An Annotated Bibliography of Global and Non-Western Rhetorics: Sources for Comparative Rhetorical Studies ! By Anne Melfi, Nicole Khoury, and Tarez Samra Graban " Bibliographies, Volume 9 # 0 Comments Edited by Anne Melfi, Nicole Khoury, and Tarez Samra Graban With contributions authored by Brian Adam, San Jose State University Leonora Anyango, Community College of Allegheny County Tyler Carter, Duke Kunshan University Lance E. Cummings, University of North Carolina at Wilmington Stephen Kwame Dadugblor, University of Texas at Austin Rasha Diab, University of Texas at Austin Dan Jerome Dirilo, San Jose State University Tarez Samra Graban, Florida State University Elif Guler, Longwood University Nicole Khoury, University of California, Irvine Uma S. Krishnan, Kent State University Keith S. Lloyd, Kent State University at Stark Abbie McGarvey, San Jose State University Anne Melfi, Independent Scholar Michael Pfirrmann, San Jose State University Amanda Presswood, Florida State University Maria Prikhodko, DePaul University Alexis Rocha, San Jose State University Jason Sharier, Kent State University at Stark Amber Sylva, San Jose State University Erin Cromer Twal, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Saveena (Chakrika) Veeramoothoo, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Ben Vevoda, San Jose State University Xiaobo Wang, Sam Houston State University Hui Wu, University of Texas at Tyler Michelle Zaleski, Marymount University Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge the members of the Global & Non-Western Rhetorics Standing Group of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), who, in 2016, began to crowd-source one central bibliography, from which we drew many of the sources that have been annotated here. Since that time, development and completion of this bibliography have been a community effort. We wish to thank graduate students in the History of Rhetoric graduate seminar at San Jose State University who contributed entries to developing the bibliography. In addition to the contributors listed above, who coauthored many of our over 200 entries, the editors are grateful to Iklim Goksel, Arabella Lyon, LuMing Mao, Priya Sirohi, Adnan Salhi, Shakil Rabbi, Ryan Skinnell, and Liz Angeli and Matt Cox for their enthusiastic support of this project. Introduction I. Re/Defining the Historical Moment The “Annotated Bibliography of Global and Non-Western Rhetorics” bears witness to a robust literature that is not so much new as it has been emerging for several decades under one of several monikers: “comparative,” “global,” and/or “non-Western.” At the same time, this particular project emerges at the intersection of two recent conversations that reflect a need to look deliberately and categorically at how the monikers have evolved. The first conversation occurred at the 2013 Rhetoric Society of America biennial Institute, where participants of the “Comparative Rhetoric” seminar produced a Manifesto that offered a blueprint for comparative rhetorical work in the current historical moment, revisiting its operational definition(s), considering its (new) objects of study, articulating its critical goals, and reflecting on its variant methodologies. The 2013 Manifesto, and subsequently its 2015 publication in Rhetoric Review, made several disciplinary assertions: that comparative rhetoric could be defined as a rhetoric that “examines communicative practices across time and space by attending to historicity, specificity, self-reflexivity, processual predisposition, and imagination”; that the objects of its study “have significant ethical, epistemic, and political orientations,” including practices originating in non-canonical texts or practices that “have often been marginalized, forgotten, dismissed . . . and/or erased altogether”; that one of its principal goals is to “embrace different ‘grids of intelligibility’ or different terms of engagement for opening new rhetorical times, places, and spaces”; and that its principal methodology includes “the art of recontextualization characterized by a navigation among and beyond the meanings of the past and the questions of the present; what is important and what is merely available” (“Symposium,” 273–274). Several years later at the 2017 RSA biennial Institute, the workshop re-convened under Mao’s and Lyon’s leadership, with the playfully constructed title “‘The Rest of the World’: Recognizing Non- Western Rhetorical Traditions,” calling into question, among other things, which vantage points would reflect “the west” versus “the rest.” Workshop participants discussed strategies for translation work, and the consequent implications of recontextualizing rhetorical cultures. They considered nuanced distinctions between cultural and comparative rhetorical methodologies, including how to operationalize space and place for each methodology. They discussed complications to the kinds of moral- and value-shifting that are inevitable for intercultural scholarship. And finally, they reflected on the growing popularity of foundational compilations of secondary scholarship on Non-Western/global rhetoric since the turn of the millennium—such as Lipson & Binkley, eds. Ancient Non-Greek Rhetorics and Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks; Borrowman, Lively, & Kmetz, eds. Rhetoric in the Rest of the West; and Baca & Villanueva, eds., Rhetorics of the Americas; alongside special issues of College English, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, and College Composition and Communication—and their appearance on an increasing number of graduate and undergraduate syllabi. The second conversation occurred with the resurgence of the Non-Western/Global Rhetorics Special Interest Group at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, and