Vernacular Discourse

The rhetorical study of vernacular is the examination of discourse—conceived broadly—that emanates from and is directed to silenced and underrepresented individuals and communities. With burgeoning scholarly interest in the politics and practice of power, including the study of both domination and subordination, has come the recognition that scholars must attend not only to the discourse of the traditionally powerful, but also to the communicative practices of the often ignored and silenced. Vernacular is crucial to this interest in power; in a community's vernacular discourse are insights into its conception of itself, its negotiation of its identity, and its interactions with other communities. The study of vernacular is often the study of the discourse of traditionally disenfranchised, including racial-ethnic minorities—African Americans, Latinos/as, Asian Americans, Native Americans—gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual populations, and straight White women. Though much, if not most, of the emphasis has been on these communities, vernacular is not limited to the traditionally marginalized. Instead vernacular discourses may also be conceived of as those that vary markedly in content and politics from dominant discourses.

Although specific rhetorical attention to this discourse as vernacular is relatively recent, generally marked by the 1995 essay “The Critique of Vernacular Discourse,” by Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, rhetorical scholars have attended to vernacular discourse for some time. Much of this work has served in part as a project of recovery in which discourses of marginalized communities have been anthologized and analyzed. This revalorizing approach to vernacular has served the crucial historical function of rewriting rhetorical histories in more inclusive ways. Not surprisingly, most attention has been given to women, mostly White, and African Americans, with limited emphasis on other populations. This earlier work heavily emphasized traditional rhetorical forms of discourse, with considerable focus on the compilation of speeches. It has often functioned in part as a celebratory practice, delineating the discourse of the community on its own terms, but offering little critical reflection on the ways in which vernacular can serve larger politics of domination.

More recendy, scholars interested in vernacular have directed attention to several projects that have broadened its parameters. Although early rhetorical attention mostly emphasized speeches, rhetorical scholars have argued for an expanded notion of public discourse, noting that marginalized communities may adopt a range of discursive forms, including such texts as speeches, poetry, autobiography, performance, art, conversation, and online discussions. In part, this expanded conception of discourse is designed to capture the many different ways that communities talk. In addition, scholars have argued that the study of speeches only may in fact reproduce an incomplete collection of discourse. They note that the speech, as a form of discourse, is often already a production of a privileged community, for the giving of speeches requires that one has the cultural power to access the podium.

Finally, the study of vernacular is also designed to include the study of the everyday and the mundane. Across this expanded notion of discourse is an underlying argument about power. In concert with the critical rhetoric project involving obviously public messages produced by prominent individuals, the study of vernacular notes that power operates not only in top-down or juridical ways, but also on an everyday or micropolitical operation of power. To access the micropolitics of power requires the study of a broad range of discourse.

...