Syracuse University
SURFACE
Dissertations - ALL
SURFACE
August 2016
La Pasionaria: The Ethos of a Leader
Nicole Gonzales Howell
Syracuse University
Follow this and additional works at: http://surface.syr.edu/etd
Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons
Recommended Citation
Howell, Nicole Gonzales, "La Pasionaria: The Ethos of a Leader" (2016). Dissertations - ALL. 661.
http://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 [email protected].
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:THEETHOSOFALEADER
By
NicoleGonzalesHowell
B.A.,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,1996
M.A.,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno,2009
Dissertation
Submittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
DoctorofPhilosophyinCompositionandCulturalRhetoric.
SyracuseUniversity
August2016
Copyright2016NicoleGonzalesHowell
Allrightsreserved.
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,
iv
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,butalsoamuchneededinterventioninthefield.BeckywasoneofmyfirstmentorsatSUandhascontinued
toseemethroughthisprocesswithencouragementandguidanceatthemostpivotal
v
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
vi
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
vii
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!
viii
Dedication
ForAlinaSimon,yourlove,faith,andstrengthcontinuetoinspireallthatIdo.You’re
deeplymissed,butnotforgotten.
ix
TABLEOFCONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….…………..................iv
CHAPTER
PAGE
1. 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
x
1
LaPasionaria:TheEthosofaLeader
ForsixdecadesLaPasionaria(thepassionateone),assheisalsoreferredto,
haspersonifiedleadership,courage,commitmenttothecauseofthe
downtroddenandpowerless,andyes,passionforsocialjustice.
~MarioT.Garcia
Introduction:
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,andeventhoughnomajorbiography
hasyetbeenwrittenonthegreatfarmworkerandspiritualleader,thereare
manybooksandarticlesabouthim.ThesameisnottrueofHuerta.Notonly
hasnobiographybeenwrittenabouther,buttheliteratureonherisquite
scant.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:AddingtoFeministPerspectivesandDisruptingtheBlack
andWhiteParadigm
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,
thatadiscursivespacecanbeopenedthrougharhetoricofdifference
whichallowsamarginalizedgrouptoreverseexistingandexternal
definitionsandtocreatetheirowndefinitions.Thecreationofone's
ownidentitywhichreliesuponthematerialconditionsofthepeople
ismorelikelytoreflectthecultureofthepeople,ratherthanthe
dominantcultureoftheempowered.Suchaprocessisnecessaryfor
thosegroupswhoexperiencethedecenteringassociatedwithalackof
spaceoftheirown,asitisameansthroughwhichtheoppressedcan
movethemselvesfromtheperipherytowardtheirowncenter.(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).Inhis2011awardwinningbookTramplingOuttheVintage: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,whohadbroughtherinto
theStocktonCSO[communityserviceorganization]fouryearsearlier,added
hertotheshortlistofpaidCSOstaff.Inabrilliantmove,hehiredhertobe
theCSOlobbyistinSacramento.Shewasapioneerinthestatecapital,for
therewerenootherMexicanAmericanwomenlobbyists.Bytheageofthirty,
Huertahadfoundhervocation.Shemasteredtheintricaciesofthelegislative
process.(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,
Ratherthandistancingourselvesfromthecomplexitiesoftheembodiedness,wesuggestinsteadthatweattendtoit,reflectonit,observeit,and
critiqueitandthatwecultivateastanceamidthechaosofitallthatenables
robustinquirywhileenactingethicsofhopeandcare.(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:
Enclosedyouwillfindapacketofimportantinformationon
pesticides.PLEASESITDOWNANDREADITCAREFULLYRIGHTAWAY!Your
staffandclosestsupportersshouldalsoreadALLofthismaterialsothatthey
canspeaktogroupsonthepesticideproblem.
You’llfindasamplepesticidelawsuitagainstachaininthepacket.
Withthissamplesuit,allyouneedarelabtestsongrapesfromthetarget
storeinyourcity,avolunteerlawyer,andaconsumer(preferablyanursing
mother)whoisoutragedoverthepesticideresiduesongrapes.
Remember,theproblemofpesticidesiscriticaltoallofus.YOUMUST
READTHEMATERIALWESENDTOYOUANDINFORMYOURSELVESSO
THATYOUCANBEEFFECTIVEINMOBILIZINGSUPPORTTOSTOPTHE
POISONINGOFFARMWORKERSANDCONSUMERS.Ihopetoseemanyofyou
soon.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,the
1PresumablytheinclusionofUFWmemberAlRevessignatureistoindicateatranslation
ordictationofthememofromCesarChavez.
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,weinviteasmany
headsoforganizationsaswillcome.Thenwhoeversetupthemeetingorthe
headoftheorganizationthatisleadingthegroupinformstheChain
ManagementthataConsumerSuitisbeingpreparedagainstthatstorefor
thefollowingreasons:
1. (1) Bringingunsanitaryproduceintothecity(grapes)thathas
beenpickedandpackedunderunsanitaryconditionsbecause(1)lack
oftoiletsandwashingfacilitiesinthefields(2)manyalienshavebeen
broughtinfromMexicotopickthegrapesthathavenothadhealth
examinationsasthegovernmentrequires(wetbacks)orcommuters,
andtheyarebreathingandputtinghorribleturbuculrar[sic],venereal,
andothergermsonthegrapes.
2. (2) Misrepresentingtheproduceintheirstorestotheircustomers.
TheyhavetoldcustomersthatthegrapeisfromArizona,orother
places,thatthestrikeisover,orthatthegrapeisunionpicked.
19
3. (3) Theyarepushingaproductontheircustomersthattheir
customersdon’twant.Grapes.(Hererefertotherecordsof
delegationsthatwentintothestorestoaskthatthegrapesbe
removed).Thestoreswillsay,“Thecustomersbuythegrape.”Then
weanswer,“Sure,becauseyoumisrepresentedtheproductandliedto
them.”
TheImportantthingabouttheConsumerSuitThreatisthattheSuitisgoing
tobefiledinthenameofsomeBigNameconsumeragainstthestore,ON
BEHALFOFtheconsumersinyourcity.Forinstance:InNewYork,Shirly
McLane[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
2Wetbackisgenerallyunderstoodasaderogatorytermusedtodescribeundocumented
MexicanimmigrantsthatenteredtheUnitedStatesviatheRioGrande.
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
3ChicanaorChicanoisatermthatreferstoanAmericanofMexicandecentandisoften
consideredapoliticallycharged.InchapterthreeIfurtherdiscusstheimportant
differencesbetweentermssuchasChicana,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
ChapterTwo
ConceptionsofEthos: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’sbeingdemonstrativeand
persuasive,butalsotoestablishingthespeakerhimselfasofacertaintypeand
bringingthegiverofjudgementintoacertaincondition.Forthismakesagreat
differenceasregardsproof,especiallyindeliberativeoratory,butalsoin
courtcases—thisappearanceofthespeakertobeofacertainkindandhis
makingtheaudiencesupposethatheisdisposedinacertainwaytowards
them,andinadditiontheconditionthattheyarethemselvesdisposedina
certainwaytohim[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,andtook
forgrantedthatpriorreputationamongthedemoswasimportantto
credibility.Asidefrombroadeningtheintertextualunderstandingofethos,[a
close]readingdemonstratestheimportanceoftheconceptintermsof
pervasivenessinthespeechtextanditsaudience.(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,therhetoricalsituationrendersthe
speakeranelementofthediscourseitself,nolongersimplyitsorigin(and
thusaconsciousnessstandingoutsidethetext)butratherasignifierstanding
insideanextendedtext.Therhetor’sphysicalpresenceandappearance,his
33
gestures,inflections,andaccentsofstyle,areallinvolvedinactsof
signification.(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,themalebodymustremain
relativelyunmarked.Thisinturnreliesonthesupposedaberrancyofthe
female.AndreaLunsford,CherylGlenn,KateRonaldandJoyRichie,Sharon
Crowley,andothershaveshownthattherhetoricaltraditionsthathavebeen
chosenandtaughtinourmodernmilieuoverlook—ifnotexplicitly
devalue—thefemalebody.Aristotlefamouslywrotethatfemaleoffspringis
thefirststeptoward“monstrosity”—“thefirstdeparturefromtypeisindeed
thattheoffspringshouldbecomefemaleinsteadofmale”(Generation70).He
statesthat“thefemaleis,asitwere,amutilatedmale,”establishingmanas
thebaselineandwomenbothaspureaberrancyandasresponsibleforall
deviation.(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,MarshallAlcornexaminestheroleoftheselfandselfrepresentationinethosstrategy.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.
