejournalistone

smallpublicationtookadifferentapproach,LaVozdelPueblo.

TherepresentationofHuertainLaVozappearstobecraftedasacandid,deeply

personal,andhighlyideologicalinventionofherself.AccordingtoHuerta,herpolitical

ideologiesevolvedasherprioritiesshiftedtowardworkingfull-timeforthecause.IntheLa

Vozinterview,sheillustratesthedegreetowhichherideologiesshiftedwhensheaffably

prods,“SeehowmiddleclassIwas.Infact,IwasaregisteredRepublicanatthetime”

(DoloresHuertaReader165).RecognizingheraudienceofprimarilyChicanocollege

students,andperhapsinanefforttopersuadethemtobelievesimilarly,Huertadistances

herselffromhermiddle-classroots(oratleastrepresentsherconflictwiththem)inorder

todemonstratehercommitmenttothefarmlaborersandtheirmovement.Ofcourse,she

couldemphasizeherdistrustofmiddle-classideologydespitehavingoncebeenapartofit,

inpart,becauseofherexpectedaudience.BecausetheLaVozinterviewarticleisstrictly

comprisedofHuerta’svoicesheisabletoestablishhercredibilityandlegitimacythrough

140

thetext,andshareshergratitudeforRoss’sinfluenceonherlife.Huertashares,“Ialways

hatedinjusticeandIalwayswantedtodosomethingtochangethings.Fredopenedadoor

forme.Hechangedmywholelife.Ifitweren’tforFred,I’dprobablyjustbeinsomestupid

suburbsomewhere”(165).Understandinggenreassocialaction,especiallyinthatthe

expectationoftheaudienceneedstobemet,andthatitisanintegralpartoftherhetorical

situation,itcanbearguedthatthecandorofherlanguage“stupidsuburb”andthememory

thatshechosetoshareserveasawaytoconnectdirectlytoheraudienceandconnecther

audiencetotheexigenceofthecause.Inotherwords,becausethefeaturesoftheinterview

articlesetheruptospeakdirectlytoheraudienceofChicanoreadersshewasableto

addresstheminafamiliarandcandidmanner.

TheFrenteFoundation,andmoredirectlyitspublicationLaVozdelPueblo,was

dedicatedtoraisingawarenessofChicanoissuesandgarneringsupportforthecivilrights

movement,andthisorientationgaverisetoHuerta’sabilityandapproachtocomposing

herselfthroughtheinterviewarticle.Sheclearlysharesherdistancefromthe“suburbs”

bothmetaphoricallyandliterallybecause,asthevicepresidentoftheUFW,shemadevery

littlemoneyandlivedinsparseaccommodations—afactthatshebringsupoften.Huerta’s

choicetocraftandshareherfracturedorconflictedselfwiththereadersofLaVozalso

standsasa“caseinpoint”ofwhatAlcornarguesisamarkerofeffectiveethosconstruction:

Theselfresistschangebecauseself-structuretendstowardhomeostasis.Butifself-structureexplainstheself’sresistancetorhetoric,italsoexplainstheself’sseductionbyrhetoric.Iwanttosuggestthattheuniquepsychologicaltorqueofmodernrhetoricalpowercanbeexplainedasamechanism“funded”bythedividedcharacterofmodernself-structure.Modernformsofethoscandivideusfromourhabitualvaluesbecause,asmoderns,wearealwaysdivided,self-conflictedselves.(25)

141

Inotherwords,utilizingtheknowledgethatshehadaboutherpresumedaudienceand

thensharingandleveragingthechangethatsheunderwentand/ortheconflictthatshe

continuedtostrugglewithdemonstratedthatshewastrustworthy—atrustworthinessthat

wasaidedbytheideologyofthepublicationitself.Ineffect,heraudiencecouldconnectto

herbasedonthedisclosureofbothresistancetoandseductionofaspecificrhetoric.

Whetherarhetorisstandinginfrontofheraudienceorisreachingouttothe

readershipofagivennewsletterormagazine,shemustcomposehertextwithanaudience

inmind.AlthoughthedepthinwhichHuertachosetosharetheconflictsthatshe

experiencedwiththeidentitycategorieswithwhichshewasmostassociated,shedid

consistentlyattendtoidentityinordertopaveconnectionswithhervariousaudiences.

Again,whilerace/ethnicityandnationalitycanbesitesofidentification,theycanalsobe

sitesofgreatconflict.Astheanalysisthatfollowsindicates,inordertogainthekindof

supportandmomentumneededtoimprovetheworkingconditionsofthefarmlaborers,it

waslikelythattheUFW—andHuertamorespecifically—chosetoemphasizethatthe

issueswereaboutmorethan“just”race,especiallywhentheaudiencewasimaginedas

mostlyWhite.Huerta’sculturalandracialidentitieswerebothobviousandfractured.That

is,shespokefromabrownbodyandwasabletotransitionbetweenSpanishandEnglish

fluidly,andshecouldrelatetomiddleclass-valuesbutchosetoliveaworking-classlife.

Onestrategyformanagingherfracturedandconflictedselfwastoemphasizeher

experiencesthatmaybesharedorconsideredmorerelatablebyheraudience.

Drawingontheexpectationsforheraudiences,Huertaastutelyconnectedthe

relationshipbetweengenreandhermessage.Or,toputitanotherway,conceivingofher

audiencebasedonherknowledgeofaspecificreadershipforapublicationoraudiencefor

142

aspeakingengagement,Huertawasabletoemphasizetherelevantelementsofher

identity.Forexample,intheirarticle,“BalancingMysteryandIdentification,”ErinDossand

RobinJensenanalyzehowHuertaaddressedheraudienceforLaVozdelPueblo:

HuertadrewfromtheChicana/oideaoflafamiliaasaculturalcollective,notsomuchtoencouragereaderstojointheunion(althoughthatwasagoal)buttohelpreadersunderstandandidentifywithherasoneoftheirown.AsAnzaldúaexplains,Chicana/oculturetendstohighlight“welfareofthefamily,thecommunity,andthetribe’as‘moreimportantthanthewelfareoftheindividual.Theindividualexistsfirstaskin—assister,asfather,aspadrino—andlastasself.”(11-12)

Huertawascomfortableandgenuinewhenspeakingfromamother’spointofviewbecause

sheembodiedtwoverycriticalidentities:motherandLatina.Huertadrewoncultural

valuesandcollectivenotionsofbeingthatwererootedinherownracedupbringing.This

emphasiswasnotnearlyasevidentinmanyoftheotherinterviewswithHuertaandis

likelyduetoatleasttwoimportantfeaturesofthegenreandtheuniquerhetorical

situationthatLaVozofferedHuerta:first,theaudiencewasprimarilypoliticallyinterested

Chicanos;andsecond,shewasaffordedthespaceto“speak”indepthaboutherpersonal

andprofessionalexperiences.Further,asthequotationaboveindicates,Anzaldúapoints

outthatChicanacultureemphasizesfamily—bothbiologicalandextended—ratherthan

theindividual.Thus,drawingonsharedvaluesof“family”alsobuildsaconnectionbetween

Huertaandtheconstituencythatshewasworkinginserviceofandaddressing.AsDoss

andJensenpointout,herdedicationtothefamilyisevidentinherinvocationofChicana

tradition;specifically,wecanseeevidenceofthisinthefollowingpassageagainfromLa

Voz,whensheremindsherreadersaboutcommunalfamily:

Theideaofthecommunalfamilyisnotnewandprogressive.It’sreallykindofoldfashioned.Rememberwhenyouwerelittleyoualwayshadyouruncles,youraunts,yourgrandmotherandyourcomadresaround.AsachildintheMexicancultureyouidentifiedwithalotofpeople,notjustyour

143

motherandfatherliketheydoinmiddleclasshomes(DoloresHuertaReader167).

Therearetwoimportantconsiderationstomakefromthepassageabove.FirstisHuerta’s

directinvitationtotheaudiencetoshareamemoryoftheiruncles,aunts,grandmother,

andcomadres.Suchaninvitationsuggeststheexpectationofheraudiencetoshareher

ethnicidentityandtheculturaltraditionsthataccompanyit.Second,thetermcomadresisa

Spanishtermforgodmothersandisusedbothtosignifyaliteralgodmotheraswellasa

figurativegodmother,suchasclosefemalefamilyfriends.Herchoicetoincludecomadres

deepensherculturalconnectionwithheraudience.Huertaisclearlyexpectingher

audiencetobefamiliarwithMexicanfamilytraditionsandappealstotheirknowledgeand

acceptanceofthetraditioninordertojustifyherparentaldecisiontoleaveherchildren

withmultiplefriendsandfamilywhileshewasoutchampioningchange.Inessence,

makinguseofboththeexigencethatdrawsheraudiencetoLaVozandtheirshared

identities,Huertaportraysheraudienceasbeingloyaltofamilyandlikelytoprioritizethe

healthandwellnessofchildreninamannerinwhichshebecomesjustlikethemandthey

becomejustlikeher.Itisinthiswaythatunderstandinggenreasasharedlocationthat

bringsboththerhetorandtheaudiencetothesameplace,thatitbecomesasignificant

forceinaffectingherethos.

Thekindofsharedlanguages—whetherornottheyaretechnicalspokenlanguages,

suchasSpanishorEnglish,orareaccepteddiscourseswithinagivencommunity—

includedinHuerta’scommunicativeactsappeartovarybygenreaswellasmaintaina

criticalroleinHuerta’sethosconstruction.InmanyoftheexcerptsfromHuertathatIhave

examinedsofar,itisevidentthatlanguageistailoredtomeetspecificrhetoricalaims.

Repeatedly,Huertademonstratesherawarenessofthecrucialfunctionthatlanguage

144

nuanceholdsinsuccessfulargumentation.However,lookingcriticallyattextsinwhich

journalistsrepresentHuertainperiodicalsleaveshervoicegenerallylessrepresented.

TurningtolessmediatedformsofgenreinwhichHuerta’svoiceiscentral,theimportance

ofherabilitytomanipulatelanguageeffectivelybecomesmoreevident.Bawarshisupports

thisassertionwhenheposits,“Thegenrefunction…comestobeandstructuressocial

actionthroughitsuse,throughthewayitsusersplayitslanguagegame.Insuchasenseis

genrebothandatonceaconceptandamaterialpractice,framingourdispositionstoactas

wellasenablingustoarticulateandexchangethesedispositionsaslanguagepractices”

(23).Whengenreispositionedaslanguagepracticesanditspractitionersarepositionedas

needingto“play”itslanguagegame,itrevealsafewmorekeycomponentstoHuerta’s

utilizationofandnegotiationwiththegenresthatshemostactivelyused.Forinstance,

whenHuertachosetouseplainlanguageinunioncontracts,shewasbothbreakingaway

fromtheacceptedlegalesethatistypifiedinthegenreandreshapingthegenrebasedonits

purposeoritsintendedactiontobeaccessibletotheworkersthatthecontractswere

representing.Insodoing,Huertabuildsherethosamongthosethatweregrantedaccessto

thelanguageofthedocumentsthatshecomposed,supportingthe“defiant-hardasnails”

ethosthatshewasknownforbythefarmownersandlegislators.Unfortunately,thelabor

contracts,tothebestofmyknowledge,werenotpresentintheDoloresHuertapapersat

theReutherLibraryand,therefore,arenotavailableforacloseexamination.However,

accordingtoherownaccountintheinterviewfortheNationshestates,“Cesaralmostfell

overbecauseIhadmyfirstcontractallwrittenandalltheworkershadvotedonthe

proposals.Hethoughtweoughttohaveanattorney,butreallyitwasbettertoputthe

contractsinsimplelanguage”(BaerandMatthews236).WhileHuerta’srolewas

145

undeniablycrucialforthesuccessoftheUFW,basedonthematerialsincludedinthe

archives,herless-mediatedrhetoricalactsarelesstraceablethanthoseofChavez.The

preservationofmaterialsthrougharchiving,then,becomesparticularlyimportantand

servedasoneofthecriticalrationalesforlookingattheperiodicalsfordata.Inother

words,becausejournalisticgenresweremeantforpublicconsumption,theyalsogenerated

along-lastingandtraceablerecord.Ineffect,thepreservabilityofagenrefurtheraffectsthe

ethosofahistoricalfigure.

LettersandMemos

TheperiodicalsandtheirencasedarticlesofferasiteforexaminationofHuerta’s

ethosthatishighlymediatedandcuratedbymultiplepeople.HenceHuerta’scontrolover

thecontentandstructurewasminimal.However,Huerta’scompositionofpersonalletters

toChavezandthememosbetweenthetwoleadersoffersadifferentkindofunderstanding

ofHuerta’scharacterandcredibility.AccordingtoBawarshi,“Genreshelporganizeand

generateoursocialactionsbyrhetoricallyconstitutingthewaywerecognizethesituations

withinwhichwefunction.Inshort,genresmaintainthedesirestheyhelpfulfill”(25).It

follows,then,thatthepersonallettersandmemosbetweenHuertaandChavezachieveda

particularsocialaction.Inmanyoftheexchanges,thesocialactionthatwasperformedwas

oneof“reporting,”buttheexecutiondiffereddependingonthegenretheyengagedin.For

example,inbothpersonallettersandinterofficememos,Huertaoftensharedprecise

detailswithChavez,rangingfromduesowedandcollectedtothedelegationofduties

amongthemembership.However,thereweredistinctdifferencesintoneandlengththat

variedbetweenthetwogenres.ForinstanceinthepersonallettersHuertaoftenadded

personaldetailsthatsurroundedtheissuesthatshewasreportingonandoftenincluded

146

friendlyvaledictions.Incontrasttheinterofficememoswereoftenshorterandmoredirect.

Nonetheless,theseexchangesdemonstratedHuerta’scomplianceinreportingtoChavez

andweregenerallywritteninaprofessional,yetfamilial,manner.However,itisnosecret

thatHuertaandChavezwerebothwellknownforbeingstrong-willedandoftenatodds.

HuertaandChavezmanagedtoworkquitewelltogetherdespitethecontentious

natureoftheirrelationship,asevidencedbyhowoftenHuertaciteshimbothasan

inspirationandasanantagonist.Thereismuchevidenceoftherespectthatthetwoleaders

hadforeachother,aswellasthevolatileexchangesinwhichtheyengaged.Theletters

includedintheDoloresHuertaReaderwerewrittenbetween1962–1964andrevealagreat

dealabouttheirrelationshipandthestrategiesthatHuertaenactedtoestablishherethos

withChavez.WhilethecollectiondoesnotincludeanylettersauthoredbyChavez,the

lettersfromHuertaprovideinsightbothtohowthegenreofpersonalletterswasleveraged

byHuertaandtheconsistencyofherstrengthofcharacter.Forexample,althoughHuerta

wasfrequentlycitedasfieryandtenacious,shewasalsoknowntoacquiescetoChavez,

nearlyalwaysgivinghimthefinalword(Ganz).Perhapsinanefforttokeepaunitedfront

orbecauseshewasnotinterestedinbeingtheheadoftheunion,Huertaconsistently

reinforcedtheleadershipofChavez.OnOctober3,1962,Huertawrotewhatwaslikelyto

beoneofherearliestletterstoChavezasafull-timeUFWorganizer.Sheopenstheletter

withafriendlysalutationandexpresseswellwishestoChavezwhichadherestothetypical

conventionsofapersonalletter,butthenshequicklyoffersasuggestionforaction.

However,HuertaimmediatelyfollowsuphersuggestionwithacleardeferencetoChavez:

Ithoughtwemighthaveameetingofallourhelpersandgivethemtheresultsof[the]Fresnomeeting,Sunday,thenpassoutthepledgesandseehowmanytheycomebackwith.

147

However,Ishallwaitforyourcommands,General.Sogivemethewordonthenextlineoftactic.Thetroopsarerestless.(“LettersWrittenbyDoloresHuerta”195)

Interestingly,acrossprivateandpublicdocuments,HuertareferredtotheUFWasChavez’s

unionandwouldletitbeknownthatshewasonlyanotherworkerforthecause.Thisisa

notablepointbecauseprivateandpublicgenresfunctionverydifferently.However,the

personalletters—aseeminglyprivategenre—doconsistentlydemonstrateHuerta’s

respectforChavezdespitetheirdifferencesandoftenfunctionascommunicativedevicesto

addressthosedifferences.Likewise,inherpublicspeechesandnewsarticles,orpublic

genres,HuertaalsowaslikelytospeakoftheunionasChavez’s.Nonetheless,shealso

understoodherroleasaleaderanddidnotshyawayfromherworkasapublicfigureor

theopportunitytospeakonbehalfofthefarmworkers’cause.

