1. Constitutive Rhetoric On viewing identity as an outcome of address

2. Charland is a Burkean

3. He is concerned with identification, which as Burke says, must happen prior to persuasion

4. Charland is a Burkean He is concerned with identification, which as Burke says, must happen prior to persuasion These forms of address happen “spontaneously, intuitively, even unconsciously”

5. Charland is a Burkean He is concerned with identification, which as Burke says, must happen prior to persuasion These forms of address happen “spontaneously, intuitively, even unconsciously”

6. Charland is a Burkean He is concerned with identification, which as Burke says, must happen prior to persuasion These forms of address happen “spontaneously, intuitively, even unconsciously” So Charland, like Burke, wants a rhetorical theory able to account for how group and individual identities form “beyond the realm of rational or even free choice, beyond the realm of persuasion”

7. Some Grounding Questions:

8. When have you found yourself addressed in a way that changes how you appear to yourself and others?

9. Some Grounding Questions: When have you found yourself addressed in a way that changes how you appear to yourself and others? Can you consider examples of how your identity as a citizen of a city, state, or nation was formed by specific kinds of address?

10. Some Grounding Questions: When have you found yourself addressed in a way that changes how you appear to yourself and others? Can you consider examples of how your identity as a citizen of a city, state, or nation was formed by specific kinds of address? What about your identity as a fan or follower of a specific sport, team, art form, artist, etc?

11. Some Grounding Questions: When have you found yourself addressed in a way that changes how you appear to yourself and others? Can you consider examples of how your identity as a citizen of a city, state, or nation was formed by specific kinds of address? What about your identity as a fan or follower of a specific sport, team, art form, artist, etc? Are even more fundamental qualities such as race, gender, sexuality, religious identity an outcome of constitutive rhetoric?

12. Charland’s Case

13. The “constitution” of the peuple Quebecois

14. Charland’s Case The “constitution” of the peuple Quebecois Prior to a specific speech act in 1967, the term “Quebecois” simply referred a resident of the city of Quebec.

15. Charland’s Case The “constitution” of the peuple Quebecois Prior to a specific speech act in 1967, the term “Quebecois” simply referred a resident of the city of Quebec. But, when an organization publically declared “We are Quebecois” that term began to name a totally different entity:

16. Charland’s Case The “constitution” of the peuple Quebecois Prior to a specific speech act in 1967, the term “Quebecois” simply referred a resident of the city of Quebec. But, when an organization publically declared “We are Quebecois” that term began to name a totally different entity: The French-speaking Canadians who sought to separate from the nation.

17. Charland’s Case The “constitution” of the peuple Quebecois The declaration (and the referendum that followed) helped constitute a new political identity

18. Charland’s Case The “constitution” of the peuple Quebecois The declaration (and the referendum that followed) helped constitute a new political identity– previously, to be a “French Canadian” was a cultural and linguistic but not a political status.

19. Charland’s Case The ideological “trick”:

20. Charland’s Case The ideological “trick” (p. 137): It seems as though the Quebecois were always already “there” just waiting to be named.

21. Charland’s Case The ideological “trick” (p. 137): It seems as though the Quebecois were always already “there” just waiting to be named. But for Charland, that “natural” identity was in fact created in speech.

22. Charland’s Case The ideological “trick” (p. 137): It seems as though the Quebecois were always already “there” just waiting to be named. But for Charland, that “natural” identity was in fact created in the address. Note, too that these constitutive narratives both create and constrain identity.

23. Charland’s Case Constitutive rhetorics can be seductive:

24. Charland’s Case Constitutive rhetorics can be seductive: Consider the effect of being addressed in a way that give you a new point of self- recognition

25. Charland’s Case Constitutive rhetorics can be seductive: Consider the effect of being addressed in a way that give you a new point of self-recognition Such speeches “give order to human experience and…induce others to dwell in it to establish ways of living in common, in communion in which there is sanction for the story that constitutes one’s life” (Fisher quoted in Charland, 142).

26. Charland’s Case Constitutive rhetorics can be seductive: Consider the effect of being addressed in a way that give you a new point of self-recognition Such speeches “give order to human experience and…induce others to dwell in it to establish ways of living in common, in communion in which there is sanction for the story that constitutes one’s life” (Fisher quoted in Charland, 142). Thus, constitutive rhetoric is “akin…to…conversion that ultimately results in an act of recognition of the ’rightness’ of a discourse and of one’s identity….”

27. Constituting the Party

28. The rant that started the movement