Iamnowworkingonhavingmykidsstaywithvariousassortedrelativesfor
thenextmonthandonehalfuntilschoolstarts.Ifallgoesverywell,Iwillstill
beleftwithmaybeoneortwokids,dependingonwhetherVenturacanmake
arrangementstokeeptheboys,anywaysVincentIwouldnotleaveanywhere
becausehewouldmissmetoomuch.ThendoyousupposeIcouldmake
livingarrangementswithsomeonetoputmeandmyonekidupforamonth
andonehalf,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.The
termintersectionalityreferencesthecriticalinsightthatrace,class,gender,
sexuality,ethnicity,nation,ability,andageoperatenotasunitary,mutually
exclusiveentities,butasreciprocallyconstructingphenomenathatinturn
shapecomplexsocialinequalities.(2)
Intersectionalityatitscoreisconcernedwithrelationshipsofpowerandsocialinequalities
andthoseconcerns—asisevidentintheaboveexcerpt—oftenincludemuchmorethan
raceandgender.WhatCrenshaw,Collins,andmanyotherintersectionalityscholarsand
practitionersidentifyisthesevereproblemcausedbysingleaxisthinkingthatcreatesan
oversightofthemultipleoppressionsthatareoftenexperiencedbywomenofcolor.
Inherbook,PursuingIntersectionality,UnsettlingDominantImaginariesWomenand
GenderStudiesscholarVivianMayexplainsthatworkingoutsideofsingleaxisthinkingand
usingacomplexanalyticisadifficulttask,butisnecessary.Specificallysheargues,
Ratherthanafixedmethodwithsetboundaries,hard-and-fasttenets,or
predeterminedsubjectsandschematics,intersectionalitycanbest
understoodasaninterpretiveorientationthatleavesthesefactorsasopen
questionstobetakenup,tohelpexposehowsubjectionanddominance
operate,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-grantedideasabout
personhood,power,andsocialchange:inparticular,itsmultidimensional
“matrix”orientationisoftenatoddswith“single-axis”sociopoliticalrealities,
knowledgenorms,andjusticeframeworks.(1)
Specifically,thisprojectlooksathowHuerta’sembodiedidentitiesaffectherpositionasa
rhetorandhowbeingapublicfigureaffectedthenotionsofherembodiedidentities.More
pointedlyinherintroductionMayarguesthatintersectionalityhasseveralkeyqualities
thatmustbekeptinmindtogether(11):
4. [Intersectionality]isanorientationforengagementorpraxis;itentails
matrixthinking;itisrelevanttoand“about”allofus;anditisnotneutral.
(12)
5. [Intersectionality]isanepistemologicalprojectthatcontestsdominant
mindsets;andontologicalapproachthataccountsforcomplexsubjectivity
andoffersdifferentnotionsofagency;aradicalpoliticalorientation
groundedinsolidarityratherthansameness,asanorganizingprinciple;and
aresistantimaginaryusefulforinterveninginconventionalhistorical
memoryandprevailingsocialimaginaries.(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-orientedapproachtobetakenupforsocial
analysisandcritique,forpoliticalstrategizingandorganizing,forgenerating
newideas,andforexcavatingsuppressedones,allwithaneyetoward
disruptingdominanceandchallengingsystematicinequality.Thisentails
activelyfindingwaystoperceive/interpret/actagainstthepullof
established,single-axisimaginariesandtoengageinanongoingeffortto
realizemeaningful,collectivejusticeviaepistemic,ontological,economic,and
structuralchange.Thereisalso,therefore,aneedtobewaryofoverly
instrumentalmodelsofintersectionalityand/ordepoliticizedapplications
thatnegateitspoliticalhistoryandsubversivepotential.(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.
Everyeffortthathasbeenmadehasbeenbrokenbythepowerfulforceofthe
growerswithviolenceagainstthepowerless,mostofthetimeethnicgroups,
suchastheChinese,Japanese,Filipinos,Mexicans,Mexicans,andMexicans
again.TheTeamstersUnionin1961triedtoorganizethefarmworkers.They
setupanorganizingofficeinStockton,California,myhometown,putoutalot
ofeffortandalotofmoneyandtheireffortfailed.(DoloresHuertaReader
219)
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-intersectional
logics,toassessitsalternativevision:viaaneither/orinterpretiveapproach,
intersectionalboth/andanalysesarerenderedillogicalordispensable,for
example.Likewise,byusingnormsandmeasuresthatbeginfromanadditive
notionofidentityorinequality,criticsfrequentlyobliterateitsmatrix
thinkingandcross-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‘conceivedasacolligationofmultifariousandmultiformsubjectpositionssituatedalong,butnotunitedby,temporalexperience(32)’”(5).Inotherwords,
poststructuralismdeconstructedtheimageofthestableunifiedselfsomuchthattheself
wasconceptualizedasonlyfragmentedandsociallyconstructedwithlittletonoagency.
AlcornarguesthatwhilethereisnosinglestableselfasseeminglyreferencedbyAristotle
intheclassicalunderstandingofethos,wearelikewisenotmerelyfragmentsofaselfas
suggestedbypoststructuralists.Morespecifically,Alcornstates,
TheAristotelianviewenvisionsanoverlystrongselfabletochoosefreelyits
ownnature,abletobecomewhatevermodelitcanimagine…The
poststructuralistviewemphasizestheself’slackoffreedom,butinsodoingit
imaginesanoverlyweakself.(6)
WhileAlcorndoesvaluetheseviews,hearguesthattheyarenotusefulforastudyofethos
andinsteaddescribesethosas“arelationshipexistingbetweenthediscoursestructuresof
46
selvesandthediscoursestructuresof‘texts’”(6).Thispointbecomesparticularly
importantwhendiscussinghowethosworksfromamarginalizedpositionbecausethe
discoursestructuresthatinfluencetheidentitiesofmarginalizedpeople—ortheirsenseof
self—oftenpositiontheminoppressedorsubservientroles.TofurtherthispointIreturn
toAlcornasheexplainstheroleofhistoryandself-definition:
Historicalconsiderationsoftheselfareimportantbecausewetoooften
considertheselftobeonething,unchangingovertime.Thisencouragesusto
believethatdifferentideasabouttheselfreflectideasaboutoneandthe
samething.Itmaybethattherearemany,distinctlydifferentselves.
Similarly,weoftenthinkofethosasdefiningasingle,stablerelationship
existingbetweenlanguageandtheself.Butifbothlanguageandtheself
undergohistoricalchanges,thenitmustfollowthatethosalsoundergoes
historicalchange.Thus,theconceptofethosshouldnotbeimaginedassome
fixedrealityapproachedbydifferentperspectives.Rather,weshould
imaginedifferentsortsofethosassumingmanyshapesasthesestructures
changeovertime.(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)rhetoricthusmakessense
historically.Itispreciselytheconceptofethosinrhetoricthattheorizesthe
positionalityinherentinrhetoric—thespeakerhavingbeencreatedata
particularsitewithinthecontingenciesofhistoryandgeography.(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)draws
fromarhetor’sboundary-breakingexperiences(“thismightinvolvebeing
the‘first’orthe‘only’persontohaveaccomplishedsomething,”oratleast
thecreationofaperceptionthatthisisthecase),(b)requirestherhetorto
bothbuilddiscursivedistancefromaudiencemembersandmaintain
identificationwiththem,and(c)isusedtointroducean“alternativevisionof
society”thattherhetorhasseenthankstoatranscendentexperience.(4)
UltimatelytheauthorsarguethatHuertawasabletoconnectwithheraudiencesgenuinely
despitehershiftingpersonasbecauseofhermestizaconsciousnessandtheconsequent
fluidityofhercharacter.WhileDossandJensenutilizetheroleofwhattheytermpersonas,
theirworkinformsmyanalysisbecauseconceptuallypersonaandethosarecloselyrelated.