Twoyearsaftershewrotethelettercitedabove,quitherteachingjob,andjoined

theorganizationaleffortsfull-time,Huertawritesthefollowingletter:

DearCesar,SinceIhadnotheardfromyouIwasworriedaboutwhetheryouwere

angrywithmebecauseIdidnotstaytofinishtheminutes.YouprobablynoticedIwaspeevedatthelastmeetingbecauseofthemotionthatwasmadeattheC.U.meetingbeforemyarrivalandIwasnottotaketheminutesunlessauthorizedorsomestupidthing,thatwillteachmenottostickmynoseinwhereitdoesnotbelong.Iwasalsopeevedbecauseyouacceptedthemoneyfromthecitizen’scommitteebecauseIhadalreadytoldLouHaas(thegovernor’ssecretaryatwhosehousethedealwasatthatwedidnotwantanyofthemoney)…Tofurtherfinishupwithmypeeves,sinceIamnotthequietlongsufferingtype,Ialsoresentitwhenyouarenothonestwithme,andinthisIrefertothenewspaperthingwithTony[emphasisadded].(“LettersWrittenbyDoloresHuerta”203-4)

Intheexampleabove,itisclearthatHuertautilizedmanyoftheconventionalmovesofthe

genreofthepersonalletter.First,sheindicateshercareandconcernfortheirrelationship,

thusemphasizingher“worry”aboutnothearingfromChavez;however,shequicklymoves

148

pastherstateofworryandinsteadfocusesonherfrustrations.Huerta’scandid

communicationwithChavezthroughtheletterdemonstrateshertendencytovoiceher

concernsratherthanrepressthem.AlthoughHuertawouldoftendefaulttoChavez’s

leadership,shealsotooktheopportunitytovoiceherpositiononissues.However,her

willingnesstoacquiescetoChavezwasconsistentinhowshedefinesherselfinboth

privatechannelssuchaspersonallettersandmorepublicchannelssuchastheinterviews

shegrantedandspeechesshedelivered.Further,whenprovidedthespacetovoiceandbe

openwithhercommunication—asaffordedbythepersonalletter—wealsoseeher

workingagainstthedeeplyheldconceptionofwomanasthequietsufferingtype.Thus,in

thisprivatecorrespondence,shecontinuestodefineherselfandredefinebroadly-held

definitionsofwomen.

Huertademonstratedherstrengthandtenacitythroughherprivatelettersto

Chavez,aswellasthemorepublicgenreofinterofficememos.Giventhetypicalfunctionof

aninter-officememoitislikelythatonlyafewinternalvolunteersand/oremployees

viewedthesecommunicationssuchasthepersonwhopreparedthememo(asindicatedby

initialsonthebottomofeachmemo)andthosethatdeliveredthem.However,despitethe

knowledgethatotherswouldviewthememosthepatternofconfrontationalexchanges

betweenthetwoleadersissupportedinamemofromJuly11,1970.PreservedonUFW

memoletterhead,ChaveztypedthefollowingmemotoHuerta:

Forthe10Billionthtime,willyoupleaseletmeknowbeforeyougiveorderstopeopletodothingsunlessitisinyourdepartment.Itsveryimportantandagoodsignofcourtesytodoso.(“MemotoHuerta”)

Huerta’shandwrittenresponsewasincludedonthesamememo:

149

Forthe10Billionthtime,IhavenotgivenanyorderstoanyoneoutsideofmyDepartment.Itisimportantasasignofcourtesytocheckwithmebeforeyoumakefalseaccusations.(“ResponsetoMemofromChavez”)

WhatisevidentintheexchangebetweenChavezandHuertaisthatbothleadersusedthe

interofficememotovoicefrustrationwithoneanotherdespiteitsofficialstanding.No

doubtthatwithoutmobilephonesandemailtherewerelimitedoptionsfortheleadersto

communicateimmediatelywithoneanother,especiallygiventhedifficultyofcontacting

eachotherwhiletheywereoutprotesting,gatheringcommunitysupport,rallying,or

conductingmanyoftheothernecessaryactionsforthecause.Althoughitisunclearhow

suchanofficialcorrespondencemayhaveaffectedothers’perceptionsoftheleadersinthe

organization,itremainslikelythatChavezusedthegenreanditsvisibilitytoexpresshis

authority.WithHuerta’sresponseand,inparticular,hermimicryofthelanguageusedby

Chavez,Huertafurtherestablishedherfortitudewithintheorganization.Unlikethemore

mediatedtextsfromtheperiodicals,inwhichjournalistsframedthetextsharedfrom

Huerta,thememosofferamorecandidview.Ofcourse,itislikelythatneitherHuertanor

Chavezanticipatedthattheirmemoswouldbereadoutsideoftheorganization;

nonetheless,theydooffersomeinsightaboutthecharacterofHuerta—onethatisfirmand

fearless—whilealsosubstantiatingthemorepubliccharacterizationsofher.

TheworkoftheUFWwasacolossalundertaking,andthelogisticsofmanaging

multiplestaff,volunteers,andsupportersrequiredconstantcommunication.Considering

thelimitationsoncommunicationatthetime,itislikelythattheinterofficememooperated

asasignificantmodeofcommunicationbetweenthetwoleaders.Therefore,itisnot

surprisingtoalsoseemanybusiness-as-usualmemoexchangesbetweenthetwoleaders.

Thegenreinvariablyguidedtheexchangeandwaslikelyprecipitatedbyimmediateneeds

150

oftheUFW.Forinstance,inamemotoChavezdatedDecember7,1972,inasectiontitled

“ProblemArea,”Huertawritesthefollowing:

Jackishavingnightmaresover22expenses.HefeelsLeroy[“+others”handwritteninthemargins]gotaBlankCheckontheexpendituresandheisnowinthepositionofhavingtohonorallofthereceiptsespeciallygasreceiptswithoutanygasbudgettorelateitto.[“noadmincontrol”handwritten](“MemotoChavez”)

Whilethereisevidenceoftheirvolatilerelationship,thereisequalevidenceoftheirability

toworkwellwithoneanother.Theinclusionofaphraselike“Jackishavingnightmares”

pushesagainsttypicalgenreconventionsoftheinter-officememo—conventionsthattend

tobeprofessionalintoneasopposedtocolloquial—andinsteadindicatesthetypeof

relationshipthatthetwohad.Tobemorespecific,Huerta’suseofhyperboledemonstrates

hercasualtreatmentoftheinterofficememowhilesimultaneouslyplacingurgencyonthe

issueofexpenditures.

Sixyearslater,ChavezlookstoHuertaforherinputafterdesignatingRichard

ChavezasheadoftheInternationalRelationsDepartment.Inatypewrittenandbrief

memodatedApril12,1978,Chavezwrites,“IhaveassignedRichardChaveztobeincharge

oftheInternationalRelationsDepartment.Wewelcomeyourcommentsorsuggestions.”

Similartothememoexchangeabove,Huerta’sresponseishandwrittenandjovial:“Ithink

heshouldtakehiswife(2ndone)onalloutofcountrytripstohelpourfamilyimage.”Atthe

timeofthismemo,RichardChavez(CesarChavez’sbrother)andHuertawereinaserious

long-termrelationship.Thoughtheywerenevertechnicallymarried,HuertaandRichard

Chavezhadfourchildrentogether.Thus,itislikelythatHuerta’sresponsetoChavezisabit

tongue-in-cheek,whichfurthersupportstheirpushagainstthetypicalfeaturesofan

interofficememoandinsteademphasizesthewaysinwhichtheyblurredtheboundariesof

151

thegenre.Inaddition,thisexchangefurtherdemonstratestherelationshipbetweenthe

twoleaders,andChavez’swillingnesstoseekHuerta’sadviceopenlythroughtheofficial

channelsoftheUFW.Perhapsmoreimportantly,thisexchangedemonstratesHuerta’s

rhetoricalsavvy.WhetherornotshestatedinjestorinearnestthatRichardChavezshould

takehiswifeoninternationaltrips,theroleoffamilywasimportanttoHuerta.

Infact,regardlessofthegenreutilized,Huertaoftenremarkedontheimportanceof

connectingtheUFWtofamilyvalues—forexample,throughacommitmenttoproviding

safeandsanitaryproducetochildrenorthemoresocialjustice-orientedconcernswiththe

familiesofthefarmlaborers.However,intheinterofficememo—asutilizedbyHuertaand

Chavez—shewasabletorefertoherselfasRichard’ssecondwifedespitenotactuallybeing

formallymarriedtohim.InsodoingHuertabothblurredthedefinitionofmarriageand

simultaneouslyindicatestoChavezthatherrelationshipwithhisbrotherwas.

Unfortunately,anyadditionalcontextsurroundingtheexchangeisdifficulttodiscernfrom

thematerialsincludedintheReutherLibraryarchives,andnoadditionalinformationwas

includedintheDoloresHuertaReader.Itisalsoimportanttonotethelengthoftime,eight

years,betweenthetwomemos.Despitethequantityofmaterialsinthearchives,

shockinglyfewweretextsfromHuerta.InthearchivesthatIcanvased,therewasone

memofrom1970,sevenmemosdatedin1972thatwerefromChaveztoHuertawithout

anyresponsesfromher,andthreefrom1978.Oftheeleventotalmemosincludedinthe

Huertapapers,onlytwoincludedresponsesfromher—bothhandwrittenontheoriginal

memofromChavez.

Boththelettersandmemosoffersomeinsightabouttherolethatgenreplaysin

establishingtherhetor’sethosbydemonstratinghowrhetorsinventthemselvesthrough

152

particularlanguageuse,thequalitiesofidentitythattheyshareanddisrupt,andthe

relationshipstheybuildthroughchosenmodesofcommunication.Lookingcloselyatthe

exchangesbetweenHuertaandChavez,itisevidentthatHuerta’scharacterremained

consistentinbothprivateandpublicspheres.

Speeches

In“GenreasSocialAction,”Millerposits,“[E]xigenceprovidestherhetorwitha

sociallyrecognizablewaytomakehisorherintentionsknown.Itprovidesanoccasion,and

thusaformformakingpublicourprivateversionsofthings”(158).Asdemonstrated,

Huerta’sdedicationtothecausewasfueledbydeeplypersonalcommitmentstoserving

othersandtoimprovingthemateriallivesofthepeoplewhoworkedinthefields.Thus,it

appearsthatHuertautilizedasmanygenresaspossibleinordertomakeher“private

versionsofthings”public.WhileitiscertainthatHuertawasawareoftheconventionsof

thegenresinwhichsheengagedwith,itisdoubtfulthatsheconsciouslyconsideredhow

eachgenremightspecificallyinfluenceherethos;however,becauseofthesocialnatureof

genre,itdidinfluencetheperceptionofhercharacter.Millerfurtherargues,“Exigence

mustbeseenneitherasacauseofrhetoricalactionnorasintention,butassocialmotive”

(158).PartofthesocialmotivethatfacilitatedtheworkoftheUFWwasthatofthecivil

rightsmovement,andbothChavezandHuertawereabletodrawonthekairoticmoment

toleveragethefarmlaborermovement.Morespecifically,from1967–1970,theUFWwas

focusedoncoordinatinganinternationalboycottofgrapes,andinFebruaryof1968Chavez

beganhisfirst25-dayfasttodemonstratetheUFW’scommitmenttonon-violentprotest.

Drawingontheexigenceoftheculturalclimate,andevidencedbyseveraldocumentsinthe

153

archives,6itappearsthatpartofthestrategyofUFWleadershipwastorecruitsupport

fromexistingunionsandcommunitiesthatwouldhelpspreadthewordaboutandgarner

supportfortheircause,aswellasofferresourceswheneverpossible.Withthesuccessof

severalyearsofprotestingandthenationalboycott,boththeunionandtheeffortsofits

leadersweregainingvisibility.Simultaneously,thefeministmovementwasalsogaining

momentumand,withthecombinedculturalclimateofcivilrightsactivism,Huertawas

startingtobesoughtafterforinterviewsandspeakingengagements.

Huerta’snotorietywasablessingandacurse.Itisquitepossiblethatbecauseshe

wasunlikeanyotherlaborunionleader,shewassoughtafterbyliberal-leaning

publicationsandorganizationsinanefforttoholdherupasasymbolofthechangingtimes.

MarioGarciapointsoutthefollowingintheDoloresHuertaReader:

Huerta’shistoryrevealshertobeanatypicallabororganizer.Firstandforemosthergenderdistinguishedherrole.Ingeneral,veryfewwomenservedasalaborleaderinU.S.unionsandcertainlyfewheldtoppositions.Forthesereasons,Huerta’semergenceasCesarChavez’stoplieutenantandcoleaderoftheUFWmakesherunique”(xx-xxi).

However,heruniquepositionalsoemphasizedwhoshewas—aworking-classChicanaand

mother—ratherthatwhatshewasdoing—negotiatingcontracts,leadingprotests,and

fightingforsocialjustice.Inwhatfollows,Iexamineexcerptsfromtwospeechesdelivered

byHuertaandanthologizedintheDoloresHuertaReader.Thefirstspeechwaspartofthe

AnnualConventionoftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociationandwasdeliveredon

October21,1974inNewOrleans,LA,anditsfulltranscriptisavailableintheReuther

Libraryarchives.ThesecondspeechwasgivenattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles

6TheReutherLibraryArchivesincludedapproximatelyfifteenseparatethank-youlettersthatwerecomposedfromaboilerplate.ManyofthelettersweretootheruniongroupsthathadprovidedsupporttotheUFW.

154

(UCLA)in1978to,presumably,agroupofpoliticallyinterestedandactivestudents.The

anthologizedversionofthespeechwas“transcribedfromaudiotapeswiththepermission

oftheUCLAChicanoStudiesResearchCenterandLibraryArchive,ChicanoStudies

ResearchCenter,UCLA”(DoloresHuertaReader241).Bothspeechesweredeliveredin

frontofanaudiencewhoweresympathetictothecausebutwhowereunlikelytohave

membersasentrenchedinthemovementasHuertaandothervolunteerswere.Ineffect,

thesespeechesofferedHuertaanopportunitytosharetheworkoftheunion,build

awarenessforthecause,andsolicitsupport.Again,hereitbecomesevidentthatthegenre

ofthepublicspeechplayedaninstrumentalroleinherethosdevelopment.Therhetorical

situation,andspecificallythegenre,motivatedbothHuertaandtheaudiencetobeinthe

roomtogether,effectivelyfacilitatingthepossibilityforconnectionbetweenrhetorand

audience.Further,publicspeechesallowfortherhetortoreadtheaudiencemembers

energyandreactions,andmakeanynecessaryimprovisedadjustmentstoaprepared

speech.Inthisway,thein-personspeakingengagementsofferedopportunitiesforHuerta

toconnecttoheraudiencesthatfixed-textssuchasprintedjournalisticgenresdidnot.

Bawarshiexplainsthisintermsofanactivitysystem:

[G]enre…organizesandgeneratesitsownfield,tenor,andmodecomplex—itsownsiteofaction—inrelationtoothergenreswithinalargersphereofactionor“activitysystem.”Thegenresthatformthisconstellationfunctiontogethertocoordinatethedynamicrelationsthatmakeupthelargeractivitysystems.Withinsuchsystems,genresnotonlyconstituteparticularparticipantpositionsandlanguagepractices;theyalsoregulatehowparticipantsrecognizeandinteractwithoneanother.(38)

Thegenreofapublicspeech,then,allowsforadirectconnectionbetweenrhetorand

audiencesincethereisverylittlemediationbyothers.Additionally,becausetheaudience

membershavelikelyencounteredsuchengagementsbefore,theyarelikelytohavean

155

expectationfordirectinteractions.Morespecifically,Huertautilizedtheinpersonspeech

eventstoemphasizelanguageandcultureinwaysthatwerenotavailablethroughprint

genres.Inbothspeeches,Huertainvitestheaudiencememberstoclosewithrallycriesin

Spanish:“vivas,”atermfor“raisingup,”and“abajos,”atermfor“downwith,”thereby

invokingamaterialconnectionwithheraudience.Onlythroughthegenreofpublicaddress

throughspeechcouldsuchacollectiveandembodiedactionbeperformedtogether.

Aspreviouslymentioned,theaudiencefortheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation

(APHA)waslikelytobesympathetictotheUFWcause.ThecurrentAPHAwebsiteoffersa

historythatsituatestheirorganizationalvalues:

TheAmericanPublicHealthAssociationwasfoundedin1872atatimewhenscientificadvanceswerehelpingtorevealthecausesofcommunicablediseases.Thesediscoverieslaidthefoundationforthepublichealthprofessionandfortheinfrastructuretosupportourwork.