its subsequent reorganization as a CCCC Standing Group, which helped identify a strong and immediate community of scholars whose expertise as students or instructors of global rhetorical approaches merited an outlet for collaboration. Originally offered from 2008 to 2011, this SIG began as a non-Western SIG focused on scholarship of Middle Eastern Rhetorics, but soon evolved into a space for considering the study, analysis, and codification of rhetorical practices of different nations and civilizations. After some years on hiatus, at the well-attended resurgence of the SIG in 2015, participants realized it might be time to establish a new and ongoing mission for the group. Two groups formed at that point: (1) one under the aegis of “non-Western” rhetorics, which would encompass work in Middle East studies, but was also concerned with other geographical areas that lie outside the boundaries of a purely Western hegemony; and (2) the Arab American Caucus, focusing on cultural identity or a specific research area addressing Arab, Muslim, and Arab American issues. Inspired by George Kennedy’s definition of “Comparative Rhetoric” as “the cross-cultural study of rhetorical traditions as they exist or have existed in different societies around the world” (Comparative, 1), as well as LuMing Mao’s later call to “renounce [Western] domination, adjudication, and assimilation, and . . . nurture tolerance, vagueness, and heteroglossia” (“Reflective,” 418), the Non-Western/Global Rhetorics SIG aimed to bring together emerging and established scholars in history, theory, and pedagogy who were interested not only in how rhetorical traditions varied in different parts of the world, but also how they have been realized, circulated, or accessed, and how they might be better understood, apart from a purely Western/non-Western binary. The realization that individual members of this group—now the Global & Non-Western Rhetorics (G&NWR) Standing Group—would benefit from a more horizontal distribution of their principal texts and approaches to teaching global rhetorics helped identify the Annotated Bibliography as a convenient and expedient genre for diversifying our pedagogical traditions. Specifically, from 2016 through 2019, leadership of the SIG expanded to involve scholars of African, Ancient Egyptian, Arabic, Chinese, Indian, Islamic, Japanese, Jewish, Korean, Russian, and Turkish rhetorical traditions—as well as scholars working more broadly on intercultural rhetorical issues—and it was in that moment of expansion and pedagogical need that we opted to build out the crowd-sourced bibliography into its more robust annotated and published form. We had heard expressed time and again through our meetings and across our listservs a desire to promote resources that not only included and articulated, but also questioned, a range of global rhetorical theories, practices, and pedagogies. What we heard expressed was the need for a concise compendium of global rhetorical resources that offered new avenues for studying and teaching communication in postcolonial and decolonial contexts, and around which we could build or revitalize our curriculum. That need has fast been reinforced by the emergence of newer scholarship, including Global Rhetorical Traditions, edited by Hui Wu and Tarez Samra Graban, an anthology of critical commentaries and translated primary sources of Non-Western rhetorical traditions and practices, and most recently the work of 43 scholars in Keith Lloyd’s edited collection, The Routledge Handbook of Comparative World Rhetorics. By all respects, and in every way, conversations between and among the comparative, the global, and the non/Western are moving more quickly than they can be captured here. Those conversations have been buoyed by countless others. Since its first Congress in 1977, the International Society for the History of Rhetoric has not only gathered together the voices of international and multilingual scholars, it has also posed challenges to dominant scholastic perspectives, and done so more actively since its inclusion of African, East Asian, and South Asian scholars and panels. Beginning in 1997, the Feminisms and Rhetorics Conference, co-hosted by the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition, has welcomed global perspectives and “alternative” rhetorical histories and traditions. And since its first conference in 2007, the African Association for Rhetoric has made an intellectual home for both pan-African scholars and teachers of rhetoric across the disciplines and for scholars with an exclusive interest in pan-African rhetorical perspectives and methodologies. These reflect only a few of what we recognize as an increasing number of global pathways to collaboration on comparative rhetorical work. In addition, members of the G&NWR Standing Group already report an increase in curricula and course material that engage with global and non-Western rhetorical studies both within the U.S. and abroad. Other organizational initiatives, such as “Wikipedia Project: Writing,” encourage contributions by a range of scholars and students alike, offering a testament to the shared responsibility of reading historical contributions to rhetoric that have been largely ignored and of challenging knowledge that shapes our perceptions of the legitimacy of these very contributions. II. Acknowledging Traditions and Establishing Trends Categorizing such a vast field of work is a vexed activity, at best. We began by acknowledging the keystone conversations and debates out of which comparative rhetorical approaches have emerged, and these are reflected in our sections on “Introductory Overviews” and “Methodologies.” From there, we offered loosely descriptive categories that reflect language, culture, and—to some degree—the principal