AsRogerCherryexplainsinhisarticle,“Ethosvs.Persona,”
Twotermsfordescribingself-representation—ethosandpersona—
arecommonlyconflated,despitethefactthattherearegoodhistoricaland
conceptualgroundsformaintainingadistinctionbetweenthem.Ahistorical
examinationofthetwotermsshowsthatethosandpersonaderivefrom
differenttraditionsandthereforeprovidedifferent(butcomplementary)
perspectivesonself-representationinwrittendiscourse.(232)
Further,Cherrydistinguishespersonafromethosthusly,
Withitsrootsintherhetoricaltradition,ethosreferstoasetof
characteristicsthat,ifattributedtoawriteronthebasisoftextualevidence,
willenhancethewriter’scredibility.Persona,ontheotherhand,tracesits
52
rootsthroughliteratureandliterarycriticismandprovidesawayof
describingtherolesauthorscreateforthemselvesinwrittendiscoursegiven
theirrepresentationofaudience,subjectmatter,andotherelementsof
context.(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’sethosisshapedbythematerialresourcesavailabletoherandthe
popularbeliefsaboutthoseofhersocialposition.(173)
2. Ethosoftenisnotcraftedinresponsetoacoherentandidentifiablesetof
audiencevaluesbutinsteadiscomposedinadynamiccontextthatincludes
multiplecompetingideasaboutthe“best”virtues;consequently,ethosformation
frequentlyinvolvesvaluenegotiationsaswellasreciprocitybetweenrhetorand
audienceidentityconstructs.(175)
3. Ethosandgenreareintertwined.(177)
4. Theethoschoicesanindividualrhetormakesinfluencenotonlyhisorher
immediatecommunicativesituationbutalsothebroadercontextandthe
persuasiveoptionsavailabletootherpotentialspeakersandwriters.(178)
5. Ethoscanbecollectivelydevelopedanddeployed;consequently,arhetorcan
developherethosindirectly,byshapingheraudience’sperceptionofthegroup
towhichshebelongs.(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
ChapterThree
MatrixThinking:Intersectionality,MestizaConsciousness,andDiscoveringHuerta
ButforthosewhohavemadePlatoandAristotlethecenterofacanonand
thearchitectsofanepistemology,thebodyisadistractionor,worse,a
deterrencetoclearthought.
~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,butsubjectsof
unconsciousdesire—desirearticulatedintermsof,butnotdefinedby,the
symbolic,inwhichtherelationshipbetweensignifierandsignifiedcannever
beclear.Thuspeoplearen’tmobilizedaccordingtopurelyobjective
interests,butratheraccordingtointerestscreatedforthembycollective
fantasies.(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,especiallythosewhosevoiceshaverarely
beenheardorstudiedbyrhetoricians,howdowerendertheirworkand
livesmeaningfully?Howdowehonortheirtraditions?Howdowetransport
ourselvesbacktothetimeandcontextinwhichtheylived,knowingfullwell
thatisnotpossibletoseethingsfromtheirvantagepoint?Howdidthey
frame(ratherthanweframe)thequestionsbywhichtheynavigatedtheir
ownlives?Whatmorelingersinwhatweknowaboutthemthatwould
suggestthatweneedtothinkagain,tothinkmoredeeply,tothinkmore
broadly?Howdowemakewhatwasgoingonintheircontextrelevantor
illuminatingforthecontemporarycontext?(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,embodiedexperiencebecauseweconsiderittobeapowerfulyetoftenneglectedsourceofinsight,inspiration,andpassion”(21).Therearemanyquestionsthat
arecentraltostrategiccontemplation:
60
Whatdowenoticewhenwestandbackandobserve?Howdoweimagine,
connectwith,andopenupaspaceforthewomen—andothers—westudy?
Howdoestheirworkspeaktoourminds,ourhearts,andourethos?Whatis
mostprominent?Whatlingersatthemargins?Whatcanourownlived
experienceteachus?Howdowerespondto—andrepresent—historical
subjectswhenwediscoverthatwemaynotsharetheirvaluesorbeliefs?
Howdowehonor,ordojusticeto,thosewhonolongercanspeakbacktous?
Howcananethosofhumility,respect,andcareshapeourresearch?Howdo
pastandpresentmergetosuggestnewpossibilitiesforthefuturewhenwe
createtimeandspaceforcontemplation,reflection,andmeditation?(Kirsch
andRoyster22)
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:
WhatIhavecometorealizeisthatthesocialforcesthatshapearchival
researcharemany,fromaresearcher’sexperiencesandexpectations,to
contemporaryevents,tothechoicesmadebythosewhohavedonated
paperstoanarchive,leadingtofragmentsofinformationthateventhebest
archivewilloffer.Inotherwords,archivalresearchisnotmerelyaboutthe
artifactstobefoundbutisultimatelyaboutthepeoplewhohaveplayeda
roleincreatingandusingthoseartifacts,whethertheirauthors,their
subjects,theircollectors,theirdonators,thereaders,orahostofother
playersinthesocialworldsrepresented.(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:
Becausewomenbegintospeakandwritefromadifferentstartingpointthan
mostmendoandbecausetheyconfrontfundamentalobstaclestobeing
acceptedasrhetors,women’srhetoricoftenentailsthedevelopmentof
alternativecommunicativestrategies.Thisisespeciallytrueofethos,sinceit
ispreciselythecharacteristicsofagoodspeakerthathavehistoricallybeen
deniedtowomen.(171)
Huerta,likethephysiciansstudiedinSkinner’stext,utilizedbothtraditionalandnontraditionalchannels.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’thear
fromusaboutthespeakingengagement.Iwilltryveryhardtobethere,and
forsuretherewillbesomeonefromtheunionwillbethere[sic]ifIcan’t.I
havejusttakenonsomenewresponsibilitiesandcannotseejustyethow
freemyschedulewillbeinearlyDecember.
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.Fromthiswehave
cometotheconclusionthatabrownorblacklineinanallwhiteareais
extremelyeffective.
Asdemonstratedintheexcerptabove,Huertaidentifiedtheethnicandracialidentityofthe
protestorsasinfluencingtheeffectivenessofthedemonstration.Understandingthepower
intheembodiedidentitiesofherselfandofthebodiesinvolvedwasfurtherdemonstrated
intheletter:
A“LeafletingLine”isdifferentfromapicketlineinthatitrequiresless
people2,3or4preferablythehousewifetypebutotherscanalsobeused
andtheyapproachpeopleandtrytogettothembeforetheygointothestore
andthemtheleaflet.
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.
Andyouhavetorememberthatwhenyouaredealingwithcorporationsand
youaredealingwithbusinessesyoucan’t[sic],likewhenyougotoschool
youaretaughttoberational,tobeobjective,tobelievewhatyoureadandto
weighthings,anddoallofthesethings.Youhavetobeverycarefulwhenyou
areinschoolandlearnallofthesethingsbecauseitcanbeanentrapment.
Luckily,farmworkersmanytimes—becausetheydon’thaveschooltheygo
bytheirguts—theyknowwhat’srightandtheyknowwhat’swrongandthey
aren’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,toreconnectourthinkingwithour
particularbodies,understandingthatknowledgecomesfromthebody.But,
lestweforgetthesearebodiesbothshapingandshapedbyculture.And
thesebodies,andtheculturestheyinhabit,arecomplexentities,nottobe
reducedtosingularessentialtagssuchas“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’thaveno
Chicanosupthereandthey’renotdoingthisorthatforChicanos.”Butthe
“vatos”arejustcriticizingandthey’renotinthereworkingtomakesurethat
ithappens.Wecriticizeandseparateourselvesfromtheprocess.We’vegot
tojumprightintherewithbothfeet.
Mostofthepeopledoingtheworkforusare“gabachillos.”Whenwe
getChicanovolunteersit’sreallygreat.ButtheChicanosthatcomedownto
workwiththefarmworkershavesomehang-ups,especiallytheguysthat
comeoutofcollege.Enprimerlugar,letienenmiedoalagente.[firstofall,
theyareafraidofthepeople.]Unlesstheycomeoutofthefarmworker
communitiesthemselves,theygetdownthereandthey’reafraidofthe
people.(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/ortheinbetween.Strategicuseofidentitycategorieshasbeenawell-establishedtechniquefor
buildingconnectionsandauthoritybasedongenerallybelievedconceptions.Thatsaid,this
techniqueisaslipperyslopebecause,inanefforttobuildsolidarity,therecanbean
inadvertentreifyingofhomogeneityamongoppressedpopulations.GayatriSpivakfirst
coinedthetermstrategicessentialism,whichrecognizedtheneedtodrawonessentialist
definitions/thinkinginordertopromotesolidarityandprogressiveaction.Likewise,
AdrienWingexplainscriticalracefeminism:
CriticalRaceFeminists(CRFs)aregenerallyantiessentialismbecausethe
“essential”femaleisalmostalwayswhiteandmiddleclass.However,itis
understoodthatitissometimesnecessarytobestrategicallyessentialistin
ordertoavoiddiscussingexperiencesassimply“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,withchromosomes
constantly“crossingover,”thismixtureofraces,ratherthanresultinginan
inferiorbeing,provideshybridprogeny,amutable,moremalleablespecies
witharichgenepool.Fromthisracial,ideological,culturalandbiological
cross-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,a
toleranceforambiguity.ShelearnstobeanIndianinMexicanculture,tobe
MexicanfromanAnglopointofview.Shelearnstojugglecultures.Shehasa
pluralpersonality,sheoperatesinapluralisticmode—nothingisthrustout,
thegoodthebadandtheugly,nothingrejected,nothingabandoned.Notonly
doesshesustaincontradictions,sheturnstheambivalenceintosomething
else.(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,ethosisnot
constructedonasinglesite,fromanunchangingvantagepointonthe
margins.Another“site”forethoscanbetterhighlightthemultiple
negotiationsthatgoonbetweenselfandsociety,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,Huertahadtheabilitynotonlyto
remainflexible,but,asAnzalduatheorizes,to‘‘shiftoutofhabitual
formations,’’movingfromanalyticalthinkingtodivergentthinking.These
evolvingpatternsofthoughtwerereflectedinheruseofdiverserhetorical
personae,whichallowedhertoembracea‘‘morewholeperspective,onethat
includes—ratherthanexcludes’’andthatcouldpersuadeheraudiencesto
embracesuchaperspectiveaswell.Inthisrespect,herrhetoricelucidates
boththepotentialconsequencesanddiscursiveresourcesinherentinborder
livingandboundarycrossing[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
ChapterFour
InescapableBodyandSelf-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:
Ethosoftenisnotcraftedinresponsetoacoherentandidentifiablesetof
audiencevaluesbutinsteadiscomposedinadynamiccontextthatincludes
multiplecompetingideasaboutthe“best”virtues;consequently,ethos
formationfrequentlyinvolvesvaluenegotiationsaswellasreciprocity
betweenrhetorandaudienceidentityconstructs.(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
Fig.#1.DoloresHuertac.