Fromourinception,APHAwasdedicatedtoimprovingthehealthofallU.S.residents.OurfoundersrecognizedthattwooftheAssociation’smostimportantfunctionswereadvocacyforadoptionbythegovernmentofthemostcurrentscientificadvancesrelevanttopublichealth,andpubliceducationonhowtoimprovecommunityhealth.Alongwiththeseefforts,wehavealsocampaignedfordevelopingwell-organizedhealthdepartmentsatboththefederalandlocallevels.(“AboutAPHA”)

Withitsorganizationalrootsinfosteringprogramsthatprotectpublichealth,theAPHA

wouldlikelybeinterestedinboththehealthconditionsoffarmlaborersandthecommon

citizen.

Becausetheyhadsimilargoals,Huertawasabletoquicklymakeclearand

meaningfulconnectionswiththeattendees.Intheopeningparagraphofhertalk,Huerta

thankstheorganizersoftheeventandthensharesChavez’shealthcondition.Immediately

followingthehealthupdateofChavez,Huertaoffersthefollowing:

Iwishtobringyougreetingsandahopeforaverysuccessfulconventiononyourhundredandsecondconventiontoallofyouwhohavededicatedyour

156

livestomakinglifebetterfortheworld,forAmerica.Ithinkthatyourgoalsareverymuchlikethegoalsoftheunion.Wegotintothebusinessoforganizingfarmworkersformainlyhealthreasons.Itisnoaccidentthatthefarmworkershaveanaveragelifespanof49yearsofage.Andthoseofyouwhohaveworkedinruralcommunities,Ithinkknowthereasons.Thoseyouthatdon’t,IjustwanttogiveyoualittlepictureofwhathealthislikeforafarmworkerinaplacewherehedoesnothavetheUnitedFarmWorkerstorepresenthim.(“KeynoteAddressbeforetheAnnualConventionoftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation”229)

Huertaindicatesthatsheisfamiliarwiththevaluesofheraudienceandoftheorganization.

Inaddition,shesignalsherawarenessofitsinstitutionalhistory—asdemonstratedbyher

recognitionoftheconventionbeingtheir“onehundredandsecond.”Intheopening

statement,Huertaofferstheexpectedthanks,attendstoChavez’swellbeing,andexpresses

wellwishesfortheattendeesoftheconference,sufficientlysatisfyingtheexpectationsfor

thegenre.Actingasa“socialcode”(Bawarshi),thegenreconventions—whenfollowed—

helptobuildtheethosoftherhetor.Ofcourse,simplymeetingtheexpectedconventions

doesnottranslatedirectlyintopositiveethosconstruction;instead,itmaintainsthe

possibilityforsuchconstruction.

Duringthespeech,Huertautilizesseveraltypicalbuteffectivestrategiesinpublic

speaking.Usingpersonalnarrative,Huertasharesthreestoriesoffarmworkerswho

receivedmisdiagnosesthatleadtofurther—andavoidable—healthcomplications.Shethen

describesthehealthcareprovidedbytheUFW,focusingparticularlyonwhytheUFW’s

healthcaresystemworkswell.Eachofthesestoriesmadeavailablethroughthespoken

presentationprovideopportunitiesforHuerta’saudiencetoconnectwithher.Huertanot

onlysharesthestoriesofothersbutalsoincludesastoryofherownexperience.After

sharingthatshehadher“tenthbabyinahospitalinTulareCountyinCalifornia,”Huerta

prodstheaudiencewithaquestionandsomecomicrelief:“Now,someofyoumight

157

wonderhowcomeIhavetenchildren,right?OneofthemainreasonsisbecauseIwantto

havemyownpicketline.”Theinjectionofhumoroftendisarmsanaudienceandtendsto

maketherhetorappearmorerelatable,whichisparticularlyimportantforaudienceswho

wouldbelesslikelytoidentifywithhavingtenchildren.However,Huertaquicklyreturns

toherseriousmessageandoffersveryvividandpotentiallyshockingdetailstothe

audience:

Butallkiddingaside,it’sreallynicetobeabletogotoaclinicwhenyouarepregnantwithyourtenthbabyandnothavepeoplelookatyoulikeyouarekindofcrazy.Orlikeyoudon’tknowwheretheycomefrom,orputpressureonyounottohaveanymorechildren.BecauseafterallyouknowMexicansarekindofpoorpeopleandyoushouldn’thaveallthatmanykids.Sothat’sanothergoodthingaboutourclinics.Becauseunfortunately,thatpressurenottohavechildrentranslatesitselfincountyhospitalsandplaceswherepeoplehavenopowerintodeadbabiesbecausethosebabiesaren’ttakencareof,andintoveryhardlaborformothersbecausetheyaretryingtomakeitashardonthemotherastheycantohaveanotherone.AndIguessIfeelalittlebitstronglyaboutthatbecauseI’vebeeninsituationswhereI’veseenchildrendie,babiesdie,becausesomebodytherethoughttheyshouldn’thavebeenborninthefirstplace.(“KeynoteAddressbeforetheAnnualConventionoftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation”232)

Althoughtherearemanyforcesatworkintheexcerptabove,Iarguethatthegenredeeply

influencesHuerta’sethosbecauseitplacestheaudienceinherpresenceandallowsforeye

contact,forphysicalenergytobeexchanged,andforHuertatocomposehermessageboth

beforehandandextemporaneously.Thus,asHuertaworkstomakeconnectionswithher

audience,shecanorchestrateshiftsandpointsofbothemphasisandde-emphasis.Inthis

case,weseeHuertaemphasizetheimportanceoffarmworkershavingtheirowndoctors

andclinicsinordertoprovidethebesthealthcaretothem.Huertafurthersupportsthe

importanceofidentityandsharedexperience:

Thedoctorsthatcometoworkwithusworkthewaythatwedo.Weworkfornowages.Ourdoctorsgetalittlebitmoreforsomeofyououttherethatmightbeinterested.Butneverthelessitisasacrifice.Andthat’simportant.

158

Becauseyoucan’thelppoorpeopleandbecomfortable.Youknow,thetwothingsarejustnotcompatible.Ifyouwanttoreallygivegoodcaretopoorpeopleyou’vegottobepreparedtobealittleuncomfortableandtoputalittlebitofsacrificebehindit[emphasisadded].(“KeynoteAddressbeforetheAnnualConventionoftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation”233)

Perhapsinanattempttoestablishastrongerconnectiontotheimportanceofidentityand

livedexperience,Huertadrawsattentionawayfromracial/ethnicclassificationsand

refocusestheaudienceonissuesofclass.Intheabovepassagewealsoseeaprevailingon

conceptionsofsacrifice.ReturningtotheworkofscholarssuchasLindalBuchanan,Carol

Mattingly,andCarolynSkinner,drawingonwomen’smorality—inthiscase,self-sacrifice—

hasbeenastrategyemployedbywomenforgenerationsinordertogainentranceintothe

publicsphere.BecauseHuertacouldnotrelyonassumedcommonalitieswithaudiences

whowereunlikelytoshareherracial/ethnicbackground,sheoftenworkedtoestablish

placesofcommonalityoridentificationthatwerelesscontentiousandmoreidentifiable

thanherethnic/racialidentity.

Huerta’smestizaconsciousnessandagilityinemphasizingthevaluesthatshe

sharedwithherliveaudiencesespeciallyprovidedkeyopportunitiestoexemplifyher

characterandwouldelevateheraudiencethroughdoingso.Likemanyrhetorsbeforeher,

Huertareadherperceivedaudienceandtailoredheremphasisbasedonherexpectedor

assumedvaluesoftheaudience.Wewitnessherabilitytocustomizeherexplicit“telling”of

herselfbyidentifyingthedifferentlevelsofemphasissheplacesonrace/ethnicity.In

Skinner’sconceptualizationofafeministmodelofethos,shearguesthatamarginalized

rhetor’s“characterisoftenconstructedinresponsetoadynamiccontextthatincludes

multiplecompetingideasaboutthe‘best’virtues;consequently,ethosformationfrequently

involvesvaluenegotiationsaswellasreciprocitybetweenrhetorandaudienceidentity

159

constraints”(175).Further,Skinnerarguesthatwithinthenegotiationofvaluesbetween

therhetorandaudienceitissometimesnecessaryorstrategicfortherhetortocallfora

reorderingofvalues(175).WeseethisdemonstratedbyHuertatoasmalldegreewhenwe

seeaprivilegingofclassvaluesoverraciallyalignedones.

Incontrasttothespeechdeliveredtopublichealthprofessionalsthatbelongedto

theAPHA,Huerta’spresentationattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles(UCLA)was

mostlikelydeliveredtoavarietyofUCLAstudents.Basedonaclosereadingofthetext,it

appearsthatthepurposeofHuerta’sspeechwastoinspireandteach;hence,thespeech

wascomposedanddelivereddifferentlythantheAPHAaddress.Huertaispositioned

interestinglyinthebriefintroductionfromTerriFletcher,arepresentativeoftheCampus

FarmWorkersSupportCommittee.Ms.Fletcherbeganbythankingthosethatsupported

theeventandthenshared,“WewenttotheSpeaker’sBureautoaskforfundingforthisand

theysaid,‘WellweneverheardofDoloresHuerta,soshecouldn’tbethatimportant.’That

reallyshowshowlittletheyknow”(“SpeechGivenbyDoloresHuerta,UCLA”241)Perhaps

ironically,thisshortacknowledgmentoftheSpeaker’sBureau’signoranceservedasa

seguetoestablishingHuerta’scredibility:

Doloreshasbeenwiththeunionsinceitstartedin1965[sic].Sheisanexecutiveboardmemberandafirstvicepresidentintheunion.ShehasbeenontheNewYorkboycott;she’sworkedinFlorida;sheiscurrentlytheheadoftheDelanofieldofficeandisnegotiatingseventeencontractsrightnow.Sheistheleadingwomaninthelabormovementinthiscountrytoday;sheisaverybusypersonandwearereallyluckytohaveherhere.(“SpeechGivenbyDoloresHuerta,UCLA”241)

Huerta’scharacterwassignificantlyaffectedbytheintroductionthatforegroundedher

credentialsandaccomplishments.Notunliketheperiodicals,butdistinctfromthepersonal

lettersandmemos,theoccasionforspeakingandthegenregeneratedchannelsfor

endorsement.

160

Inresponsetoherintroduction,HuertathankedMs.Fletcherandthankedthe

audienceforattending.Insodoing,Huertaagainconfirmsherawarenessofandabilityto

displaygenreconventions.UnliketheAPHAspeech,inwhichshequicklyestablishedthe

sharedvaluesbetweenheraudienceandherself,Huertainsteadchoosestodiscussher

reflectiononallthattheUFWhadachievedsinceshehadbeeninvolvedwithit.After

chroniclingtheprogressmadebytheunion,Huertathenmovesfromaninformationalstyle

tooneofinspiration:

YouknowI’vebeeninthemovementnowsinceIwastwenty-fiveyearsold,maybesomeofyouareyoungerthanIwasthen,andIlookbackandIseeallofthethingswe’vedone,andeventomyselfit’shardformetobelievehowwemadethechangesthatwemadebypeoplethatwerelikethepoorestofall,peoplethatdidn’tknowhowtoreadandwrite,peoplewhohadnoresources,andwhenwethinkofthechangesthatwewereabletomakeforthefarmworkers,it’sreallykindofamindblower.(“SpeechGivenbyDoloresHuerta,UCLA”244)

Thisparticulargenre/socialaction—asdefinedbytherhetoricalsituation—ledHuertato

inventherselfdifferentlythanwehaveseenintheothergenresutilizedbyher.More

specifically,althoughHuertaandherroleintheUFWareestablished,theyarenot

emphasized.Instead,Huertaisguidedbythepurposeofmotivatingandmobilizingayoung

adultaudience.Intheexcerptbelow,notethedirectinvocationofdoubtandpowerlessness

thatmanyyoungadultsexperience:

ProbablysomeofyouthinktoyourselvesthatI’mnotaMartinLutherKing,I’mnotaCesarChavez,I’mjustplainoldme,andwhatcanplainoldmedo?Well,thisiswhereyoureallyhavetothinkaboutitandaboutwhatplainoldyoucando.Plainoldyoucandoalotofthings,youcanmakerealgreatchangesforthiscountry,justplainoldyou—ifyoumakeacommitment.Justlikefarmworkershavedone,allofthechangesthathavebeenbroughtandfarmworkershavedoneisbecausefarmworkershavemadeacommitmentandtheylenttheirwholebodiestogooutthereanddosomething.Itwas,again,likeduringtheCivilRightsstrugglewhenpeoplewentinandsatinandgotbeatenupandwhathaveyou—itwastheirbodiesthatmadethatdifference.(“SpeechGivenbyDoloresHuerta,UCLA”247)

161

Ineffect,Huertaworkstocountertheanticipatedchallengesfromheraudienceinorderto

sparkaction.Shecontinueswithapowerfulcommand:“Sodon’teverthinkthatplainold

youcan’tmakethedifference;it’slikedroppingalittlestoneinapool;it’sjustalittlestone,

alittlepebble,butitmakesallkindsofwavesthatreachwayout”(“SpeechGivenby

DoloresHuerta,UCLA”247).Knowingheraudienceandthesituationthatbroughtthem

together,Huertatailorsherspeechtomeetboththeexpectationsforthegenreandthe

appropriatesocialactionthatsheandheraudienceweretheretoachieve.Whileitis

evidentthatgenresignificantlyaffectedhowHuertaapproachedherwritingtaskandthat

shewasawareofthecomplexformulathatincludestherhetoricalsituation,audience,and

purposeforanyparticularpublicaddress,shealsodisplaysanagilitywhendrawingonher

matrixofidentities—nevercompletelylosingsightofhowidentitydefinesherandthe

audience.

OnelastexamplefromaspeechdeliveredbyHuertaillustratesherabilitytobend

theboundariesofgenreanddevelopaconnectionwiththeaudiencethatmovesfromwhat

mightbeexpectedtosomethingunexpected.Thisexcerptisfroma1974speechdelivered

aspartofaCincodeMayocelebrationatCaliforniaStateUniversity,Hayward,andwas

coveredinthecollege’snewspaper.Whilethespeechwasnotprintedinitsentirety,the

excerptsincludeddooffersomeinsightintohowHuertabuiltherethoswithalive

audience.Huertatakeseveryopportunitytomakeobviousassumptionsaboutthepolitical

activenessofheraudienceandbringsthemtogetherasestablishedfightersforthecause,

notunlikeherself.Inthiscase,heraudiencewaslikelytoincludeLatinosthatwere

attendingtheuniversityandotherswhowereinterestedintheculturalcelebration.As

reportedintheuniversitynewspaper,TheDailyPioneer,Huertaassertsthefollowing:

162

Nogrowerwantstositdownatatableacrossfromabrownorblackfarmworkerandhavehimtellhimwhattodo.Wedon’tknowourplace—wedaretogooutandvote.Whenfarmworkersgettheiruniontheywillbefreepeople—freetoparticipateinthepoliticalsystem.We’regoingtochangepoliticsinthiscountry.That’swhytheywanttogetridofus.(Chui1)

Thecandorandvigorinherstyleandtoneindicateagreatdealoftrustinandsolidarity

withtheaudience.

BecauseHuertawasstandingbeforeagroup,shewasabletofostersolidarityby

using“we”and“us”inanapparentassumptionthattheaudienceidentifieswithher.Yet,

shealsoworkstoarticulatewhythisiseveryone’sfightandnotjustthefarmlaborers’

fight:

Itellpeoplethateverytimetheyfeedtheirfacesafarmworkerputthefoodthere.Itellpeople“youaredirectlyinvolved,youhavetheresponsibilitytocomeandhelpthepeoplewhohavefedyou.”Alotoftimespeopleareafraidtopicket—theythinktheywillfeelawkwardorfunny.Remindpeoplewhodon’twanttospendafewhoursonapicketlinethatthefarmworkerwalksthousandsofmilesayearstoopedover,sotheycaneat.(Chui1-2)

Intheexcerptabove,weonceagainseeherappealingtothecollective,andshespeaksto

heraudienceasthoughtheyarealreadypartofhercauseandcommunity.Further,because

thiscomingtogetherwasorganizedaroundtheCincodeMayocelebration—aholidaythat

celebratesMexico’sdefeatoftheFrenchin1862—herdeliveryappearstoblurthe

expectedconventionsofapublicawarenessspeechandthemoreemotionalandinciting

genreofpublicprotestspeech.Lastly,withthestatement,“Alotoftimespeopleareafraid

topicket—theythink”(emphasisadded),sheclearlysetsheraudienceapartfromthose

whoareafraidtopicketbyusingtheterm“people”asawaytodistanceheraudiencefrom

thegeneralnon-involvedpublic.Shethenfurtherdistancesthembyusing“they,”which

impliesthatsherecognizesherimmediateaudienceasalreadybeingagroupofactivists.

