1987 Quarterly Journal of Speech, Maurice Charland

¶ … 1987 Quarterly Journal of Speech, Maurice Charland embraces Kenneth Burke's argument that "persuasion" should not necessarily be the "key term" as a theory of rhetoric. Rather, the key term in critiquing rhetoric should be "identification" (Charland, 1987, p. 133). Why is focusing on identification more valid than focusing on persuasion in the process of rhetorical themes? Charland insists that using persuasion as a driver for rhetoric "…implies the existence of an agent who is free to be persuaded," which is not always the case. Charland uses Quebec's quest for sovereignty as an example of why his assertion is valid. The White Paper that was created identifies the issues and the alleged oppression; in itself, it persuades through identification of salient issues.

In 1976, Quebec's political situation changed dramatically when voters gave control of the legislature to the Parti Quebecois (PQ), taking it away from the MSA; the PQ took 71 of the 110 seats in the legislature, giving it firm control and a chance to move Quebec out of Canadian authority into a sovereign state of its own (Charland, 135). Following the election a White Paper was presented to voters in 1979; it was a "rhetorical document" positing that the people of Quebec were "an oppressed people" who would be far better off as an independent nation. The White Paper was truly rhetorical in the context of an argument for independence; it related to the history of the development of the French-speaking society. The referendum that the White Paper supported did not gain enough votes to win, but as rhetoric it was a classic example of a "constitutive phenomenon" that used the identification of the issue rather than wholly persuasive tools to put the idea forward (137).

In other words, through his esoteric narrative, Charland's point is that the people of Quebec are the protagonists and Canada is the antagonist, and the "…past is presented as an extension of the present" through the rhetorical use of "our" and "Quebecois." And in conclusion Charland explains that because any rhetorical situation is essentially ideological, the rhetoric must not only be "mindful" of the arguments put forward, but of the "very nature of the subjects that rhetoric both addresses and leads to come to be" (148).

Reflection Paper -- Analysis of Charland's Piece

The lay reader needs to pay very close attention to Charland's narrative otherwise it is fairly easy to get lost in the esoteric concepts put forward. Reading closely and re-reading -- looking for clues to the ulterior meanings -- is vital in terms of grasping everything that professor Charland is presenting. It is clear that Charland is a brilliant wordsmith as well as a powerfully talented professor of communication. He is alluding to several important parts of human communication in this essay. He is analyzing what rhetoric is supposed to accomplish, and in doing so he delves into theory. By using Quebec's drive for independence, he appears to be supporting the idea that Quebec should be a sovereign state and not under the thumb of the Canadian government -- much the way that Ireland demanded to be independent many years ago rather than be under the control of the British.