1970fromReutherLibrary
Fig.#1.DoloresHuertac.
Photographerunknown.
1970fromReutherLibrary
Photographerunknown.
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.
88
Thefactthatthebodyplaysavitalroleinrhetoricisnotnew.Infact,Debra
Hawhee’sBodilyArtsdemonstratesthatthetrainingofthemindandbodywereclosely
connectedinancientGreekculture,emphasizingtheimportanceofthelinkage.However,in
theintroductiontoRhetoricalBodies,acollectionofessaysfeaturingstudiesofembodied
andmaterialrhetorics,JackSelzermakesthefollowingobservation:
Eventhoughrhetorichaslongbeenconcernedwiththesituatednessof
literateactsandtherealeffectsofdiscourseratherthanwiththeideal
possibilities,therelationshipofrhetoricaleventstothematerialworldthat
sustainsandproducesthemhasnotoftenenoughbeenfullyelaboratedor
clearlyarticulated.(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,thegreatstrife
betweenthefewandthemany,betweenprivilegeandequality,betweenlaw
andpower,betweenopinionandthesword.”Thisanniversaryissueisa
recordofthelast150yearsofthatconflict—andaslongasTheNationis
around,thatfightwillgoon.Withyourhelp,we’llbefightingforanother150
yearsandbeyond!(TheNation150thAnniversary)
Morespecifically,inthe1960stomid-1970s,themagazinewasundertheeditorial
directionofCareyMcWilliamsandwasconsideredquiteliberal.Inthespecialeditionofthe
magazine,EricFonerwrites,“TheNationfullyembracedthemilitantphaseofthecivilrightsmovementunleashedbythesit-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,wasstandingon
aflat-bedtruckbesideCesarChavez.Shedidn’tshowhereight-and-a-half
months’pregnancy,butshelookedverytiredfromthedaysandnightsof
organizingcross-countrytravelplansforhundredsofpeoplewhowerenow
waitingintheparkinglotalongsidetheunionheadquartersatDelano,Calif.
Sheleaneddownandtalkedwithchildren,herownandothers.Small
childrenheldsmallerones,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.Apriest
blessedthecarsandbusses.(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,shealreadyhadsixchildrenandwas
pregnantwithaseventh.Nearlytwentyyearslater,therearetenchildren,
andDoloresisstillsoslimandgracefulwefindithardtoimagineherinher
youth,theageofherdaughter.Shehasnotsavedherselfforanything,haslet
thelifedrawandstrainhertoafineintensity…Herlongblackhairisdrawn
backfromhighcheekbones,herskinistannedreddishfromthesunonthe
94
picketline,andinherdeepbrowneyesisaconstanthumorthatrelievesher
seriousmanner.(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,thefledgling
feministmovementwaseitherdenigratedordismissedinthemainstream
mediaifitwasmentionedatall.Mostmagazinesforwomenwerelimitedto
adviceaboutsavingmarriages,raisingbabies,orusingtherightcosmetics.
WhentheMs.previewdebutedcarryingarticlesonsubjectssuchas
thehousewife'smomentoftruth,“desexing”theEnglishlanguage,and
abortion,thesyndicatedcolumnistJamesJ.Kilpatrickjeeredthatitwasa
“Csharponanunturnedpiano,”anote“ofpetulance,ofbitchiness,ornervous
fingernailsscreechingacrossablackboard.”(“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,theTampaTimesstoppedproducingitsdailynewspaperin1982afteraninetyyearrunduetoalackofcirculation.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[familyand
UFW]—roamingthecountryasthevicepresidentoftheUnitedFarm
Workers(UFW);crossingpathswiththethreechildrenshealreadyhas
followingherunionfootsteps;keepingtabsontheotheroffspringwhorange
inagefrom1to27.(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.Itislikelythatinanefforttoreachbroadaudiencesandcontinueto
4In2005CaliforniaStateUniversity,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:
Thepowerwhichcomesfromnamesandnamingisrelateddirectlytothe
powertodefineothers—individuals,races,sexes,ethnicgroups.Our
identities,whoandwhatweare,howothersseeus,aregreatlyaffectedby
thenameswearecalledandthewordswithwhichwearelabeled…The
word“define”comesfromtheLatindefinire,meaningtolimit.Through
definitionwerestrict,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(frompreColumbiantimes),European(fromSpanishandPortugueseinvasions),and
African(fromthemanyslavesbroughttotheAmericas,includingatleast
200,00toMexicoalone).AsmatteringofChineseshouldbeadded,which
goesbacktothesixteenthcentury;MexicoCityhadaChinatownbythemid1500s,somehistorianssay.Anothermestizaje,ormixing,tookplace—this
timewithNativeAmericansofvariousnations,pueblosandtribeslivingin
whatisnowtheSouthwest—whenSpanishandMexicancolonizersmoved
north.LaterourChicanoancestorsacquiredyetanotherdimensionthrough
intermarriagewithAnglos.(1)
MartínezprovidesimportantdetailsabouttheancestryofChicano/as,andbuildsfrom
whatGloriaAnzaldúabeganoveradecadebeforeher.Anzaldúabroughtattentiontothe
manyintersectionsofidentityandtherolesofethnicandraciallineageinher
groundbreakingbookBorderlands/LaFrontera:TheNewMestiza.Here,Anzaldúadescribes
theuseofChicano:
Whennotcoppingout,whenweknowwearemorethannothing,wecall
ourselvesMexican,referringtoraceandancestry;mestizowhenaffirming
ourIndianandSpanish(butwehardlyeverownourBlackancestry);
Chicanowhenreferringtoapoliticallyawarepeoplebornand/orraisedin
theU.S.;RazawhenreferringtoChicanos;tejanoswhenweareChicanos
fromTexas.(“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-speakingAmericanthatisofsuch
importancethatitrequiresimmediateattentionbyallconcerned.Thisisthe
“ChicanoMovement.”
Neverbeforehassomuchconfusionexistedconcerningtheidentityof
ourpeople.Neverbeforehastherebeensomuchthoughtgiventoour
independence,botheconomicandpolitical.
Theabundanceofideasandargumentsnowbeingpresentedasthe
“politicalthought”ofMexicanAmericansisasvariedandcomplexasour
culturalandracialheritagethatmakeusauniquepeople.Thedevelopment
106
ofnewsymbolsandthenewmeaningsgiventooldoneshascreatedmore
anxietythantheintendednewmeaningandintendednewpride.
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:
IwasalittlebitluckierthanmostChicanosbecauseIwasraisedinan
integratedneighborhood.AlltheChicanoswhowenttoschoolwhereIdid
areallmakingit.IgrewupinStocktonbutweweren’tinaghetto.Inour
school,therewasMexican,Black,White,Indian,Italian;wewereallthrown
intogether.(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,”whichobliteratesourindigenous
andAfricanheritage,andrecognizesonlytheEuropean,thecolonizer.