163

Thetrendsthatbecomeapparentwhenconsideringtheexcerptsfromherspeeches

asacollectiveareunlikethemoremediatedandpersonalgenres.WhenHuertastands

beforeheraudienceinperson,itappearsthatshefocusesmoreattentiononappealingto

thecollectivebybuildingthecharacterofheraudience,astrategythatSkinneralso

identifiesinherexaminationoftheprofessionalethosofnineteenthcenturywomen

physicians.Whilemuchofrhetoricalstudyaffirmstheimportanceofaudience,rhetorical

genretheorysuggeststhat,becausegenreissociallyconstructed,theaudienceisboth

influencedbythegenreandinfluencesthegenre.Thus,beforecomposinginagenrethat

hasanaudiencewhoisaseasilyidentifiableasthatofanin-personspeakingengagement,

therhetorimaginesaversionofthecommunitythatshewilladdressdirectly.Insodoing,

rhetorsimagineconnectionsandplacesforidentification.InthecaseofthespeechesthatI

haveexaminedforthisproject,Huertaeffectivelybuiltherethosbyemphasizingthebest

qualitiesinheraudiencesandconcentratingonconstructingaunifiedsenseof“we.”

Conclusion

DrawingonakeyconceptfromBawarshiinwhichhesuggeststhatgenrefacilitates

theinventionofthewriterbythewriter(17),andthroughtheanalysisoftheseveral

genresthatHuertaemployedwhilecampaigningforfarmlaborerrights,itbecomes

apparentthatHuertametherwritingtaskswithakeenunderstandingofhowheridentity

affectsherethos.Inmanyinstances,Huertahadtodefine,redefine,andattendtoher

intersectionalidentityinordertobridgeaconnectiontoheraudiences.Suchastrategy,

then,underscoreshowheridentityinvariablydictatesheraccesstoandparticipation

withinspecificgenres.Assuggestedthroughtheanalysisinthischapter,Huertawas

164

primarilygrantedaccesstogenresthatmaintainedaconstituencywhowerealready

sympathetictohercause.

ConceptionsofaudienceasrecognizedthroughgenrefurtheremphasizeHuerta’s

abilitytobothsetherselfapartfromheraudiencebywayofsomeobviousexceptionalism

andtocloselyconnecttothembyutilizingherabilitytocrossseamlesslybetweenher

multipleidentitycategories.NotingHuerta’semphasisonthecollectiveissignificantinthis

examinationbecauseunlikemanytheoriesofsocialprotestrhetoric,inwhichrhetorsfocus

onbuildingtheirownethos,Huertafocusesherattentiononbuildingherethosbypropping

upandborrowingethosfromthecollectiveaudience.Huertararelyspeaksaboutherselfas

anexceptionalorpropheticleader;instead,sheworkstohighlighthowheraudienceisjust

likeherandshelikethem.WhetherwefocusonHuertaasawoman,mother,activist,or

Chicana,weseethatHuertaconsistentlyattemptstodownplayorjustifytheissuesthat

mightcreatetensionbetweenthefarmworkersforwhomsheisworking,ratherthan

attemptingtobuildanalliancetothemiddle-toupper-classconstituencywithwhomshe

alsoconsistentlyworked.Huertasteadilyworkedtoestablishhergenuineinterestand

commitmenttothecauseandconstructedanethosthatexemplifiedthevaluesheldbythe

majorityoffarmlaborers.Interestingly,bypositioningthosevaluesasconnectingacross

racialandclasslines,Huertawasabletoappealtodiverseaudiences.Huerta’scommitment

wasdemonstratedrepeatedlythroughacombinationofherlivedlife—e.g.,livingon

meagerwagesandsacrifice—andtheprofessionalworkthatshedidthroughtheUFW.

Thus,byexaminingherethosconstruction,weseethatHuerta’srhetoricalefficacyis

intrinsicallytiedbothtoherdemonstratedcommitmenttothecauseandtoheridentity.

165

ChapterSixSíSePuede

Asastudyofethosandhowitisaffectedbyidentity,thisdissertationprojectargues

thatthebodyandtheembodiedidentitiesassociatedwithitsignificantlyshapehowethos

isandcanbeconstructed.InexamininghowsocialjusticeactivistDoloresHuerta

constructedherethosduringtheinitialorganizationoftheUnitedFarmWorkersUnion,I

aimtobothhighlighttheroleofHuertaasaco-founderoftheUFWandaddHuertaasan

importantrhetoricalfigureofstudyinthefieldofrhetoric.AsIhaveacknowledgedin

previouschapters,althoughmuchworkhasbeendonetoincludewomenandpeopleof

colorinthefieldofrhetoric,thereremainsalackofbothLatinascholarsandLatinafigures

ofstudy.Thus,thefirstpriorityofthisstudyisoneofinclusion.However,beyondincluding

Huertainrhetoricaltradition—insofarassheisrecognizedasarhetorician—Ialsoexplore

theinfluenceofidentityonethosconstruction.

Attheoutsetofthisproject,Ianticipatedthattherhetoricalstrategiesavailableto

HuertafordevelopingethoswouldlikelybedifferentthanthoseavailabletoaWhitemale

figure.Towhatdegreethatdifferencemanifestedandtowhateffectremainedtobe

discovered.Thus,thisinvestigationhadtobeginbytracinghowrhetoricalthought

surroundingethosasanargumentativeappealevolvedoveritshistory.Ethoshasbeen

describedasnecessarilycomplexbutalsoasagenerativeappealtodiscuss.Accordingto

CraigR.Smith,beforeonespeaks,ethoshasanontologicaldimensionthatisevident

throughdecision-makingandhowlivesarelivedorwhathecalls“thewayonedwells”(2).

Smith’spointisoneofthekeyconsiderationsinthisprojectbecauseitsuggeststhatmuch

ofethosexistsbeyondtheexplicittextualdeliveryofcommunicationandisequallyshaped

bythemanyattributesoflivedbehaviorsandhabits.Therefore,inthisexaminationitwas

166

notonlyimportanttoconsiderhowHuertaexplicitlyaddressedaudiencesbutalsohowshe

representedhercommitmenttothecausethroughherlivedsacrificesinordertorightfully

beanofficialleaderintheorganization.Additionally,whilethisstudydoesnotsuggestthat

Huertautilizedaradicallydifferentapproachfromwhatisoftenincludedinrhetorical

strategyinbuildingherethos,itdoessupporttheassertionthatrhetoricalstrategyis

craftedpiecebypiece—usingpiecesthatcanberearrangedbyrhetorsandaudiencesalike.

Thepiecescanchangeshapeandprovidedifferentmeaningswithshiftingperspectives,

especiallywiththepassageoftime.Therefore,asIarguethroughoutthisproject,itis

apparentthatethosisconstructedfromamultitudeofplaces.Further,asevidencedby

JamesBaumlinandothers,ethosisadifficultconcepttodefineandexamine;thus,any

examinationisonlypartofthepuzzleandnotthefullpicture.

DrawingontheworkofMarshallAlcorn,JamesBaumlin,andSusanJarrattand

NedraReynolds,Iarguethatonecriticalpieceofbuildingethosishowarhetor

understandsanddefinestheself.Self-definitionisintegraltoethosconstructionbecauseit

ultimatelyconstrainsorexpandstheopportunitiesforarhetor.Recognizingthe

significanceofbothdefinitionandspecificallyself-definition,thisdissertationproject

focusedonhowHuertawasdefinedbyothersandemphasizedhowHuertaextended,bent,

andultimatelyredefinedtheidentitycategoriesthatshemostvisiblyembodied.Althoughit

wasnotinthescopeofthisprojecttodetaileveryaspectofHuerta’sidentity—ataskthatis

unlikelyachievable—thisprojectworkedtoemphasizetheroleofthebodyinethos

constructionand,becauseofthis,itwasnecessaryforthisexaminationtobeconducted

throughanintersectionalandmatrixlens.Becauseidentityisshapedacrossmultipleaxes,

theworkofKimberleeCrenshaw,PatriciaHillCollins,andVivianMayinformedmy

167

treatmentofidentitybyprovidingthefoundationforexaminingHuertaasarhetorical

figurewhowaspositionedwithmultipleoppressions.Amatrixorientationto

intersectionalidentitiesanditsrelationshiptoself-definitionisfurthersupportedby

AlcornandbyJarrattandReynolds.Theyarguethatalthoughthereisnofullystablesense

ofself,itisnecessarytoprevailonsomecategorizationsinordertobothrecognizethatnot

allbodiesareperceivedthesameandtoorganizeasenseofselfevenifitremainsshifting

andfluid.

Myexaminationintounderstandinghowintersectionalityaffectsethosisnot

neutral,norisitstrictlyacademic;infact,thisprojectandexaminationisquitepersonal.

ThisacknowledgmentremainsoneofthegreatestchallengesthatIfacedwhileconducting

andproducingthisprojectandisonethatIdonottakelightly.Interestingly,however,I

alsobelievethatsharingafewembodiedidentitieswithHuerta—ethnicity,motherhood,

andsocialclassbeginnings—offersopportunitiesforinsightsandunderstandingsthat

otherwisemayhavebeenoverlooked.AsaLatinascholarandteacher,Ihaveavested

interestinunderstandinghowthebodyinfluencesmyethos.AsaLatinaandmother,Ihave

avestedinterestinhowmy“motherly”ethosaffectsmyauthority.Andasamonolingual

Latina,IhaveavestedinterestinhowthelackofasharedlanguagewiththosewithwhomI

shareaheritageaffectsmycredibility.Asbothapersonalandprofessionalexamination,

thisworkpresentedchallengesthatInecessarilyworkedthroughandwillcontinueto

workthrough.Thatsaid,itisevidentthatintersectionalitysignificantlyinfluencesethos.

Huerta’sintersectionalitybothcomplicatedandempoweredherethosconstruction

byrequiring,andperhapsmoreimportantly,allowinghertodefinehowheridentity

affectedherleadershipandcharacter.Throughadetailedclosereadingofseveral

168

documentsbyandaboutHuerta,itbecameevidentthatsheoftenhadtoattendtoher

personalrolesaffectedbyheridentity—suchasmother,Chicana,andwoman—inorderto

establishhercredibilityasaleaderinthefarmlaborermovement.Suchadiscoverywas

substantiatedbytheworkofmanyfeministrhetoricalscholars,suchasJessicaEnoch,

SusanJarratt,GesaKirsch,andJacquelineJonesRoysteramongmanyothers,anditwas

particularlyaidedbytherecentworkofCarolynSkinnerandheroutlineofthefivefeatures

ofafeministmodelofethos.

DrawingonSkinner’sfirstfeatureofafeministmodelofethosinchapterfour,I

arguedthatHuertastronglyguidedheraudience’sperceptionsofheridentitybyovertly

definingherselfthroughhermostrecognizableidentitycategories.AsSkinner’sfirst

featurepointsout,“[E]thosformationfrequentlyinvolvesvaluenegotiationsaswellas

reciprocitybetweenrhetorandaudienceidentityconstructs”(175).Examiningseveral

periodicalsthatvariedbytype,length,andcirculationandincludedarticlesfeaturing

HuertaandtheUFW,itwasapparentthatHuertawasoftenintroducedtoheraudience

throughherphysicalappearance.Consequently,Huertaoftenattendedtoheridentityin

ordertoestablishhercredibility.Self-definitionwasimportantforHuertatospeakfroma

genuineposition—therebypositivelyconstructingherethos—anditwasequallyimportant

forheraudiencetohavetrustinherasanauthority.EmphasizingtheroleofHuerta’s

positioningbyothersandherself-definitionandredefinitionleadstonewinsightsabout

ethos—suchasHuerta’sabilitytoleveragetraditionaldefinitionsofheridentityinorderto

rewritethem—thataffirmedtheimportanceofthebodyinrhetoricalstrategy.Further,

focusingprimarilyonhowHuertawaspositionedbyothersraisesquestionsabouttherole

genreheldintheconstructionofethos.

169

PromptedbytheexaminationoftextsinchapterfourandbySkinner’sfourth

featureofafeministmodelofethos,chapterfiveconnectedtheforcesfromthebody,the

rhetoricalsituation,andgenreinordertodemonstratethesignificantinfluencethat

identityhasonethosconstructioninparticularandrhetoricalstrategyingeneral.Skinner’s

thirdfeatureisthat“ethosandgenreareintertwined”(177).Inchapterfive,Ilookclosely

atthefeaturesofgenreandarguethatthegenreinwhichHuertaactssignificantly

influenceshowsheinventsherselfforheraudience,gainsaccesstoheraudiences,

identifieswithheraudience,andisthusabletoeffectivelybuildherethos.Becauseidentity

affectsgenrealongmultipleaxes—forexample,whichgenresarhetorcanaccessandhow

thegenreconstraintsinfluenceandpositiontheperceptionofboththerhetor’sidentity

andtheconfigurationoftheaudienceitaddresses—thebodymaintainsanequally

importantrolewhenconsideringhowgenreinfluencesethos.

MuchoftheanalysesinthisprojectwereguidedbySkinner’sfeministmodelof

ethosinpartbecauseitclearlyoutlinesboththeconstraintsandopportunitiesfor

marginalizedrhetoricians.Skinner’sanalysesofhowearlyfemalephysiciansworkedto

buildtheirprofessionalethosinanunfriendlyclimatesuccessfullyaccountsformanyofthe

strategiesthatHuertaappliedtoherownethosconstruction.However,becauseSkinner’s

siteforanalysesincludedfemalephysicianswhoprimarilycommunicatedinEnglish,the

roleoflanguageandhowitcreatesbothbarriersandconnectionsbetweenrhetorsand

audienceswasunderstandablynotpartofhermodel.Aspartofthisconcludingchapter,I

turnattentionawayfromtheanalysisconductedwithinthisprojectandconsiderthe

implicationsforfuturestudybyemphasizingtherelationshipsamongthebody,spoken

language,andethos.

170

Huerta,theUFW,andtheTransferenceofEthos

Intheintroductionofthisproject,Isharedsomeofthehistoricalbackgroundand

contextofbothDoloresHuertaandtheUnitedFarmWorkers(UFW)union.However,the

storyofbothHuertaandtheUFWisfarfromover.Althoughatitspeak,theUFWwas

statedtohaveoverfiftythousandmembers(BardackeandBaer),todaytheUFWcurrently

hasamembershipofjustovertenthousand(UnionFacts).Interestingly,overthelastten

years,theUFWwasreportingamembershipthathoveredaroundfivethousand,and,in

2013,itexperiencedagrowthspurtthatnearlydoubleditsmembership.Whileitisnot

withinthescopeofthisprojecttodeterminethecauseforthisgrowth,itisrelevantthat

theUFWcontinuesitsmissiontoimprovetheworkingconditionsoffarmlaborersand

farmingpractices—amissionthat,unfortunately,stillhasexigence.

Huerta’scontinuedworktowardsocialjusticehasalsonotwaned.Accordingtothe

DoloresHuertaFoundation,in1988whenshewas58-years-old,Huertasustainedserious

injuryatthehandsofaSanFranciscoPoliceDepartmentofficerwhileprotestingpoliciesof

then-presidentialcandidateGeorgeH.W.BushinSanFrancisco(“DoloresHuerta”).Aftera

lengthyrecovery,HuertatookaleaveofabsencefromtheUFWtofocusonwomen’srights

andpromotegenderandethnicequalityingovernmentrepresentation(“DoloresHuerta”).

Nowattheageof85,shecontinuestoworktoward“developingandadvocatingforthe

workingpoor,women,andchildren”(“DoloresHuerta”).WhileHuertaremainsa

prominentpublicfigure,sheisnotyetahouseholdnamedespitetherecognitionthatshe

hasreceivedatlocal,state,andnationallevels.Mostnotably,PresidentClintonpresented

HuertawiththeEleanorRooseveltHumansRightsAwardin1998,andPresidentObama

presentedherwiththePresidentialMedalofFreedomin2012,whichisthehighestcivilian

171

awardintheUnitedStates(“DoloresHuerta”).Huerta’sprofessionalachievements

continuetogrow,andherlegacyisonethatwillcontinueforgenerationstocome.And,

althoughfewareawareofit,hervoiceandethoscontinuetocontributetotherallyingcry

forhopeandsocialjusticeinmainstreamgovernment,workforce,andeventhemedia.

Ineachoftheprecedingchapters,Ihaveworkedtodemonstratethecentralityofa

rhetor’sbodytotheconstructionofherethos.LookingtoapublicfiguresuchasHuertaand

anorganizationsuchastheUFWprovidedtheopportunitytoexamineaLatinarhetorand

socialmovement,whilealsodemonstratinghowtheethoscreatedbytheleadersofa

movementcanpersist.Inthisconcludingchapter,Iemphasizetherelationshipbetween

spokenlanguageandthebodyinordertoestablishthesignificanceoftheUFW’sslogan,¡Sí

SePuede!Aftersharingtheoriginof¡SíSePuede!,Iarguethatalthoughitremainsthe

currentsloganfortheunion,ithasbeenredeployedandappropriatedinavarietyofways.