(Brazilians,ofcourse,reject“Hispanic”stronglybecausetheirEuropean
heritageisPortuguese,notSpanish.)“Hispanic”alsocarriesthedisadvantage
ofbeingatermthatdidnotemergefromthecommunityitselfbutwas
imposedbythedominantsocietythroughitscensusbureauandother
bureaucracies,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“purityand
piety”simultaneouslymadethemmen’smoralsuperiorsandguides(Welter
152).Ironically,itwasasenseofmoraldutythateventuallycompelled(or
justified)women’smovementfromprivatetopubliclocations.(109)
Likewise,Enoch,Kates,andSkinnersupportfindingsthatmanyofthepositionsthat
womenenteredwithinthepublicspherewereoccupationswithprecedenceforfemale
5The“ideograph”wasfirstconceptualizedbyMichaelMcGeeinhis1980article,"The
"Ideograph":ALinkBetweenRhetoricAndIdeology."Iusethetermheretosignifyterms
thatareimbuedwithstrongculturalideologiesthatarehighlyvariable,yetareoften
deployedbyspeakers/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:
Ithinkwomenareparticularlygoodnegotiatorsbecausewehavealotof
patience,andnobigegotripstoovercome.Womenaremoretenaciousand
thathelpsagreatdeal.Itunnervesthegrowerstonegotiatewithus.Cesar
alwayswantedtohaveanall-womannegotiatingteam.Growerscan’tswear
backatusorateachother.Andthenwebringintheethicalquestions,like
howourkidslive.Howcanthegrowersreallyargueagainstwhatshouldbe
doneforhumanbeingsjusttosavemoney.(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,”Anzaldúarecognizestheneedtofanidentityanda
languagewith“amalleabilitythatrendersusunbreakable”(Borderlands64).
TheMestiza/Mestizoraceisavisionofmodernmêtiswhich,“ratherthan
resultinginaninferiorbeing,provideshybridprogeny,amutablemore
malleablespecieswitharichgenepool,”resultinginan“alienconsciousness”
oftheborderlandallculturesatthesametime(Borderlands77).(Dolmage
19)
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.Butintermsof
thevisibilityoftheChicanoissues,Ithinkfirstofalltherewasn’tan
agreementamongtheChicanosthemselvesonwhattheissueswere.Some
peopletalkedaboutbilingualeducation,otherpeopletalkedabout
somethingelse.(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’s
themiddle-classway.Poorpeople’smovementshavealwayshadwhole
familiesontheline,readytomoveatamoment’snotice,withmorecourage
becausethat’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.Duringthefirstfewyearsofmyorganizing
farmworkers,IfeltIcouldn’tbeaseffectivebecauseIwasawoman.And
Cesarwastheonewhoreallystraightenedmyheadoutaboutthat.Hesaid,
“Ifthefarmworkerscouldhaveorganizedthemselves,thentherewouldbe
noneedforyoutobehere.Thefactthattheyhaven’tbeenabletodoitmeans
thereisaneedforyoutobehere.”ThefarmworkersknewIwasthereto
helpthemgettheirrightsand,ofcourse,theyresponded.AndIthinkthey
wouldhaverespondedtoanyoneinthatposition.Aslongastheyknow
you’rehonestandtheretotrytohelpthem,whyshouldtheynotreceiveyou?
AtfirstIdidn’twanttorunforofficebecauseIdidn’tthinkIcouldget
elected;andyetthehang-upwasmine.Cesarsaid,“what’sthematterwith
you?You’reoneofthefirstpersonstohelporganizedtheunion.Youshould
116
runforoffice.”AndIwaselectedoverwhelmingly.(“Conversationwith
DoloresHuerta”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’tknowifIeverwouldhavebeen
organizing.Peopledon’trealizetheirownworthandIwouldn’thaverealized
whatIcoulddounlesssomeonehadshownfaithinme.Atthattimewewere
organizingagainstracialdiscrimination—thewayChicanosweretreatedby
police,courts,politicians.Ihadtakenthestatusquoforgranted,butFredsaid
itcouldchange.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,Ihadnever
seenacontractbefore.Italkedtolaborpeople,Igotcopiesofcontractsand
studiedthemforaweekandahalf,soIknewsomethingwhenIcametothe
workers.CesaralmostfelloverbecauseIhadmyfirstcontractallwritten
andalltheworkershadvotedontheproposals.Hethoughtweoughttohave
anattorney,butreallyitwasbettertoputthecontractsinsimplelanguage.I
didallthenegotiationsmyselfforaboutfiveyears.Womenshouldremember
this:beresourceful,youcandoanything,whetheryouhaveexperienceor
not.Cesaralwayssaysthatthefirsteducationofpeopleishowtobepeople
andthentheotherthingsfallintoplace.(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,shesaysshethinksaboutthetime10yearsago
whentheunionwasdowntofewerthan20membersandhowtheylosttheir
firststrikewhentheworkersvotedtogobackwithoutacontract.“That’s
whyCesaralwaysremindsusofthatdicho:Haymastiempoquevida”(There
ismoretimethanlife).(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
ChapterFive
EthosandGenre: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-CIO
agriculturalworkershavesetupcampinNewYorkCity.Hereinthenation’s
majormarketplace,theyarelaunchinganationalcampaigntoalertthe
publictotheshamefulplightoffarmworkers—thenation’sforgottenpeople.
Theirtechnique:Aconsumer-produceindustryboycottofunfairfarm
productstopinchthepocketbooknerveoftheindustrythatexploitsthem.
Theirgoal:Tomobilizesentimental[sic]behindtheircontinuingstrugglefor
unionrecognitionadequatewagesanddecentconditionsonthegiant
corporatefarms.(“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,butIhadtoactinspiteofmyconflict
betweenmyfamilyandmycommitment.Mybiggestproblemwasnottofeel
guiltyaboutit.Idon’tanymore[sic],butthen,everybodyusedtolaythese
guilttripsonme,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-timefortheunion
gets$5aweek,plusgasmoneyandwhateverfoodandhousingtheyneedto
liveon,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,thenetwork
newsanchorHarryReasonerchallenged,“I’llgiveitsixmonthsbeforethey
runoutofthingstosay.”ButMs.struckachordwithwomen.Its300,000
“one-shot”testcopiessoldoutnationwideineightdays.Itgeneratedan
astonishing26,000subscriptionordersandover20,000readerletterswithin
weeks.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’sMovementhasdonealot
towardhelpingmenotfeelguiltyaboutmydivorces.Butamongpoorpeople,
there’snotanyquestionaboutthewomenbeingstrong—evenstrongerthan
men—theyworkinthefieldsrightalongwiththemen.Whenyoursurvivalis
atstake,youdon’thavethesequestionsaboutyourselflikethemiddle-class
womendo.Andinourculture,raisingkidsisthemostimportantthingyou
cando,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.But
ifself-structureexplainstheself’sresistancetorhetoric,italsoexplainsthe
self’sseductionbyrhetoric.Iwanttosuggestthattheuniquepsychological
torqueofmodernrhetoricalpowercanbeexplainedasamechanism
“funded”bythedividedcharacterofmodernself-structure.Modernformsof
ethoscandivideusfromourhabitualvaluesbecause,asmoderns,weare
alwaysdivided,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,not
somuchtoencouragereaderstojointheunion(althoughthatwasagoal)
buttohelpreadersunderstandandidentifywithherasoneoftheirown.As
Anzaldúaexplains,Chicana/oculturetendstohighlight“welfareofthe
family,thecommunity,andthetribe’as‘moreimportantthanthewelfareof
theindividual.Theindividualexistsfirstaskin—assister,asfather,as
padrino—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’sreallykind
ofoldfashioned.Rememberwhenyouwerelittleyoualwayshadyour
uncles,youraunts,yourgrandmotherandyourcomadresaround.Asachild
intheMexicancultureyouidentifiedwithalotofpeople,notjustyour
143
motherandfatherliketheydoinmiddleclasshomes(DoloresHuertaReader
167).
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:
Ithoughtwemighthaveameetingofallourhelpersandgivethemthe
resultsof[the]Fresnomeeting,Sunday,thenpassoutthepledgesandsee
howmanytheycomebackwith.
147
However,Ishallwaitforyourcommands,General.Sogivemethe
wordonthenextlineoftactic.Thetroopsarerestless.(“LettersWrittenby
DoloresHuerta”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.Youprobably
noticedIwaspeevedatthelastmeetingbecauseofthemotionthatwas
madeattheC.U.meetingbeforemyarrivalandIwasnottotaketheminutes
unlessauthorizedorsomestupidthing,thatwillteachmenottostickmy
noseinwhereitdoesnotbelong.Iwasalsopeevedbecauseyouacceptedthe
moneyfromthecitizen’scommitteebecauseIhadalreadytoldLouHaas(the
governor’ssecretaryatwhosehousethedealwasatthatwedidnotwant
anyofthemoney)…Tofurtherfinishupwithmypeeves,sinceIamnotthe
quietlongsufferingtype,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,willyoupleaseletmeknowbeforeyougiveorders
topeopletodothingsunlessitisinyourdepartment.
Itsveryimportantandagoodsignofcourtesytodoso.(“MemotoHuerta”)
Huerta’shandwrittenresponsewasincludedonthesamememo:
149
Forthe10Billionthtime,Ihavenotgivenanyorderstoanyoneoutsideofmy
Department.Itisimportantasasignofcourtesytocheckwithmebeforeyou
makefalseaccusations.(“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]gotaBlankCheckontheexpendituresandheis
nowinthepositionofhavingtohonorallofthereceiptsespeciallygas
receiptswithoutanygasbudgettorelateitto.[“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.Firstand
foremosthergenderdistinguishedherrole.Ingeneral,veryfewwomen
servedasalaborleaderinU.S.unionsandcertainlyfewheldtoppositions.
Forthesereasons,Huerta’semergenceasCesarChavez’stoplieutenantand
coleaderoftheUFWmakesherunique”(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-youletters
thatwerecomposedfromaboilerplate.Manyofthelettersweretootheruniongroupsthat
hadprovidedsupporttotheUFW.
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—inrelationtoothergenreswithinalargersphereof
actionor“activitysystem.”Thegenresthatformthisconstellationfunction
togethertocoordinatethedynamicrelationsthatmakeupthelargeractivity
systems.Withinsuchsystems,genresnotonlyconstituteparticular
participantpositionsandlanguagepractices;theyalsoregulatehow
participantsrecognizeandinteractwithoneanother.(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:
TheAmericanPublicHealthAssociationwasfoundedin1872atatimewhen
scientificadvanceswerehelpingtorevealthecausesofcommunicable
diseases.Thesediscoverieslaidthefoundationforthepublichealth
professionandfortheinfrastructuretosupportourwork.
Fromourinception,APHAwasdedicatedtoimprovingthehealthof
allU.S.residents.OurfoundersrecognizedthattwooftheAssociation’smost
importantfunctionswereadvocacyforadoptionbythegovernmentofthe
mostcurrentscientificadvancesrelevanttopublichealth,andpublic
educationonhowtoimprovecommunityhealth.Alongwiththeseefforts,we
havealsocampaignedfordevelopingwell-organizedhealthdepartmentsat
boththefederalandlocallevels.(“AboutAPHA”)
Withitsorganizationalrootsinfosteringprogramsthatprotectpublichealth,theAPHA
wouldlikelybeinterestedinboththehealthconditionsoffarmlaborersandthecommon
citizen.
Becausetheyhadsimilargoals,Huertawasabletoquicklymakeclearand
meaningfulconnectionswiththeattendees.Intheopeningparagraphofhertalk,Huerta
thankstheorganizersoftheeventandthensharesChavez’shealthcondition.Immediately
followingthehealthupdateofChavez,Huertaoffersthefollowing:
Iwishtobringyougreetingsandahopeforaverysuccessfulconventionon
yourhundredandsecondconventiontoallofyouwhohavededicatedyour
156
livestomakinglifebetterfortheworld,forAmerica.Ithinkthatyourgoals
areverymuchlikethegoalsoftheunion.Wegotintothebusinessof
organizingfarmworkersformainlyhealthreasons.Itisnoaccidentthatthe
farmworkershaveanaveragelifespanof49yearsofage.Andthoseofyou
whohaveworkedinruralcommunities,Ithinkknowthereasons.Thoseyou
thatdon’t,Ijustwanttogiveyoualittlepictureofwhathealthislikefora
farmworkerinaplacewherehedoesnothavetheUnitedFarmWorkersto
representhim.(“KeynoteAddressbeforetheAnnualConventionofthe
AmericanPublicHealthAssociation”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’sreallynicetobeabletogotoaclinicwhenyouare
pregnantwithyourtenthbabyandnothavepeoplelookatyoulikeyouare
kindofcrazy.Orlikeyoudon’tknowwheretheycomefrom,orputpressure
onyounottohaveanymorechildren.BecauseafterallyouknowMexicans
arekindofpoorpeopleandyoushouldn’thaveallthatmanykids.Sothat’s
anothergoodthingaboutourclinics.Becauseunfortunately,thatpressure
nottohavechildrentranslatesitselfincountyhospitalsandplaceswhere
peoplehavenopowerintodeadbabiesbecausethosebabiesaren’ttaken
careof,andintoveryhardlaborformothersbecausetheyaretryingtomake
itashardonthemotherastheycantohaveanotherone.AndIguessIfeela
littlebitstronglyaboutthatbecauseI’vebeeninsituationswhereI’veseen
childrendie,babiesdie,becausesomebodytherethoughttheyshouldn’thave
beenborninthefirstplace.(“KeynoteAddressbeforetheAnnualConvention
oftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation”232)
Althoughtherearemanyforcesatworkintheexcerptabove,Iarguethatthegenredeeply
influencesHuerta’sethosbecauseitplacestheaudienceinherpresenceandallowsforeye
contact,forphysicalenergytobeexchanged,andforHuertatocomposehermessageboth
beforehandandextemporaneously.Thus,asHuertaworkstomakeconnectionswithher
audience,shecanorchestrateshiftsandpointsofbothemphasisandde-emphasis.Inthis
case,weseeHuertaemphasizetheimportanceoffarmworkershavingtheirowndoctors
andclinicsinordertoprovidethebesthealthcaretothem.Huertafurthersupportsthe
importanceofidentityandsharedexperience:
Thedoctorsthatcometoworkwithusworkthewaythatwedo.Weworkfor
nowages.Ourdoctorsgetalittlebitmoreforsomeofyououttherethat
mightbeinterested.Butneverthelessitisasacrifice.Andthat’simportant.
158
Becauseyoucan’thelppoorpeopleandbecomfortable.Youknow,thetwo
thingsarejustnotcompatible.Ifyouwanttoreallygivegoodcaretopoor
peopleyou’vegottobepreparedtobealittleuncomfortableandtoputalittle
bitofsacrificebehindit[emphasisadded].(“KeynoteAddressbeforethe
AnnualConventionoftheAmericanPublicHealthAssociation”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].Sheisan
executiveboardmemberandafirstvicepresidentintheunion.Shehasbeen
ontheNewYorkboycott;she’sworkedinFlorida;sheiscurrentlythehead
oftheDelanofieldofficeandisnegotiatingseventeencontractsrightnow.
Sheistheleadingwomaninthelabormovementinthiscountrytoday;sheis
averybusypersonandwearereallyluckytohaveherhere.(“SpeechGiven
byDoloresHuerta,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,andIlookbackandIseeall
ofthethingswe’vedone,andeventomyselfit’shardformetobelievehow
wemadethechangesthatwemadebypeoplethatwerelikethepoorestof
all,peoplethatdidn’tknowhowtoreadandwrite,peoplewhohadno
resources,andwhenwethinkofthechangesthatwewereabletomakefor
thefarmworkers,it’sreallykindofamindblower.(“SpeechGivenbyDolores
Huerta,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,thisiswhereyoureallyhavetothinkaboutitandaboutwhatplainold
youcando.Plainoldyoucandoalotofthings,youcanmakerealgreat
changesforthiscountry,justplainoldyou—ifyoumakeacommitment.Just
likefarmworkershavedone,allofthechangesthathavebeenbroughtand
farmworkershavedoneisbecausefarmworkershavemadeacommitment
andtheylenttheirwholebodiestogooutthereanddosomething.Itwas,
again,likeduringtheCivilRightsstrugglewhenpeoplewentinandsatin
andgotbeatenupandwhathaveyou—itwastheirbodiesthatmadethat
difference.(“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
Nogrowerwantstositdownatatableacrossfromabrownorblack
farmworkerandhavehimtellhimwhattodo.Wedon’tknowourplace—we
daretogooutandvote.Whenfarmworkersgettheiruniontheywillbefree
people—freetoparticipateinthepoliticalsystem.We’regoingtochange
politicsinthiscountry.That’swhytheywanttogetridofus.(Chui1)
Thecandorandvigorinherstyleandtoneindicateagreatdealoftrustinandsolidarity
withtheaudience.
BecauseHuertawasstandingbeforeagroup,shewasabletofostersolidarityby
using“we”and“us”inanapparentassumptionthattheaudienceidentifieswithher.Yet,
shealsoworkstoarticulatewhythisiseveryone’sfightandnotjustthefarmlaborers’
fight:
Itellpeoplethateverytimetheyfeedtheirfacesafarmworkerputthe
foodthere.Itellpeople“youaredirectlyinvolved,youhavethe
responsibilitytocomeandhelpthepeoplewhohavefedyou.”Alotof
timespeopleareafraidtopicket—theythinktheywillfeelawkward
orfunny.Remindpeoplewhodon’twanttospendafewhoursona
picketlinethatthefarmworkerwalksthousandsofmilesayear
stoopedover,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
ChapterSix
SíSePuede
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.AsCarolMattinglyassertsintheintroductiontoWellTemperedWomen,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,CesarreturnedtoArizona
andbegana25-daywater-onlyfast.Thefastquicklytookaphysicaltoll.