Further,bydrawingonSkinner’sfourthfeatureofafeministmodelofethos,Iarguethat

theeffectivenessoftheslogancanbetracedbacktotheethosofbothleadersand

specificallytoHuertaastheoriginator.Thus,whilethesloganappearsdisembodiedfrom

Huerta,itpossesseselementsestablishedbyherethos,whichisthentransferredtothose

whouseit.

LanguageandtheBody

Intheprecedingchapters,Ihaveprimarilyfocusedontheidentitiesembodiedby

Huertaandtheirinfluenceonherethosconstruction.However,notonlydotheidentities

associatedwiththebodyaffectethosbutthematerialandrhetoricalactionsofthebody

alsosignificantlyshapeethosconstruction.Morespecifically,bothHuertaandCesarChavez

consistentlydemonstratedtheircommitmenttothecausewiththeirbodies.Huertastood

172

onthepicketline,marchedinseveralprotests,andsleptinthemostbasicof

accommodationsalongsideherfamilywhoneverwenthungrybutwhoalsolivedinvery

sparseconditions.Huertawascommittedtothecausebothideologicallyandmaterially.

Likewise,Chavezplacedhisbodyinthecausebyprotestingtheworkingconditionsofthe

farmlaborersthroughaseriesoffasts.And,ofcourse,healsoparticipatedinmultiple

strikes,marches,andprotests.Chavezandhisfamilylivedonaveryleanincome,too.In

fact,manyofthefamiliesandindividualsfightingforfarmlaborerrightsplacedtheir

bodiesinthefightbysacrificingmateriallyand/orphysically—forexample,whenthey

werebrutalizedonthepicketline,duringamarch,orataprotestrally.Despiteallthese

sharedmaterial,physical,andemotionalsacrifices,Chavezwithoutadoubtremainsthe

mostrecognizableleaderoftheUFW.

Asco-leadersofthefarmlaborermovement,ChavezandHuertaoftensharedmany

oftheirpublicrolesandwereasuccessfulteam,inpart,becausetheyspokethe“language”

ofthefarmworkers.Tobeclear,languageinthisinstancedoesnotmerelysignifythatboth

leaderswerebilingualandspokeSpanishandEnglish,asmanyfarmworkerswereSpanish

speakers.Instead,languagealsoreferstothefamiliaritywithwhatmatteredmosttofarm

workersandhowtobestpresentit.AsCarolMattinglyassertsintheintroductiontoWell-

TemperedWomen,Temperancewomenwereremarkablyeffective:“Theypresented

argumentsincomfortable,familiarlanguagethatmadebothwomenandmenamenableto

newideasandevidence.Wordsaremosteffectivewhenanaudienceadmiresitsspeakers

andfindsthemessagesnon-threatening”(1-2).Utilizingstrategylikethatofthe

Temperancewomen,bothChavezandHuertaweretrustedandadmiredbythefarm

workersbecausetheworkersadmiredtheleaders’commitmenttofightingforthecause

173

andsharedtheirlanguage.Indeed,partofthislanguagewasthematerialandphysical

sacrifices—orsimilarlivedrealities—thatHuertaandChavezsharedwiththefarm

laborers.LanguageinallofitscomplexitieswasasignificantelementofHuerta’sethos

constructionandefficacy.

Asevidencedinchaptersfourandfive,Huertaadvocatedforusinglanguagethat

wasfamiliartothefarmworkerswhendrawingupherfirstsetofcontracts,andshe

explicitlyarguedthatthelanguageofthecontractshouldbeaccessibletothepeopleitis

writtentoprotect.Thus,Huertaavoidedadoptingthemoreformalandlegaljargonof

lawyers.Inaddition,whenreachingouttoandsolicitingsupportfromavarietyof

communities,Huertaoftenstrategicallyutilizedkeyphrasesortermsinmultiplelanguages

tosignalallegiance.Forexample,inaletterthatshewroterequestingsupportforthegrape

boycotttoWendellYoung,thepresidentoftheRetailClerksUnionnowknownasthe

UnitedFoodandCommercialWorkersInternationalUnion(UFCW),Huertaclosesher

letterwith“SincerelyandFraternallyyours,DoloresHuertaVicePresidentandpresently

workingasEastCoastBoycottCoordinator.VIVALAHUELGA!”Inthisshortvalediction,it

isevidentthatHuertacustomizedhertexttofitthelanguageoftherecipient.Asafellow

unionofficer,Youngwouldcertainlyunderstandtheimportanceof“fraternallyyours,”in

additiontothecredentialsofferedbyHuertaastheVPandEastCoastBoycottCoordinator.

Ofcourse,“VIVALAHUELGA,”orlonglivethestrike,wasalsousedtosignifythebicultural

communitymostaffectedbythefarmlaborerworkingconditions.

Huertausedsharedorcommonlanguage,then,tomakeconnectionsbothinterms

ofindicatinganawarenessofprominentdiscoursewithinspecificcommunitiesandasan

extensionofthebodieswhowerebeingrepresented.BecauseSpanishisnottheofficial

174

languageoftheUnitedStatesandisnotrecognizedasanativelanguageoftheUS—despite

theentangledhistoryoftheUSandMexico—theinclusionofSpanishorevenTagalog

representsthe“otherness”ofthebodiesinvolvedinthemovement.Thistacticwasutilized

multipletimesbyincludingavarietyofvaledictionsinSpanish,English,andTagalog.

Althoughthefarmlaborermovementworkedandcontinuestoworktoimprovethe

workingconditionsforalllaborers,theprimarycommunityaffectedbyandassociatedwith

themovementwereLatinos.Itisalsoimportanttoacknowledgetheintegralcontributions

fromFilipinoUFWleaderLarryItiliongandthemanyFilipinofarmlaborerswhowerepart

ofthefight.And,ofcourse,therewerealsomanyWhitefarmlaborersandallieswhowere

workingtoimproveconditions.Thus,althoughthemovementiscommonlyassociatedwith

thebrownbodiesofLatinos,itactuallyservedandwasservedbyaverydiverse

community.

Aspartofalargermovement,Huertastoodasaleaderofthelabormovementanda

symbolofpossibility.HerinfluencewasstrongintheUFW,asevidencedbythe

organization’sadoptionof¡SíSePuede!astheirsloganin1972.Huerta’s“fire”is

representedinthisstatement,andherintersectionalityismadeexplicitbyheruseof

Spanish.ManyoftheleadersoftheUFWwerebilingual,anditistellingthatmostoftheir

sloganswereinSpanish:beginningwithVivalaCausa(looselytranslatedassupport/fuel

thecause)andthenVivalaHuelga(support/fuelthestrike).Assuggestedpreviously,the

UFWmadeaconsciousdecisiontoincludemultiplelanguagesintheircorrespondencesas

awaytodemonstratetheunitedcauseforwhichtheywerefighting.Theuseofmultiple

languagesactsasadistinctmarkerofinclusivityandasasymbolofgenuinerepresentation

ofthepeopleforwhomrightswerebeingfought.

175

Notpayingattentiontomultilingualtextshaslimitedourunderstandingofrhetoric

andcertainlyignoresthepowerfulroleoflanguageinBurkeanidentification.Inherarticle

“ChangingMethods,”JessicaEnochechoesthissentimentwhenreflectingonherchoiceto

examineSpanish-languagenewspaperarticlesinherbookRefiguringRhetoricalEducation.

Ultimately,EnocharguesthatnotincludingatextbecauseitisnotinEnglishonlylimitsour

understandingoflanguageandrhetoric(51).InthecaseofHuerta,bilingualtextsoftenact

asaconsciousrhetoricalmeansofconnectingtoheraudienceandrepresentingthebodies

forwhomshewasfighting.

EventhoughtheleadershipoftheUFWwasastuteincustomizinglanguagebased

ontheintendedaudience,thelargestconstituencyoftheUFWwasandstillisLatino;thus,

Spanishtextwasnearlyalwayspartofcommunication—evenifonlyinavalediction.This

pointissignificantbecausethesloganoftheUFW,¡SíSePuede!,isinSpanishandthus

remainscloselyassociatedbothwiththebodywhofirstuttereditandthebodieswhomit

represents.AccordingtotheUFW,afterCesarChavezinitiatedafasttoprotestthevetoof

anArizonabillthatwouldhaveprotectedfarmlaborerswhilestrikingandorganizing,the

leadersoftheUFWmetinArizonatostrategize.Theatmosphereintheroomwas

describedasbleakandfullofdespair:

Whennewsofthelaw’senactmentreachedhim,CesarreturnedtoArizonaandbegana25-daywater-onlyfast.Thefastquicklytookaphysicaltoll.AfterafewdaysCesarwasbedridden.Restingonhisbackinasmallroom,withUFWco-founderDoloresHuertabyhisside,CesarwasbriefedbyagroupoflocalLatinolaborandpoliticalleadersaboutpoliticalrealitiesinthestate.

TheleadersofferedarefrainCesarandDoloresheardmanytimes:Thegrowerlobbythatdominatedstatepolitics,theLegislatureandgovernorweresopowerful,theseLatinoleadersdeclared,itcouldn’tbebeaten.CesarandDoloressilentlylistenedwhiletheyexplainedwhythefastandeffortsbyfarmworkerswouldbefruitless.

176

“No,nosepuede!”(“No,noitcan’tbedone”),theykeptrepeatinginSpanish.ThenDoloresresponded,“Sí,sísepuede!”(“Yes,yes,itcanbedone”).

Doloresimmediatelypickedupthecallandmadetheslogantherallyingcryforthefarmworkers’campaigninArizona.(UFW)

TheexcerptaboveisavailableontheofficialwebsiteoftheUFWandislocatedunderthe

“Research-History-HistoryofSíSePuede”tab.Thisissignificantbecauseinthisofficial

originstory,thecreditfortherallyingcryisattributedtoHuerta.Astheleaderwho

possessedtheenergy,fire,andtenacity,Huertawasatthatmomenttheleaderwhocould

infusetheorganizationwithmuch-neededhope.Therearetwocriticalelementstonotein

theUFW’soriginstory:first,itisonlywiththecombinedleadershipfromChavezand

HuertathattheUFWwasabletoreboundfromsuchfeelingsofdefeat;andsecond,Huerta

wasquiteabletorallysupport.Asaduo,thetwoleaderswereabletodemonstrateboth

theircommitmenttothecauseandtheirperseverance.ThefactthatChavezwasweakened

duetoenduringa25-daywater-onlyfastandHuertawasabletorallythedespondent

groupservesasatestamenttotheimportanceoftheircombinedperseveranceand

leadership.

Interestingly,however,itisChavezwhoinevitablybecomesthegreaterfocusofthe

originstory.ImmediatelyfollowingthestatementthatHuertapickedupthecallandmade

ittherallyingcryforthefarmworkers’campaigninArizona,thenarrativeturns

exclusivelytoChavez:

FollowingCesar’s1972fast,duringwhichhebecamesoweakhewashospitalized,theUFWmobilizedthousandsoflabor,religiousandcommunityactivists,andcollectedenoughsignaturestoforceanelectiontorecallGovernorWilliams.Thegovernorescapedthevotewithapartisanrulingbythestateattorneygeneral.

AtaMassendingthefast,Cesar’ssaidinastatementthatwasreadforhim,“Thegreatesttragedyisnottoliveanddie,asweallmust.Thegreatesttragedyisforapersontoliveanddiewithoutknowingthesatisfactionofgivinglifeforothers.”

177

Thestate’spunitiveanti-farmworkerlawisstillonthebooks.YetCesarChavez’shistoricfast,theUFW’sactivismandthemessageofSíSePuede!havefundamentallytransformedArizonatothepresentday.

Cesarhaspassed,buthislegacyofself-sacrifice—andtheaffirmation¡SíSePuede!—isalivewhereverfarmworkersorganizeandwhereverpeopleanywherestandupnonviolentlyfortheirrights.

¡SíSePuede!(UFW)

ThroughoutmyprocessofresearchingtheUFWandHuerta,thiskindofframingisa

commonformulathatstateswhatHuertacontributesandthenhighlightsChavezandhis

sacrificetothecause.Itisnotsurprising,then,thatHuertahasremainedeclipsedby

Chavezandthattheoriginof¡SíSePuede!hasoftenbeenmisrepresentedascomingfrom

Chavez.Forexample,ina2008briefTimearticleaboutObama’suseofthesloganwhileon

thecampaigntrail,despitetheUFWendorsingthen-presidentialcandidateHillaryClinton,

journalistJayNewtonSmallbegins,“WhenObamainvokedthespecterofCesarChavezthis

weekinarallywiththeCulinaryWorkersUnioninNevadabyproclaiming‘SíSePuede!’—

Chavez’slegendaryrallyingcry—Iwassurprised.”Notetheexplicitattributionof¡SíSe

Puede!toChavez.Iamcertainlynotsuggestingthatthesayingbelongsexclusivelyto

HuertaorthatitdoesnotrightfullybelongtotheUFWandallthosewhofightforsocial

justice.Iam,however,arguingthatwhileitiscontinuallyattributedtoChavez,oreventhe

UFW,itstillcontainstheenergyandfeaturesofethosthataredeeplyassociatedwithits

lesserknownauthorDoloresHuerta.Inordertodemonstratehowasloganmightcontain

theenergyandfeaturesofethosfromapersonnotimmediatelyknowntobetheoriginator,

Idrawonconceptsofrhetoricalcirculation.Althoughthisisonlyaninitialinvestigationof

howrhetoricalcirculationmightaidourunderstandingofethosandmorespecificallyhow

itcantransferbetweenrhetors,itservestofurtherestablishthesignificanceofembodied

identities.

178

Inherarticle,“UnframingModelsofPublicDistribution,”JennyEdbauerexplores

therhetoricalsituation—asaugmentedbytheconceptofrhetoricalecologies—

emphasizingtheimportantroleofnetworksandthecirculationofrhetoricinorderto

bettertheorizehowrhetoricworks.Indoingthis,Edbauerprovidesafoundationfor

understandingthenetworksthatprovideconnectionsformakingmessagesmeaningful.

Likerhetoricalgenretheorists,Edbauerconceivesoftherhetoricalsituationasfluidand

heavilydependentonthenetworksthatsociallyconstructexigence.Shesuggests,“Rather

thanimaginingtherhetoricalsituationinarelativelyclosedsystem,[a]distributedor

ecologicalfocusmightbegintoimaginethesituationwithinanopennetwork”(Edbauer

13).Further,EdbauerarguesthatwhileLoydBitzer’sdefinitionoftherhetoricalsituation

isanimportantandgroundbreakingconcept,itscategories—writer,reader,andmessage—

aretoofixed(10).Inordertobetterunderstandthecomplexityofrhetoric,wemustalso

considerthelivedsociallivesandconnectionsthatmakeupasocialfield(10).Sheposits,

“Tosaythatweareconnectedisanotherwayofsayingthatweareneveroutsidethe

networkedinterconnectionofforces,energies,rhetorics,moods,andexperiences.Inother

words,ourpracticalconsciousnessisneveroutsidethepriorandongoingstructuresof

feelingthatshapethesocialfield”(10).Thus,thecommunicativeactsthatmakeupsocial

discoursearenecessarilyembodied.Whenspeaking,writing,drawing,orotherwise

composing,socialandculturalhistoriesaretransferredandsharedthroughourlived

interactions.Edbauerdoesnotargueforafullreconceptualizationoftherhetorical

situationbutinsteadoffershertheoryofrhetoricalecologiesasanaugmentation:“One

potentialvalueofsuchashiftedfocusisthewayweviewcounter-rhetorics,issuesof

cooptation,andstrategiesofrhetoricalproductionandcirculation”(20).Consideringthe

179

networkofconnectionsthatitrequiredtopromote,circulate,andinstitutionalizeaslogan

like¡SíSePuede!fromitsfirstutteranceinasmallroominArizonatoaredeploymentby

BarackObamainhis2008presidentialcampaign,then,requiresanunderstandingofhow

rhetoricand,morespecifically,ethostravels.

RhetoricalCirculation

InhisDecember2000article“CompositionandCirculationofWriting,”John

Trimburarguesthatanintegralpartofcomposingistheactofdeliveryandthus

circulation.Specifically,hearguesthat“deliverycannolongerbethoughtofsimplyasa

technicalaspectofpublicdiscourse.Itmustbeseenalsoasethicalandpolitical—a

democraticaspirationtodevisedeliverysystemsthatcirculateideas,information,

opinions,andknowledgetherebyexpandthepublicforumsinwhichpeoplecandeliberate

ontheissuesoftheday”(Trimbur190).Further,heexplainsthat“deliverymustbeseenas

inseparablefromthecirculationofwritingandthewideningdiffusionofsociallyuseful

knowledge”(191).AlthoughTrimbur’sdiscussionofdeliveryandcirculationwas

developedinordertoarguethatthewritingprocessismorecomplexthanmerelya

processinwhichauthorsperformtheactofwriting,hisconceptionisalsousefulfora

discussionofrhetoricalcirculation.Ineffect,Trimbur’scouplingofdeliveryandcirculation

aidsinhowweconceptualizetheactofcomposingandhowwemighttheorizetheeffectan

author—andbyextensionherethos—hasoncirculation.Themodesofdeliveryforboththe

textsthatfeaturedHuertaandthosethatshedeliveredvariedextensively.AsVice

PresidentoftheUFW,HuertatestifiedinfrontofCongress,spokeatrallies,facilitated

countlessmeetings,wrotelettersandmemos,deliveredformalpresentationsand

speeches,composedlegaldocumentsthatrangedfromcontractstosuits,andgranted

180

manyinterviewsthatwereprintedinperiodicals,broadcastonTVandradio,andbecame

partofdocumentaries.Ofcourse,itisunlikelythatthisisanexhaustivelist.YetHuertawas

constructingherethosthrougheachofherutterances,whichactedaspersuasivemeansfor

garneringsupportfortheUFW.Sowhilethisexaminationtakesuponlyasamplingof

Huerta’srhetoricalacts,itdoessoinordertoprovidefodderforfutureanalyses—for

example,thetransferabilityofethos.

ConnectingdeliverytocirculationasTrimburdoesalsocreatesopportunityfor

consideringhowtheethosoftherhetorinfluencesthetext.Inthiscase,thetextisthe

UFW’sofficialslogan,¡SíSePuede!Inordertobetterunderstandtheimplicationsof

Trimbur’sargumentandspecificallyhowitrelatestoaslogan,IreturntoEdbauer’s

“UnframingModelsofPublicDistribution”inwhichshetracestherhetoricaleffectsof

Austin’sslogan“KeepAustinWeird”andhowslogansworktodefineacity.Accordingto

Edbauer,inanattempttodisruptthetakeoveroflargechainretailersandrestaurantsin

Austin,twolocalstoreownersprintedanddistributedbumperstickersthatread,“Keep

AustinWeird.”Whileitisnotwithinthescopeofthisprojecttoofferacomparative

analysisofAustin’ssloganandtheUFW’s,itisusefultoconsiderthesourceoftheslogan

foramoment.First,becauseAustinhadrecentlygonethroughaneconomicshiftcausedby

aninfluxoftechnologybusinesses,manysmallbusinesseswereforcedtoclose(Edbauer).

Thus,thebumperstickersoriginatedfromtwolong-establishedandlocalstoreowners.It

couldbearguedthenthattheethosofthestoreownersandtheirstores,BookPeopleand

WaterlooRecords,waspartoftheappealoftheslogan.Sincetheydirectlydistributedthe

initialrunofbumperstickersthroughtheirstorefronts,itcanalsobearguedthatexisting

customersunderstoodthelargerimplicationsofsuchaphrase.Oncetheslogan“Keep

181

AustinWeird”wascirculatedbeyonditsinitialpurpose—toslowthecorporatetakeover

andsparkinterestinlocalretailers—itwasco-optedandredeployedforalternativeuses,

whichrangedfrompromotingaliberalartseducationtobridgingaconnectionbetweenthe

wirelessphonecompanyCingularandAustinresidents.Yetitcouldbearguedthatthe

ethosimbuedbytheauthorsinthesloganremained,albeitfragmented,sothatitlentits

charactertothosewhoappropriateditsuse.Similarly,duetoitsdeeplynetworked

distribution,theUFW’sslogan¡SíSePuede!maintainstheethosofitsoriginator,Dolores

Huerta.AsIwillexplorefurther,becausethesloganwasattachedtothebodiesrepresented

bytheUFW,andtheUFWtookonthecharacterofitsleadership,itcanbearguedthat

Huerta’sethosremainspartoftheforcebehindtheslogan.

ExpandingtheconceptionofplaceandspacetoincludenetworksasEdbauerdoes

aidsinre-conceptualizinghowethosmightbetransferredandshared.Specifically,Edbauer

arguesthatmovingawayfroma“site-model”ofacityinwhichthecityisdefinedbyits

boundariesandfixedelementslikeacontainerandtowardacirculationornetworked

modelemphasizesandbetterrepresentsthenegotiationofmeaningnecessarytodefine,or

imagine,acommunity(11).Althoughitisnotacity,theUFWactssimilarlyinthatit

containsaparticulargroupofpeople—namely,farmlaborersandthosewhosupporttheir

campaign.InordertobothavoidanessentializeddefinitionoftheUFW’sconstituencyand

torecognizetheheterogeneityoftheorganization,wearebetterservedbypositioningthe

organizationasanetwork.Inthisway,theUFWisrecognizedasanorganizationof

networkedindividualswhoembodyculturalandsocialhistoriesbothoutsideoftheUFW

andwithinit.Asanetwork,wemightbetterbeabletotracehowasloganlike¡SíSePuede!

182

cansimultaneouslyborrowandleverageethosfromHuertaaswellasbetransplantedand

alteredforareneweduse.

WhiletheprecedingchaptershavearguedthatthebodyandHuerta’sintersectional

identitiesareoftensitesofchallenge,opportunity,andthein-betweenspaces,thischapter

focusesonthesignificantandcarnallinkagebetweenidentityandspokenlanguagein

ordertoemphasizethepersonallyimbuedforcebehindtheslogan¡SíSePuede!Thework

ofthepreviouschaptersdemonstrateshowthebody,andspecificallytheidentity

categoriesattachedtothebody,influencedHuerta’sethosconstruction—anethosthatis

mostcommonlydescribedasexceptional,passionate,andfiery.Theadjectivesmost

prevalentlyusedtoillustrateHuertaalsopersistastheforcebehindtheUFW’sofficial

sloganbecause,asEdbauerpointsoutwhendrawingonStevenShaviro,messagescannot

beisolatedfromthewaysinwhichtheyaredistributed(10).Partofthisprojectthus

becomesexamininghowHuerta’sresponsetothedowntroddenleaderscirculatedthrough

andbeyondthemovement.Inherarticle,“SurvivalStories:FeministHistoriographic

ApproachestoChicanaRhetoricsofSterilizationAbuse,”JessicaEnocharguesthather

methodologicalmoveswork“topresstheboundariesoftherhetoricalsituationand

investigatethevariouswaysinwhichtheseChicanas’wordswerelistenedtoand

redeployed”(7).Enoch’sapproachoffersaprocessforinvestigatinghowHuerta’swords

werelistenedtoandredeployed.Redeploymentisespeciallyinterestingwhenconsidering

how¡Sí,sísepuede!continuestobepresentedbytheUFWandhowithasbeen

appropriatedinmorecontemporarymovements—perhapsmostnotablyinObama’s2008

presidentialcampaign.

183

¡SiSePuede!andtheObamaCampaign:AnExample

Fig.2.“Rosita” Fig.3.ObamaSiSePuede Fig.4.SiSePuede,TejasImagefromRobertValadez. ImagefromObamacampaign. ImagefromObamacampaign.

Withthehopeanddeterminationencasedin¡SíSePuede!,itisnotsurprisingthat

othercommunitiesandindividualsfightingforchangehavetakenitupaspartoftheirown

campaigns.Forexample,artistRobertValadez’spainting“Rosita”(Fig.2)combinesthe

iconicimageofRosietheRiveterandthe“Wecandoit”propagandathatcalledonwomen

tojointheworkforceduringWWIIwiththeslogan¡SíSePuede!Valadez’spaintingactsasa

symbolicdemonstrationofthestrengthofChicanasbyreplacingtheWhitedepictionof

RosiewithaMexicanfictionalpre-feministarchetype,LaAdelita(RobertValadez).More

specifically,inValadez’spainting,thewomanwearsatraditionalMexicanwhiteblousethat

sitsjustofftheshouldersandbearsabandolierfullofammunition.Uponcloserinspection

oftheimage,thereisasubtleoutlineofarifleincludedoverherbackshoulder,andthebutt

oftheriflerestsclosetoherhip.However,whatismostpredominantintheportraitisthe

phrase¡SíSePuede!thatspansacrossthetop.Valadezexplainshispaintingthusly:

184

Theimageisbasedontheveryfamous“RosietheRiveter”posterfromWorldWarll.Heresheiscombinedwithanotherfictionalpre-feministarchetype,LaAdelita,acharacterofsongandstorywhorepresentedallthewomenwhoparticipatedintheMexicanRevolutionofthe1900's.IpaintherherewithhopesthatshemayinspireanewMexicanRevolution.(RobertValadez)

Valadez’spaintinghascirculatedthroughsocialmediasitesandhasalsobeenmade

availableasaposter.Whilethepaintingdoesnotdirectlycorrelatetoacurrentmovement

orcampaign,itdoesserveasasymbolofempowermentandclearlyreflectsthefeminist

andChicanomovements.

Adaptation,appropriation,andredeploymentofspecifictextssuchasValadez’s

demonstratethegenerativeandtransferablenatureofethos.ApplyingCarolynSkinner’s

fourthaspectofafeministmodelofethos,whichclaimsthatanindividualrhetor’sethos

permeatesbeyondtheindividual,IarguethatbecauseHuertaandtheUFWimbuedthe

slogan¡SíSePuede!withqualitiesandcharacteristicsmostassociatedwiththeleadersof

themovement,otherswhoaimtomakechangeorworkforsocialjusticecanutilizethe

slogananddrawonthesecharacteristics.Skinnerexplains,“Theethoschoicesanindividual

rhetormakesinfluencenotonlyhisorherimmediatecommunicativesituationbutalsothe

broadercontextandthepersuasiveoptionsavailabletootherpotentialspeakersand

writers”(178).Inotherwords,speakersandwritersoutsideoftheinitialcontexthave

accesstothequalitiesofcharacterthatweredevelopedbytherhetorswhocamebefore

themthroughsharedelementsofidentification.WhileValadez’sportraitisapointof

interest,amorewidelyknownredeploymentof¡SíSePuede!wasusedinPresidentBarack

Obama’sfirstrunforoffice(Figs.3and4).Ithasbeenwelldocumentedthatthe2008

Obamacampaignranonaplatformofchangeandhope.Thepossibilityforcriticalchange

inareassuchashealthcareandsocialmobilityalongwithhopeforamoreequitable

185

Americaseemedtobefueledbyhiscampaignslogan,“YesWeCan”(Obama’sEnglish

translationof¡SíSePuede!)7.Whileitisnotwithinthescopeofthisprojecttoconducta

detailedanalysisofhowthesloganwasdeployedanditscomplexrhetoricaleffects,it

standsasanexampleofhowethoscanbetransferredandredeployed.

Ineffect,becausetheObamacampaigntookupthe“YesWeCan/SíSePuede”slogan,

itsituatedthecampaignandObamaasthetenaciousunderdog.Inorderforthephrasefirst

utteredbyHuertatobesoughtafterandrelevant,ithadtopossessthecharacterfromthe

peoplewhopropagatedit—alongwiththesocialandculturalhistoriesattachedtothem—

inordertobeeffective.Tracingthesocialpropagationofthesloganthroughinteractions

betweenindividuals,then,wouldleadusbacktoHuerta.Meaningisnegotiatedmutually

betweenrhetorandaudience.Aswords,clichés,andslogansgetredeployed,theyare

understoodthroughtheentitieswhoendorsethemandthusmaintaintheenergyand

feelingsoftheperson—andeventuallypeopleandcommunities—whoperpetuatethem.

Otherswhoshareandleveragesimilarideologies,then,representHuerta’scharacter.For

example,runningonaplatformofchangeandsocialprogress,Obamawasabletoborrow

theethosofHuerta—andbyextensionChavezandtheUFWwhoalsoworkedforsocial

progress—andalignhisstrugglefortheWhiteHousewiththatoftheunderdog.Despite

ObamanotbeingofficiallyendorsedbytheUFWandusurpingtheslogan,itwasgenerally

aneffectivemeanstogenerateexcitementandhopeforhiscampaignspecificallybecause

ofboththeconnotationitpossessed,aswellasthenetworkfromwhichitderived.

7FormoreseeauthorLaurieE.Gries’StillLifewithRhetoric:ANewMaterialistApproachforVisualRhetorics(2015).

186

JusttheBeginning

Itwouldseemthataftersixchaptersthisprojectisfinished;however,theopposite

istrue.Thisprojectremainsatitsbeginningstagesbecauseasdemonstratedinthis

chapter,theeffectofethosontheredeploymentofkeyphrasesandactionscontinuesto

constrainandliberatetheethosstrategyofrhetors.ThisbriefoutliningofhowHuerta’s¡Sí

SePuede!hasbeentakenupinrecentyearsindicatesthatthereismuchmoretobe

discovered.Ultimately,Ichosetoconcludethisprojectbyofferingabriefexampleofwhat

morecanbelearnedaboutethosthroughanalyzingthecirculationandredeploymentofa

seeminglydisembodiedsloganinordertoreaffirmtheimportanceofthematerial

experienceandphysicalbodiesofrhetors.Eveninapreliminaryanalysis,theexamination

appearstosuggestthatitsbodilyrootsarenotabsent.Thusthecontinuedattentiontoward

thebody,especiallyasitrelatestoidentity,anditseffectsonrhetoricalstrategyremainsan

importantandpowerfulsitefordiscovery.

187

Bibliography

Alcorn,MarhallW.“Self-StructureasaRhetoricalDevice:ModernEthosandthe

DivisivenessoftheSelf.”Ethos:NewEssaysinRhetoricalandCriticalTheory.Dallas:

SouthernMethodistUniversityPress,1994.3-35.Print.

AmericanPublicHealthAssociation.“About.”apha.org/about-apha.Accessed18June2015.

Anzaldua,Gloria.Borderlands/LaFrontera:TheNewMestiza.4thed.SanFrancisco:Aunt

LuteBooks.1987.Print.

Applegarth,Risa.“Genre,Location,andMaryAustin'sEthos.”RhetoricSocietyQuarterly,vol.

41,no.1,pp.41-63.Web.

Aristotle.TheArtofRhetoric.TranslatedbyH.C.Lawson-Tancred,PenguinBooks,1991.

Print.

Arredondo,AidaHurtado,NormaKlahn,OlgaNajera-Ramirez,andPatriciaZavella,eds.

ChicanaFeminisms:ACriticalReader.Durham:DukeUP,2003.Print.

Baca,DamianandVictorVillanueva.RhetoricoftheAmericas3114BCE-2012CE.Palgrave

Macmillan.2010.Print.

Baer,BarbaraL.“StoppingTraffic:OneWoman’sCause.”TheDoloresHuertaReader.Ed.

MarioGarcia.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,2008.97-103.Print.

Baer,BarbaraL.andGlennaMatthews.“YouFindaWay:TheWomenoftheBoycott.”The

Nation.23February1974.232-37.Print.

Bardacke,Frank.TramplingOutTheVintage:CesarChavezAndTheTwoSoulsOfTheUnited

FarmWorkers.London:Verso,2011.Print.

Baumlin,JamesandTitaFrenchBaumlin,eds.Ethos:NewEssaysinRhetoricalandCritical

Theory.Dallas:SouthernMethodistUniversityPress,1994.Print.

188

Bawarshi,Anis.GenreandtheInventionoftheWriter.Logan:UtahUniversityPress,2003.

Print.

Bazerman,Charles.ConstructingExperience.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUP,1994.Print.

Biesecker,Barbara.“RethinkingtheRhetoricalSituationfromWithintheThematicof

Differance.”PhilosophyandRhetoric,vol.22,no.2,1989,pp.110-130.Print.

Bitzer,LloydF."TheRhetoricalSituation."PhilosophyandRhetoric,vol.1,no.1,1968,pp.1-

14.Web.

Bosmajian,HaigA.TheLanguageOfOppression.Lanham,Md.:UniversityPressofAmerica,

1983.Print.

Brooke,Robert.“Trust,Ethos,Transference:PlatoandtheProblemofRhetoricalMethod.”

Ethos:NewEssaysinRhetoricalandCriticalTheory.EdsJamesBaumlinandTita

FrenchBaumlin.Dallas:SouthernMethodistUniversityPress,1994.149-170.Print

Buchanan,Lindal.RegenderingDelivery:TheFifthCanonandAntebellumWomenRhetors.

SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1995.Print.

Burke,Kenneth.ARhetoricofMotives.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1969.Print.

Campbell,KarlynKohrs.ManCannotSpeakForHer.NewYork:GreenwoodPress,1989.