AfterafewdaysCesarwasbedridden.Restingonhisbackinasmallroom,
withUFWco-founderDoloresHuertabyhisside,Cesarwasbriefedbya
groupoflocalLatinolaborandpoliticalleadersaboutpoliticalrealitiesinthe
state.
TheleadersofferedarefrainCesarandDoloresheardmanytimes:
Thegrowerlobbythatdominatedstatepolitics,theLegislatureandgovernor
weresopowerful,theseLatinoleadersdeclared,itcouldn’tbebeaten.Cesar
andDoloressilentlylistenedwhiletheyexplainedwhythefastandeffortsby
farmworkerswouldbefruitless.
176
“No,nosepuede!”(“No,noitcan’tbedone”),theykeptrepeatingin
Spanish.ThenDoloresresponded,“Sí,sísepuede!”(“Yes,yes,itcanbedone”).
Doloresimmediatelypickedupthecallandmadethesloganthe
rallyingcryforthefarmworkers’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,duringwhichhebecamesoweakhewas
hospitalized,theUFWmobilizedthousandsoflabor,religiousand
communityactivists,andcollectedenoughsignaturestoforceanelectionto
recallGovernorWilliams.Thegovernorescapedthevotewithapartisan
rulingbythestateattorneygeneral.
AtaMassendingthefast,Cesar’ssaidinastatementthatwasreadfor
him,“Thegreatesttragedyisnottoliveanddie,asweallmust.Thegreatest
tragedyisforapersontoliveanddiewithoutknowingthesatisfactionof
givinglifeforothers.”
177
Thestate’spunitiveanti-farmworkerlawisstillonthebooks.Yet
CesarChavez’shistoricfast,theUFW’sactivismandthemessageofSíSe
Puede!havefundamentallytransformedArizonatothepresentday.
Cesarhaspassed,buthislegacyofself-sacrifice—andtheaffirmation
¡SíSePuede!—isalivewhereverfarmworkersorganizeandwhereverpeople
anywherestandupnonviolentlyfortheirrights.
¡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” ImagefromRobertValadez.
Fig.3.ObamaSiSePuede
ImagefromObamacampaign.
Fig.4.SiSePuede,Tejas
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”posterfromWorld
Warll.Heresheiscombinedwithanotherfictionalpre-feministarchetype,
LaAdelita,acharacterofsongandstorywhorepresentedallthewomenwho
participatedintheMexicanRevolutionofthe1900's.Ipaintherherewith
hopesthatshemayinspireanewMexicanRevolution.(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:ANewMaterialistApproach
forVisualRhetorics(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.114.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.12411300.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-CenturyAfricanAmericanWomen.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:LatinaViewsForAMultiColoredCentury.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.606629.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,RhetoricandLanguageDepartment
2130FultonStreet,KA281
SanFrancisco,CA94117
Phone:(415)422-4984
E-mail:[email protected]
Skype:nicole_howell
www.nicolegonzaleshowell.com
Education
PhD
MA
BA
SyracuseUniversity CompositionandCulturalRhetoric,2016
Dissertation:
“LaPasionaria—EthosFormation,DoloresHuerta,andtheUnitedFarmWorkers”
Mydissertationresearchisanexaminationofthecontributionsmadetothe
understandingofethosconstructionandrhetoricalstrategybytheUnitedFarmWorkers
unioninauguralvice-presidentDoloresHuerta.Morespecifically,Ianalyzehowtheroles
embodiedbyHuertaaffectherrhetoricalstrategiesasvicepresidentoftheUnitedFarm
Workers(UFW)unionandhowthosestrategiesaidinherethosconstruction.Inother
words,thisprojectlookstoHuertaasanexampleofhowpeoplewhoareoften
disassociatedwithpowercan,anddo,makesignificantsocietalchanges.
Chair:LoisAgnew|Committee:RebeccaMooreHoward,GwenPough
CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno English,CompositionTheory,2009
UniversityofSouthernCalifornia
EnglishLiteratureandLanguage,1996
ResearchAssistantships
UniversityofSanFrancisco
EthnicMinorityDissertationFellow,2014-2015
Designedtoprovideexperienceforsoon-to-befaculty,USF’sEthnicMinority
DissertationFellowshipscholarsareexpectedtocompletetheirdissertationona
diversityrelatedresearchtopic,whileteachingonecoursepersemesterintheschool
wheretheyareplaced.AsafellowintheRhetoricandLanguagedepartmentthisyear,I
havebeeninvitedtoparticipateasafulltimefacultymemberbynotonlyattendingall
facultymeetings,butalsoparticipatingincommitteeworkandserviceuniversitywide.
201
CitationProjecthttp://citationproject.net
ContributingResearcher,2009
TheaimoftheCitationProjectistouseempiricaldataindeterminingsound
pedagogicalapproachestofirstyearcompositionandresearch.Asacontributing
researcher,Icodedstudentpapersforthewaysinwhichtheyengaged—ornot—with
theirsourcesbyfirstidentifyingcitedtextandthenlocatingtheinformationinthecited
source.Byworkingthroughstudentworkinthisfashionitbecameapparentthatoften
studentsengagedinpatchwritingratherthansummaryand/orsynthesisofthesources
beingutilized.
CaliforniaStateUniversity,FresnoWritingprogramassessment
ContributingResearcher,2008
ConductedportfolioreadingstakenfromarandomsampleofEnglish5A,5B,and10
portfolios.Assessedentryandexitlevelportfoliosbyprovidingaratingof1-6forfiveof
thecurrentprogram'sdesiredlearningoutcomes.Thecollecteddatawasanalyzedand
usedtoassesstheFirstYearWritingprogram.
Publications
“PracticingLiberatoryPedagogy“WithDaliaRodriguez,AfuaBoahene,JuliannAnesi.Cultural
Studies↔CriticalMethodologies,April2012.
EditorialAssistant.ListeningtoourElders:WorkingandWritingforChange.Eds.SteveParksetal.Logan,UT:Utah
StateUniversityPress,2011.
ConferencePresentations*WorkshopFacilitation
ConferencePresentations
Embodiment,InterconnectivityandPublicStruggleinWritingEducation.
ConferenceonCommunityWriting:Boulder,CO,October2015
ConstructingEthos:DoloresHuertaandEthosFormation.
ConferenceonCollegeCompositionandCommunication:Indianapolis,IN,March2014.
LookingOutsidetheAcademy:TheRhetoricalStrategiesofDoloresHuerta.Feminisms
andRhetoricsConference:StanfordUniversity,CA,September2013.
RecoveryandRedefinition:ImaginingDoloresHuertaasaWPA.
SyracuseUniversitySpringTeachingConference:April2013.
WPAWork:LookingBeyondtheAcademy.
StateUniversityNewYork,CouncilonWriting:UniversityatBuffalo,NY,March2013.
202
CreatingConsubstantiationbetweenTeachersandStudentsDespiteDisparateRhetorics
ofEmbodiment.
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.Treating
PedagogicalFailuresasBlunders:MaterialandIdeologicalConstraintsofGraduate
TeachingAssistants.
StateUniversityNewYork,CouncilonWriting:BinghamtonUniversity,NY,March2011.
WorkshopFacilitation
AssessingStudentWritingfortheWorldWeLiveIn
Presenter:NicoleGonzalesHowell
UniversityofSanFrancisco,DepartmentofRhetoricandLanguageMarch2015
AssignmentSheetWorkshop
Co-Presenters:CathyGabor,NicoleGonzalesHowell,JulieSullivan
UniversityofSanFrancisco,DepartmentofRhetoricandLanguageJanuary2015
TheCitationProject:“UnderstandingStudents’UseofSourcesthroughCollaborative
Research.”
Co-Facilitators:RebeccaMooreHoward(Lead),SandraJamieson(Lead),NicoleGonzales
Howell,MissyWatson,KateNavickas
GeorgiaInternationalConferenceonInformationLiteracy:Savannah,GA,September
2010.