Print.

Chavez,Cesar.LettertoBoycotters.19September1969.Box11,Folder4.UFWOCNew

YorkBoycottOfficePapersandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,

ArchivesofLaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneState

University,DetroitMI.13May2016.

____.MemotoHuerta.11July1970.Box36,Folder11.UFWOfficeofthePresident:Cesar

ChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,ArchivesofLaborand

189

UrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneStateUniversity,DetroitMI.13May

2016.

____.MemotoHuerta.2November1978.Box46,Folder12.UFWOfficeofthePresident:

CesarChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,Archivesof

LaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneStateUniversity,Detroit

MI.13May2016.

____.MemotoHuerta.4April1978.Box46,Folder12.UFWOfficeofthePresident:Cesar

ChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,ArchivesofLaborand

UrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneStateUniversity,DetroitMI.13May

2016.

Cherry,D.Roger.“PersonaversusEthos.”WrittenCommunication,vol.5,no.3,1988,pp.

251-76.Print.

Christoph,JulieNelson."ReconceivingEthosinRelationtothePersonal:Strategiesof

PlacementinPioneerWomen'sWriting."CollegeEnglish,vol.64,no.6,2002,pp.

660-79.Web.

Chui,Glennda.“UFWVeepTalkstoCrowd.”DailyPioneer,2May1974,p.1-2.

Cintron,Ralph.Angels’Town:CheroWays,GangLifeandRhetoricsoftheEveryday.Boston:

Beacon,1997.Print.

Clemmons,Nelda.“DoloresHuertaMothersElevenKids,andOneLaborUnion.”TheDolores

HuertaReader.Ed.MarioGarcia.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,2008.115-118.

Print.

Coburn,Judith.“DoloresHuerta:LaPasionariaoftheFarmworkers.”Ms.Magazine.

November1976:11-15.Print.

190

Collins,PatriciaHill.“Intersectionality’sDefinitionalDilemmas.”AnnualReviewofSociology,

vol.41,no.1,2015,pp.1-20.Web.

“ConversationwithDoloresHuerta:AmergingofRoles.”AmericanReport.November1973,

p.5.

Cox,RobertandCristinaR.Foust.““SocialMovementRhetoric.”SageHandbookof

RhetoricalStudies.Eds.RosaA.Eberly,KirtH.Wilson,andAndreaA.Lunsford.Los

Angeles:SAGEPublications,Inc,2009.605-27.Web.

Crenshaw,Kimberle,etal.,eds.CriticalRaceTheory:TheKeyWritingsThatFormedthe

Movement.NewYork:NewCityPress,1995.Print.

Crenshaw,Kimberle.“MappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,and

ViolenceAgainstWomenofColor.”StanfordLawReview,vol.43,1993,pp.1241-

1300.Print.

Delgado,Manuel.“LaVozArchives.”ManuelDelgado.manuelrdelgado.com.Accessed5

November2012.

Delgado,Richard.“TheBlack/WhiteBinary:HowDoesItWork?”TheLatinoCondition.New

York:NewYorkUP,1998.Print.

___.“RacialDepictioninAmericanLawandCulture.”TheLatinoCondition.NewYork:New

YorkUP,1998.Print.

Devitt,Amy.“GeneralizingaboutGenre:NewConceptionsofanOldConcept.”College

CompositionandCommunication,vol.44,1993,pp.573-86.Print.

Dingo,Rebecca.NetworkingArguments:Rhetoric,TransnationalFeminism,andPublicPolicy

Writing.Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress,2012.Print.

191

Dixson,AdrienneandCeliaRousseau.CriticalRaceTheoryinEducation.NewYork:

Routledge,2006.Print.

Dolmage,Jay.“Metis,Mêtis,Mestiza,Medusa:RhetoricalBodiesacrossRhetorical

Traditions.”RhetoricReview,vol.28,no.1,2009,pp.1-28.Print.

"DoloresHuertaFoundation."DoloresHuertaFoundation.N.p.,n.d.Web.13Aug.2016.

Doss,ErinF.andRobinE.Jensen.“BalancingMysteryandIdentification:DoloresHuerta’s

ShiftingTranscendentPersona.”QuarterlyJournalofSpeech,2013,pp.1-26.Print.

Eberly,RosaA.,KirtH.Wilson,andAndreaA.Lunsford.TheSageHandbookOfRhetorical

Studies.LosAngeles:SAGEPublications,Inc,2009.Web.23July.2015.

Edbauer,Jenny."UnframingModelsofPublicDistribution:FromRhetoricalSituationto

RhetoricalEcologies."RhetoricSocietyQuarterly,2005,pp.5-24.Print.

Enoch,Jessica.RefiguringRhetoricalEducation:WomenTeachingAfricanAmerican,Native

AmericanandChicano/aStudents.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUP,2008.Print

___.“ChangingResearchMethods,ChangingHistory:AReflectiononLanguage,Location,

andArchives.”CompositionStudies,vol.38,no.2,2010,pp.47-73.Print.

___.“SurvivalStories:FeministHistoriographicApproachestoChicanaRhetoricsof

SterilizationAbuse.”RhetoricSocietyQuarterly,vol.35,no.3,2005,pp.5-30.Print.

“FarmWorkers:theUnionMakesThemStrong.”Seafarer’sInternationalUnionofNorth

America.February1968.1-5.Print.

Fleckenstein,KristieS.“Cybernetics,Ethos,andEthics.”j.a.c.,2005,pp.323-346.Print.

Flores,Lisa.“CreatingDiscursiveSpaceThroughARhetoricofDifference:Chicana

FeministsCraftAHomeland.”QuarterlyJournalofSpeech,vol.82,1996,pp.142-156.

Print.

192

Ganz,Marshall.WhyDavidSometimesWins:Leadership,Organization,andStrategyinthe

CaliforniaFarmWorkerMovement.OxfordUniversityPress,2010.Print.

___.PersonalInterview.27July2013.

Garcia,MarioT.TheDoloresHuertaReader.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,2008.Print.

Glenn,Cheryl.RhetoricRetold:RegenderingTheTraditionFromAntiquityThroughThe

Renaissance.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1997.Print.

Glenn,CherylandJessicaEnoch.“InvigoratingHistoriographicPracticesinRhetoricand

CompositionStudies.”WorkingintheArchives:PracticalResearchMethodsfor

RhetoricandComposition.Eds.AlexisRamsey,WendySharer,BarbaraL’Eplattenier,

andLisaMastrangelo.SouthernIllinoisUP,2009.11-27.Print.

Halloran,MichaelS.“Aristotle’sConceptofEthos,orIfNotHisSomebodyElse’s.”Rhetoric

Review,vol.1,no.1,1982,pp.58-63.Print.

HaneyLopez,IanF.“RaceandErasure:TheSalienceofRacetoLatinos/as.”CriticalRace

Theory:TheCuttingEdge.Philadelphia:TempleUP,2000.369-378.Print.

Hawhee,Debra.BodilyArts:RhetoricAndAthleticsInAncientGreece.Austin:Universityof

TexasPress,2004.Print.

hooks,bell.KillingRage:EndingRacism.NewYork:HenryHolt,1995.Print.

Huerta,Dolores.“DoloresHuertaTalksaboutRepublicans,CesarChavez,Children,andHer

HomeTown.”TheDoloresHuertaReader.Ed.MarioGarcia.UniversityofNew

MexicoPress,2008.163-176.Print.

____.“LettersWrittenbyDoloresHuertatoCesarChavez,1962-1964.”TheDoloresHuerta

Reader.Ed.MarioGarcia.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,2008.195-212.Print.

193

____.“SpeechGivenbyDoloresHuerta,UCLA,February22,1978.”TheDoloresHuerta

Reader.Ed.MarioGarcia.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,2008.241-258.Print.

____.LettertoBoycotters.26September1968.Box6,Folder7.UFWOCNewYorkBoycott

OfficePapersandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,Archivesof

LaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneStateUniversity,Detroit

MI.13May2016.

___.LettertoBoycotters“DearViciousBoycotters”.27January1969.Box6,Folder8.

UFWOCNewYorkBoycottOfficePapersandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.

UFWArchives,ArchivesofLaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,

WayneStateUniversity,DetroitMI.13May2016.

___.LettertoDr.JanHoward.21November1972.Box46,Folder11.UFWOfficeofthe

President:CesarChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,

ArchivesofLaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneState

University,DetroitMI.13May2016.

___.ResponsetoMemofromChavez.11July1970.Box36,Folder11.UFWOfficeofthe

President:CesarChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,

ArchivesofLaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneState

University,DetroitMI.13May2016.

___.MemotoChavez.7December1972.Box46,Folder10.UFWOfficeofthePresident:

CesarChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,Archivesof

LaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneStateUniversity,Detroit

MI.13May2016.

194

___.MemotoChavez.9March1971.Box36,Folder11.UFWOfficeofthePresident:Cesar

ChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,ArchivesofLaborand

UrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneStateUniversity,DetroitMI.13May

2016.

____.ResponsetoMemofromChavez.4April1978.Box46,Folder12.UFWOfficeofthe

President:CesarChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,

ArchivesofLaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneState

University,DetroitMI.13May2016.

Hyde,MichaelJ.,ed.TheEthosOfRhetoric.Columbia:UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress,

2004.Print.

Jarratt,Susan.RereadingTheSophists:ClassicalRhetoricRefigured.Carbondale:Southern

IllinoisUniversityPress,1991.Print.

Jarratt,Susan,andNedraReynolds.“TheSplittingImage.”Ethos:NewEssaysinRhetorical

andCriticalTheory.Eds.JamesBaumlinandTitaFrenchBaumlin.Dallas:Southern

MethodistUniversityPress,1994.Print.

Johnson,Nan.GenderandRhetoricalSpaceinAmericanLife,1866-1910.Carbondale:

SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,2002.Print.

Kates,Susan.“TheEmbodiedRhetoricofHallieQuinnBrown.”CollegeEnglish,vol.59,no.1,

1997,pp.59-71.Print.

“KeynoteAddressbeforetheAnnualConventionoftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation,

NewOrleans,LA.”21October1974.Box46,Folder11.UFWOfficeofthePresident:

CesarChavezandDoloresHuertaPapers1970-1995.UFWArchives,Archivesof

195

LaborandUrbanAffairs.WalterP.ReutherLibrary,WayneStateUniversity,Detroit

MI.13May2016.

Knoblauch,A.Abby.“BodiesofKnowledge:Definitions,Delineations,andImplicationsof

theEmbodiedWritingtheAcademy.”CompositionStudies,vol.40no.2,2012,pp.

50-65.Print.

L’Eplattenier,Barbara.“AnArgumentforArchivalResearchMethods:ThinkingBeyond

Methodology.”CollegeEnglish,vol.72,no.1,2009,pp.67-79.Print.

Leon,Kendall.“ChicanasMakingChange:InstitutionalRhetoricandtheComisiónFemenil

MexicanaNacional.”Reflections,vol.13,no.1,2013,pp.165-194.Print.

Lerner,Neal.“ArchivalResearchasaSocialProcess.”WorkingintheArchives:Practical

ResearchMethodsforRhetoricandComposition.Eds.AlexisRamsey,WendySharer,

BarbaraL’Eplattenier,andLisaMastrangelo.SouthernIllinoisUP,2009.195-205.

Print.

Logan,ShirleyW.WithPenAndVoice:ACriticalAnthologyOfNineteenth-CenturyAfrican-

AmericanWomen.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1995.Print.

Lopez,GeraldP.“TheWell-DefendedAcademicIdentity.”TheLatinoCondition.NewYork:

NewYorkUP,1998.Print.

Lunsford,AndreaA.ReclaimingRhetorica:WomenInTheRhetoricalTradition.Pittsburgh:

UniversityofPittsburghPress,1995.Print.

Mattingly,Carol.Well-temperedWomen:NineteenthCenturyTemperanceWomen.

Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1998.Print.

Martinez,AjaY.“’TheAmericanWay’:ResistingtheEmpireofForceandColor-Blind

Racism.”CollegeEnglish,vol.71no.6,2009,pp.584-595Print.

196

Martínez,ElizabethSutherland.DeColoresMeansAllOfUs:LatinaViewsForAMulti-

ColoredCentury.Cambridge,Mass.:SouthEndPress,1998.Print.

Martinez,GeorgeA.“MexicanAmericansandWhiteness.”CriticalRaceTheory:TheCutting

Edge.Philadelphia:TempleUP,2000.379-382.Print.

Matsuda,MariJ.WhereisYourBody?:AndotherEssaysonRace,Gender,andtheLaw.

Boston:BeaconPress,1996.Print.

May,Vivian.PursingIntersectionality,UnsettlingDominantImaginaries.Routledge.2015.

Print.

McGee,MichaelCalvin."The"Ideograph":ALinkBetweenRhetoricAnd

Ideology."QuarterlyJournalOfSpeech,vol.66,no.1,1980,pp.1-16.Web.

Meier,MattS.andFelicianoRivera.DictionaryofMexicanAmericanHistory.Westport:

GreenwoodPress,1981.Print.

Miller,CarolynR.“GenreasSocialAction.”QuarterlyJournalofSpeech,vol.70,1984,pp.

151-67.Print.

Montoya,MargaretE.“Mascaras,Trenzas,yGrenas:Un/maskingtheSelfWhile

Un/braidingLatinaStoriesandLegalDiscourse.”HarvardWomen’sLawJournal,vol.

185,no.17,1994,pp.185-220.Print.

Mountford,Roxanne.TheGenderedPulpit:PreachinginAmericanProtestantSpaces.

SouthernIllinoisUP,2005.Print.

Ms.MagazineSite.Ms.Magazine,n.d.msmagazine.com.Accessed10July2015.

Perea,JuanF.“TheBlack/WhiteBinaryParadigmofRace.”CriticalRaceTheory:TheCutting

Edge.Philadelphia:TempleUP,2000.344-352.Print.

197

Ramírez,CristinaD."ForgingaMestizaRhetoric:MexicanWomenJournalists'Roleinthe

ConstructionofaNationalIdentity."CollegeEnglish,vol.71,no.6,2009,pp.606-

629.Print.

___.OccupyingOurSpace:TheMestizaRhetoricsofMexicanWomenJournalistsandActivists,

1875–1942.UniversityofArizonaPress,2015.Print.

Ramsey,Alexis,andWendySharer,BarbaraL’Eplattenier,LisaMastrangelo.Workinginthe

Archives:PracticalResearchMethodsforRhetoricandComposition.SouthernIllinois

UP.2009.Print.

RaymieE.McKerrow,"CriticalRhetoric:TheoryandPraxis."Communication

Monographs,vol.56,no.2,1989,pp.91-111.

Ratcliffe,Krista.RhetoricalListening:Identification,Gender,Whiteness.SouthernIllinois

UniversityPress.2006.Print.

Reynolds,Nedra.“EthosasLocation:NewSitesforUnderstandingDiscursiveAuthority.”

RhetoricReview,vol.11,no.2,1993,pp.325-358.Print.

Rodriguez,Richard.HungerOfMemory:TheEducationOfRichardRodriguez:An

Autobiography.NewYork:BantamBooks,1982.Print.

Ronald,Kate.“FeministPerspectiveontheHistoryofRhetoric.”SageHandbookof

RhetoricalStudies.Eds.RosaA.Eberly,KirtH.Wilson,andAndreaA.Lunsford.Los

Angeles:SAGEPublications,Inc,2009.

Royster,JacquelineJones.TracesoftheStream:LiteracyandSocialChangeAmongAfrican

AmericanWomen.Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress,2000.Print.

198

Royster,JacquelineJonesandGesaKirsch.FeministRhetoricalPractices:NewHorizonsfor

Rhetoric,Composition,andLiteracyStudies.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity

Press,2012.Print.

Scott,JoanWallach.TheFantasyofFeministHistory.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2011.

Print.

Simons,HerbertW.“Requirements,Problems,andStrategies:ATheoryofPersuasionfor

SocialMovements.”Eds.CharlesE.MorrisIIIandStephenHowardBrowne.

ReadingsontheRhetoricofSocialProtests.:StrataPublishing,2006.Print.

Skinner,Carolyn.WomenPhysiciansandProfessionalEthosinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.

SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress.2014.Print.

Small,JayNewton.“Obama’s‘SiSePuede!’.”Time.January15,2008.Web.

Smith,CraigR.“EthosDwellsPervasively,”TheEthosOfRhetoric.Ed.MichaelJ.Hyde.

Columbia:UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress,2004.1-19.Print.

Sowards,Stacey.“RhetoricalAgencyasHaciendoCarasandDifferentialConsciousness

ThroughtheLensofGender,EthnicityandClass:AnExaminationofDolores

Huerta’sRhetoric.”CommunicationTheory,vol.20,2010,pp.223-47.Print.

“TeamstersandUFWDebate.”TheDoloresHuertaReader.Ed.MarioT.Garcia.Universityof

NewMexicoPress,2008.219-228.Print.

Torres,Eden.ChicanaWithoutApology.NewYork:Routledge,2003.Print

Trimbur,John."CompositionandtheCirculationofWriting."CollegeCompositionand

Communication,vol.52,no.2,2000,pp.88-219.Web.8June2016

UFWwebsite.UnitedFarmWorkers,ufw.org.n.d.AccessedMay2014.

199

Unionfacts.UnionFacts.unionfacts.com/union/United_Farm_Workers.Accessed18June

2014.

Valadez,Robert.“Rosita.”RobertValadezFineArts,

robertvaladez.com/artwork/1137759_Rosita.html.Web.AccessedApril2016

Villanueva,Victor.Bootstraps:FromanAmericanAcademicofColor.Urbana:NCTE,1993.

Print.

WalterP.ReutherLibrary.ReutherLibraryatWayneStateUniversity2013,

reuther.wayne.edu.Accessed4April2013

Wing,Adrien.CriticalRaceFeminism:AReader2nded.NewYork:NewYorkUP,2003.Print.

---.GlobalCriticalRaceFeminism:AnInternationalReader.NewYork:NYUPress,

2000.Print.

Wu,Hui."HistoricalStudiesofRhetoricalWomenHereandThere:Methodological

ChallengestoDominantInterpretiveFrameworks."RhetoricSocietyQuarterly,2002,

pp.81-97.Print.

Yosso,Tara.CriticalRaceCounterstoriesAlongtheChicana/ChicanoEducationalPipeline.

NewYork:Routledge,2006.Print.

200

NicoleGonzalesHowell

UniversityofSanFrancisco,RhetoricandLanguageDepartment2130FultonStreet,KA281

SanFrancisco,CA94117Phone:(415)422-4984

E-mail:ngonzaleshowell@gmail.comSkype:nicole_howell

www.nicolegonzaleshowell.com

Education PhD SyracuseUniversity

CompositionandCulturalRhetoric,2016Dissertation:“LaPasionaria—EthosFormation,DoloresHuerta,andtheUnitedFarmWorkers”MydissertationresearchisanexaminationofthecontributionsmadetotheunderstandingofethosconstructionandrhetoricalstrategybytheUnitedFarmWorkersunioninauguralvice-presidentDoloresHuerta.Morespecifically,IanalyzehowtherolesembodiedbyHuertaaffectherrhetoricalstrategiesasvicepresidentoftheUnitedFarmWorkers(UFW)unionandhowthosestrategiesaidinherethosconstruction.Inotherwords,thisprojectlookstoHuertaasanexampleofhowpeoplewhoareoftendisassociatedwithpowercan,anddo,makesignificantsocietalchanges.Chair:LoisAgnew|Committee:RebeccaMooreHoward,GwenPough

MA CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno

English,CompositionTheory,2009 BA UniversityofSouthernCalifornia

EnglishLiteratureandLanguage,1996

ResearchAssistantships

UniversityofSanFranciscoEthnicMinorityDissertationFellow,2014-2015

Designedtoprovideexperienceforsoon-to-befaculty,USF’sEthnicMinorityDissertationFellowshipscholarsareexpectedtocompletetheirdissertationonadiversityrelatedresearchtopic,whileteachingonecoursepersemesterintheschoolwheretheyareplaced.AsafellowintheRhetoricandLanguagedepartmentthisyear,Ihavebeeninvitedtoparticipateasafulltimefacultymemberbynotonlyattendingallfacultymeetings,butalsoparticipatingincommitteeworkandserviceuniversitywide.

201

CitationProjecthttp://citationproject.netContributingResearcher,2009

TheaimoftheCitationProjectistouseempiricaldataindeterminingsoundpedagogicalapproachestofirstyearcompositionandresearch.Asacontributingresearcher,Icodedstudentpapersforthewaysinwhichtheyengaged—ornot—withtheirsourcesbyfirstidentifyingcitedtextandthenlocatingtheinformationinthecitedsource.Byworkingthroughstudentworkinthisfashionitbecameapparentthatoftenstudentsengagedinpatchwritingratherthansummaryand/orsynthesisofthesourcesbeingutilized.

CaliforniaStateUniversity,FresnoWritingprogramassessmentContributingResearcher,2008

ConductedportfolioreadingstakenfromarandomsampleofEnglish5A,5B,and10portfolios.Assessedentryandexitlevelportfoliosbyprovidingaratingof1-6forfiveofthecurrentprogram'sdesiredlearningoutcomes.ThecollecteddatawasanalyzedandusedtoassesstheFirstYearWritingprogram.

Publications“PracticingLiberatoryPedagogy“WithDaliaRodriguez,AfuaBoahene,JuliannAnesi.Cultural

Studies↔CriticalMethodologies,April2012.EditorialAssistant.ListeningtoourElders:WorkingandWritingforChange.Eds.SteveParksetal.Logan,UT:Utah

StateUniversityPress,2011.

ConferencePresentations*WorkshopFacilitationConferencePresentations

Embodiment,InterconnectivityandPublicStruggleinWritingEducation.ConferenceonCommunityWriting:Boulder,CO,October2015ConstructingEthos:DoloresHuertaandEthosFormation.ConferenceonCollegeCompositionandCommunication:Indianapolis,IN,March2014.

LookingOutsidetheAcademy:TheRhetoricalStrategiesofDoloresHuerta.FeminismsandRhetoricsConference:StanfordUniversity,CA,September2013.

RecoveryandRedefinition:ImaginingDoloresHuertaasaWPA.SyracuseUniversitySpringTeachingConference:April2013.

WPAWork:LookingBeyondtheAcademy.StateUniversityNewYork,CouncilonWriting:UniversityatBuffalo,NY,March2013.

202

CreatingConsubstantiationbetweenTeachersandStudentsDespiteDisparateRhetoricsofEmbodiment.RhetoricSocietyofAmerica:Philadelphia,PA,May2012.

LatinasinRhetoric:ThetransformativequalityofLatinarhetorsandhistoriography.DecolonizingFem-RhetNation:OnceMoreBeyondInclusionandLiberalTolerance.FeminismsandRhetoricsConference:MinnesotaStateUniversity,October2011.

CultivatingWorkandLifeinCCR.Invitedpanelist.SyracuseUniversityWritingProgram:September2011

JudgmentDays.InvitedReader.WritersIn-Between:CreativeNonfictionfromtheWritingProgram:SyracuseUniversity,May2011

TheContestedSpaceofPublication.StagingTacticalInterventionsonPublicWriting.ConferenceonCollegeCompositionandCommunication:Atlanta,GA,April2011.

(Not)RecognizingtheIndividual:TheFailuresofNewTASharedCurriculum.TreatingPedagogicalFailuresasBlunders:MaterialandIdeologicalConstraintsofGraduateTeachingAssistants.StateUniversityNewYork,CouncilonWriting:BinghamtonUniversity,NY,March2011.

WorkshopFacilitation

AssessingStudentWritingfortheWorldWeLiveInPresenter:NicoleGonzalesHowellUniversityofSanFrancisco,DepartmentofRhetoricandLanguageMarch2015

AssignmentSheetWorkshopCo-Presenters:CathyGabor,NicoleGonzalesHowell,JulieSullivanUniversityofSanFrancisco,DepartmentofRhetoricandLanguageJanuary2015TheCitationProject:“UnderstandingStudents’UseofSourcesthroughCollaborativeResearch.”Co-Facilitators:RebeccaMooreHoward(Lead),SandraJamieson(Lead),NicoleGonzalesHowell,MissyWatson,KateNavickasGeorgiaInternationalConferenceonInformationLiteracy:Savannah,GA,September2010.

203

AcademicEmploymentSummary

2015-PresentInstructor,UniversityofSanFrancisco2014-2015 EthnicMinorityDissertationFellow,UniversityofSanFranciscoSummer2014 Instructor:SummerBridge,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno2013-2014 Editor:GraduateEditingCenter,SyracuseUniversity2011-2013 Consultant:WritingCenter,SyracuseUniversity2009-2013 TAWritingInstructor,SyracuseUniversity2008-2009 AdjunctFaculty,FresnoCityCollege2007-2009 TAWritingInstructor,CaliforniaStateUniversity,FresnoSpring2007 EnglishPrepInstructor:FastForwardtoAcademicSuccess,TitleV,California

StateUniversity,Fresno

TeachingExperienceUniversityofSanFrancisco

WrittenCommunicationII|RHET120Instructor,Spring2016InRhetoric120studentslearntocomposeambitiousargumentsrespondingtoandincorporatingsourcesofgreaternumber,length,complexity,andvariety.Studentsalso(a)developskillsincriticalanalysisofchallengingnon-fictionprosefromarangeofdisciplinaryperspectivesandsubjects,withaparticularfocusonthelinguisticandrhetoricalstrategiesemployedtherein,and(b)conductextensiveresearchintheprocessofplanningandcomposingsophisticatedtexts.WrittenCommunicationI(Intensive)|RHET110NInstructor,Fall2015,Fall2016Inordertopreparestudentsforthekindsofwritingtypicallyrequiredincollege-levelcoursesandincivicdiscourse,RHET110Nteachesthecompositionofthesis-drivenargumentativeessaysthatrespondtoimportantsocialandacademicissues.Inadditiontofourunitsofclassroominstruction,studentslearnandpracticethewritingprocess,fromideatofinalessay(e.g.,pre-writing,drafting,revising,andediting)ina2-hourcomputerwritinglabeachweek.WrittenCommunicationI|RHET110Instructor,Spring2016Inordertopreparestudentsforthekindsofwritingtypicallyrequiredincollege-levelcoursesandincivicdiscourse,RHET110teachesthecompositionofthesis-drivenargumentativeessaysthatrespondtoimportantsocialandacademicissues.

FirstYearSeminar/Rhetoric195|FYS/RHET195Instructor,Fall2014“WritingAboutHumanRights”

204

FirstYearSeminarsaredesignedforstudentsthatareintheirfirstorsecondsemesteratUSFandcounttowardtheuniversityCore.Inthiscoursestudentswilllearnhowtoconductacademicresearch,strategiesforreadingandwritingcritically,andstrategiesforrevisionthroughthestudyofHumanRights.

SyracuseUniversity

PracticesofAcademicWriting|WRT105Instructor,Fall2010,Summer2010andFall2009“VisualRepresentation:Race&Ethnicity”WRT105isarequiredfirstyearwritingcoursethatintroducesstudentstotheconventions,genres,andpracticesofacademicwriting.Inthiscourse,Ifocusedonintroducingstudentstoacademicresearchandwritingthroughtextualandvisualanalysisofrepresentationsofraceandethnicityinpopularmedia.

CriticalResearch&Inquiry|WRT205

Instructor,Spring2010“TextualRepresentationofRace&Gender”WRT205isaresearchbasedsophomorelevelwritingrequirementthatfocusesonresearchmethods,primaryandsecondaryresearch,libraryresearch,andevaluatingandworkingwithsources.WhilemuchofmyWRT205coursewasdedicatedtohavingstudentsworkdirectlywithsourceswealsoconsistentlydiscussedexplicitlytheconventionsofacademicwritingandhowthoseconventionsaffectedhowtheypresentedtheirresearch.

TechnicalandProfessionalWriting|Writing307:Instructor,Fall2012WRT307isawritingstudiofocusedonprofessionalcommunicationthroughthestudyofaudience,purpose,andethics.Morespecifically,rhetoricalproblem-solvingprincipleswereappliedtodiverseprofessionalwritingtasksandsituationsbycreatingarobustportfolioofstudentworkthatrangedfromafeasibilitystudytoaformalclasspresentation.AdvancedWritingStudio:Style|WRT308Instructor,Spring2012“StylisticChoicesandVoices”WRT308isawritingstudiofocusedontherhetoricalcannonofstyle.Asanupperdivisioncourseforwritingmajors,Idesignedtheclassasaspacewherestudentscouldexperimentwithcontemporarywritingstyles,designs,andeditingconventions.Further,studentspracticedwritinginmultiplegenresfordifferentaudiences,purposes,andeffectswhichleadtorichdiscussionsabouttherhetorical,aesthetic,social,andpoliticaldimensionsofstyle.TheoryandStrategyfortheTeachingofWriting|WRT670CCRConsultant&Instructor,Fall2010

205

WRT670isayear-longteachingpracticumforTAsteachingthelowerdivisionwritingcourses(WRT105&205)forthefirsttime.AstheCCRConsultant,Ico-facilitatedourweeklymeetingswithaseasonedprofessionalwritinginstructorleadandwasresponsibleforTAobservationsandassessment.

CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno

Writing/ReadingandInformationLiteracy|SummerBridgeLecturer,Summer2014TheSummerBridgeWriting/Readingcourseisdesignedtointroduceandpreparestudentsforfirst-yearwritingatCSU,Fresno(Engl5A,5B,and10),andothercollegecoursewritingdemands.Studentswereexposedtoavarietyofreadingstrategiesandofferedopportunitiestopracticewritingwithmanylowstakestasks.Thiscoursefocusedonintroducingandpracticingreadingstrategiesthatareinformed,purposeful,andcritical.

AcceleratedAcademicLiteracy|English10Instructor,2008-2009Readingandwritinginacademicandpublicgenres;specialattentiontorhetoricaldecision-makingandcriticalanalysis.InthisfacepacedcourseIguidedinstructioninreadingandrespondingtotexts,whilealsoteachingstudentshowtoparticipateinpublicandacademicconversationsviaresearchinprimaryandsecondarysources.AcademicLiteracyII|English5BInstructor,Spring2008Aspartofa“stretchprogram”English5BwasthesecondofatwosemesterwritingrequirementatCSU,Fresno.In5Bweprimarilyfocusedonresearch,analysis,synthesis,argument,andevaluationoftexts.Studentsweresupportedintheiranalysisoftherhetoricalqualitiesofacademicwritingbyparticipatinginportfolioevaluationsoftheirclassmatesandreflectivepractices.AcademicLiteracyI|English5AInstructor,Fall2007English5AwasthefirstpartofthestretchprogramatCSU,Fresno.In5Astudentswereabletopracticereadingandwritingcritically.InthiscourseIworkedtomakeexplicittheprocessesofwriting,andspecificallyacademicwriting,byfocusingonreadingcomprehension;genreanalysis;planning,composing,revisingwriting;andreflection.

FresnoCommunityCollege WritingSkillsforCollege|English125

Instructor,Spring2009andSummer2009English125isdesignedtobeanintroductiontocollegewritingcourseandemphasizescriticalreadingskills.Inthiscoursestudentswereaskedtoreadacademictextsaswell

206

asoffertheirpersonalexperienceswithlanguageandliteracyinordertodeveloptheirprocessofwriting,revisingandfinishingshortpapers.

Grants2013 CCRSummerResearchGrant,SyracuseUniversity2012 GSOTravelGrant,SyracuseUniversity2012 CCRSummerResearchGrant,SyracuseUniversity2010 CCRSummerFellowship,SyracuseUniversity

AppointmentsandServiceDiscipline

1/2012-3/2013 TAAdvisoryBoard,Bedford/St.MartinsUniversity

2015-Present MinorinChicanoLatinoStudiesadvisoryboardmember,USF2015-Present CELASAmember,USF2011-12 GraduateStudentOrganization(GSO)representative/senator,

SyracuseUniversity2011-12 GSOFamilyIssuesCommitteemember,SyracuseUniversitySpring2008 GraduateCommitteeRepresentative,CaliforniaStateUniversity,

FresnoDepartment

2015-Present AssessmentCommitteeMember,UniversityofSanFrancisco2014-Present IntegratingMultilingualStudents,CommitteeMember,University

ofSanFrancisco2012-2013 WPA:AssessmentIntern,SyracuseUniversity2011-2012 WPA:ProgramIntern,SyracuseUniversity2010-2013 CCRGraduateCircle:CoChair,SyracuseUniversity

207

2011-2012 Major/MinorCommitteemember,SyracuseUniversity2011-2012 AssociateSearchCommitteemember,SyracuseUniversityFall2009 FoundingmemberofCCRGraduateCircle,SyracuseUniversitySpring2008 StudentsofEnglishStudiesAssociation(SESA)In-service

Coordinator,CaliforniaStateUniversity,FresnoSpring2008 Focusgroupparticipant,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno

ProfessionalAffiliationsCoalitionofWomenScholarsintheHistoryofRhetoricandComposition(CWSHRC)ConferenceonCollegeCompositionandCommunication(CCCC)

§ CCCCLatinoCaucus

NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish(NCTE)RhetoricSocietyofAmerica(RSA)