203
AcademicEmploymentSummary
2015-PresentInstructor,UniversityofSanFrancisco
2014-2015 EthnicMinorityDissertationFellow,UniversityofSanFrancisco
Summer2014Instructor:SummerBridge,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno
2013-2014 Editor:GraduateEditingCenter,SyracuseUniversity
2011-2013 Consultant:WritingCenter,SyracuseUniversity
2009-2013 TAWritingInstructor,SyracuseUniversity
2008-2009 AdjunctFaculty,FresnoCityCollege
2007-2009 TAWritingInstructor,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno
Spring2007 EnglishPrepInstructor:FastForwardtoAcademicSuccess,TitleV,California
StateUniversity,Fresno
TeachingExperience
UniversityofSanFrancisco
WrittenCommunicationII|RHET120
Instructor,Spring2016
InRhetoric120studentslearntocomposeambitiousargumentsrespondingtoand
incorporatingsourcesofgreaternumber,length,complexity,andvariety.Studentsalso
(a)developskillsincriticalanalysisofchallengingnon-fictionprosefromarangeof
disciplinaryperspectivesandsubjects,withaparticularfocusonthelinguisticand
rhetoricalstrategiesemployedtherein,and(b)conductextensiveresearchinthe
processofplanningandcomposingsophisticatedtexts.
WrittenCommunicationI(Intensive)|RHET110N
Instructor,Fall2015,Fall2016
Inordertopreparestudentsforthekindsofwritingtypicallyrequiredincollege-level
coursesandincivicdiscourse,RHET110Nteachesthecompositionofthesis-driven
argumentativeessaysthatrespondtoimportantsocialandacademicissues.Inaddition
tofourunitsofclassroominstruction,studentslearnandpracticethewritingprocess,
fromideatofinalessay(e.g.,pre-writing,drafting,revising,andediting)ina2-hour
computerwritinglabeachweek.
WrittenCommunicationI|RHET110
Instructor,Spring2016
Inordertopreparestudentsforthekindsofwritingtypicallyrequiredincollege-level
coursesandincivicdiscourse,RHET110teachesthecompositionofthesis-driven
argumentativeessaysthatrespondtoimportantsocialandacademicissues.
FirstYearSeminar/Rhetoric195|FYS/RHET195
Instructor,Fall2014“WritingAboutHumanRights”
204
FirstYearSeminarsaredesignedforstudentsthatareintheirfirstorsecondsemester
atUSFandcounttowardtheuniversityCore.Inthiscoursestudentswilllearnhowto
conductacademicresearch,strategiesforreadingandwritingcritically,andstrategies
forrevisionthroughthestudyofHumanRights.
SyracuseUniversity
PracticesofAcademicWriting|WRT105
Instructor,Fall2010,Summer2010andFall2009“VisualRepresentation:Race&
Ethnicity”
WRT105isarequiredfirstyearwritingcoursethatintroducesstudentstothe
conventions,genres,andpracticesofacademicwriting.Inthiscourse,Ifocusedon
introducingstudentstoacademicresearchandwritingthroughtextualandvisual
analysisofrepresentationsofraceandethnicityinpopularmedia.
CriticalResearch&Inquiry|WRT205
Instructor,Spring2010“TextualRepresentationofRace&Gender”
WRT205isaresearchbasedsophomorelevelwritingrequirementthatfocuseson
researchmethods,primaryandsecondaryresearch,libraryresearch,andevaluatingand
workingwithsources.WhilemuchofmyWRT205coursewasdedicatedtohaving
studentsworkdirectlywithsourceswealsoconsistentlydiscussedexplicitlythe
conventionsofacademicwritingandhowthoseconventionsaffectedhowthey
presentedtheirresearch.
TechnicalandProfessionalWriting|Writing307:
Instructor,Fall2012
WRT307isawritingstudiofocusedonprofessionalcommunicationthroughthestudy
ofaudience,purpose,andethics.Morespecifically,rhetoricalproblem-solvingprinciples
wereappliedtodiverseprofessionalwritingtasksandsituationsbycreatingarobust
portfolioofstudentworkthatrangedfromafeasibilitystudytoaformalclass
presentation.
AdvancedWritingStudio:Style|WRT308
Instructor,Spring2012“StylisticChoicesandVoices”
WRT308isawritingstudiofocusedontherhetoricalcannonofstyle.Asanupper
divisioncourseforwritingmajors,Idesignedtheclassasaspacewherestudentscould
experimentwithcontemporarywritingstyles,designs,andeditingconventions.Further,
studentspracticedwritinginmultiplegenresfordifferentaudiences,purposes,and
effectswhichleadtorichdiscussionsabouttherhetorical,aesthetic,social,andpolitical
dimensionsofstyle.
TheoryandStrategyfortheTeachingofWriting|WRT670
CCRConsultant&Instructor,Fall2010
205
WRT670isayear-longteachingpracticumforTAsteachingthelowerdivisionwriting
courses(WRT105&205)forthefirsttime.AstheCCRConsultant,Ico-facilitatedour
weeklymeetingswithaseasonedprofessionalwritinginstructorleadandwas
responsibleforTAobservationsandassessment.
CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno
Writing/ReadingandInformationLiteracy|SummerBridge
Lecturer,Summer2014
TheSummerBridgeWriting/Readingcourseisdesignedtointroduceandprepare
studentsforfirst-yearwritingatCSU,Fresno(Engl5A,5B,and10),andothercollege
coursewritingdemands.Studentswereexposedtoavarietyofreadingstrategiesand
offeredopportunitiestopracticewritingwithmanylowstakestasks.Thiscourse
focusedonintroducingandpracticingreadingstrategiesthatareinformed,purposeful,
andcritical.
AcceleratedAcademicLiteracy|English10
Instructor,2008-2009
Readingandwritinginacademicandpublicgenres;specialattentiontorhetorical
decision-makingandcriticalanalysis.InthisfacepacedcourseIguidedinstructionin
readingandrespondingtotexts,whilealsoteachingstudentshowtoparticipatein
publicandacademicconversationsviaresearchinprimaryandsecondarysources.
AcademicLiteracyII|English5B
Instructor,Spring2008
Aspartofa“stretchprogram”English5Bwasthesecondofatwosemesterwriting
requirementatCSU,Fresno.In5Bweprimarilyfocusedonresearch,analysis,synthesis,
argument,andevaluationoftexts.Studentsweresupportedintheiranalysisofthe
rhetoricalqualitiesofacademicwritingbyparticipatinginportfolioevaluationsoftheir
classmatesandreflectivepractices.
AcademicLiteracyI|English5A
Instructor,Fall2007
English5AwasthefirstpartofthestretchprogramatCSU,Fresno.In5Astudentswere
abletopracticereadingandwritingcritically.InthiscourseIworkedtomakeexplicitthe
processesofwriting,andspecificallyacademicwriting,byfocusingonreading
comprehension;genreanalysis;planning,composing,revisingwriting;andreflection.
FresnoCommunityCollege
WritingSkillsforCollege|English125
Instructor,Spring2009andSummer2009
English125isdesignedtobeanintroductiontocollegewritingcourseandemphasizes
criticalreadingskills.Inthiscoursestudentswereaskedtoreadacademictextsaswell
206
asoffertheirpersonalexperienceswithlanguageandliteracyinordertodeveloptheir
processofwriting,revisingandfinishingshortpapers.
Grants
2013
2012
2012
2010
CCRSummerResearchGrant,SyracuseUniversity
GSOTravelGrant,SyracuseUniversity
CCRSummerResearchGrant,SyracuseUniversity
CCRSummerFellowship,SyracuseUniversity
AppointmentsandService
Discipline
1/2012-3/2013
University
2015-Present
2015-Present
2011-12
2011-12
Spring2008
Department
2015-Present
2014-Present
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2013 TAAdvisoryBoard,Bedford/St.Martins
MinorinChicanoLatinoStudiesadvisoryboardmember,USF
CELASAmember,USF
GraduateStudentOrganization(GSO)representative/senator,
SyracuseUniversity
GSOFamilyIssuesCommitteemember,SyracuseUniversity
GraduateCommitteeRepresentative,CaliforniaStateUniversity,
Fresno
AssessmentCommitteeMember,UniversityofSanFrancisco
IntegratingMultilingualStudents,CommitteeMember,University
ofSanFrancisco
WPA:AssessmentIntern,SyracuseUniversity
WPA:ProgramIntern,SyracuseUniversity
CCRGraduateCircle:CoChair,SyracuseUniversity
207
2011-2012 2011-2012 Fall2009
Spring2008
Spring2008 Major/MinorCommitteemember,SyracuseUniversity
AssociateSearchCommitteemember,SyracuseUniversity
FoundingmemberofCCRGraduateCircle,SyracuseUniversity
StudentsofEnglishStudiesAssociation(SESA)In-service
Coordinator,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno
Focusgroupparticipant,CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno
ProfessionalAffiliations
CoalitionofWomenScholarsintheHistoryofRhetoricandComposition(CWSHRC)
ConferenceonCollegeCompositionandCommunication(CCCC)
§ CCCCLatinoCaucus
NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish(NCTE)
RhetoricSocietyofAmerica(RSA)