historical positioning of various global rhetorical practices, including African, Arabic, Chinese, Egyptian, Celtic (non-Anglo Irish), Japanese, Jewish, Korean, Near Eastern, Pre-Columbian American, and South Asian. Readers will note that these categories are broader than single language groups, yet narrower than geographical regions, and that these categories are sure to evolve. While we do not consider the 14 categories and 207 entries that constitute this bibliography to be absolutely comprehensive of all work in the field of global rhetorical studies, we hope readers will recognize the Standing Group’s principal goals in our selections: to increase rhetorical knowledge globally; to create new kinds of collaborations; and to promote the circulation of key sources of knowledge about rhetorical practices that occur in other cultures. This includes both broadening and narrowing field definitions of “rhetoric” and “non/Western” so as to include a wide range of communicative practices beyond the Aristotelian frame without making either term overly expansive. Most importantly, however, the Standing Group and this bibliography aim to move the field’s rhetorical terminology toward demonstrating an understanding that concepts from these and other traditions are already germinal and foundational rather than “new.” We also trust that readers understand why we cannot promise complete coverage of the “world” or absolute inclusivity of all known rhetorical traditions. In the spirit of exploration, the earliest iteration of the 2016 bibliography was organized without categorical divisions to encourage discussion among collaborators about how best to shape it (i.e., by geospace, by subtopic, by methodology, by region, by orientation, by pedagogical emphasis, etc.). At the time, contributors wanted to trouble rather than define. Ultimately, we opted to organize the bibliography according to identified rhetorical regions and to publish the strongest annotations that showed sufficient range in breadth and depth and variation of comparative approaches to each tradition. We also provided contributors with the following foci to offer our bibliography shape and scope, helping to fill what we understood to be a critical gap: We welcomed sources that demonstrate a convergence of where rhetoric and writing studies can meet non-Western and global rhetorics—including ancient rhetorical cultures which are not necessarily based in Greco-Roman paradigms, but are founded on different premises and cultural priorities, and contemporary expressions of the above. We welcomed sources that demonstrate the breadth and depth and variation of “comparative” rhetorical traditions—in particular, those we see occurring at the “cross-cultural” intersection, such as work that investigates histories, theories, or pedagogies growing from attempts to cross various lines or borders or traditions). We welcomed sources that provide a more complex understanding of “comparative” rhetoric as a theory and a practice, beyond simply using western axioms to compare non-Western traditions, and even beyond simple rejections of so-called “Western” traditions. We welcomed sources that demonstrate an active crossing-over of cultures or methodologies related to oral and written communication; in a few instances, this includes feminist rhetorical work that examines how specific cultures shape or are shaped by transnational discourses, though employing primarily comparative methodologies for the study of rhetorical cultures or demonstrating pedagogy for or within rhetorical cultures. Finally, we welcomed sources that illustrate the ways in which rhetorical topics function across international borders, within distinct cultural contexts, and/or as sites for post- and decoloniality, especially for reviving pedagogical work. Unfortunately, attempting to address such a critical gap through this Annotated Bibliography also involves some necessary exclusions. We excluded sources devoted primarily to ESL, ELL, L2 or composition pedagogy, including World Englishes or the impact of English language on other cultures. We excluded sources devoted primarily to Western fusion rhetorics (African-American, Arab- American, Chinese-American), unless such studies worked with and through comparative methods. We excluded sources derived from comparative literary studies that do not clearly shed light on a rhetorical culture. And we excluded sources derived from intercultural communication studies more generally, that do not shed light on the nature of particular rhetorical cultures. Thus, across the 207 entries that constitute this first version of our Annotated Bibliography, readers may find some work that is inclusive of L2/ESL teaching and scholarship, as well as the important work of transnational composing, yet those are not our principal areas of emphasis. In future iterations of this Annotated Bibliography, we hope to include the entries that could not fit here and complicate regional orientations even further than we do. As well, ancillary to this Annotated Bibliography, the G&NWR Standing Group plans to update and circulate its crowd-sourced bibliography without annotations—one which continues to grow, and from which we will continue to draw. While the annotations are no substitute for the sources themselves (they are merely signposts, indicating the authors’ greater breadth and depth), we hope readers will use them to discern the rich contributions that each source makes to the global and non-western rhetorical conversation. Even still, we recognize that coverage will be uneven, and this is in part due to the dual function of the Bibliography. That is, it serves both as a crash course or introduction to scholars just now delving into the field, and as a gathering of insights for those already looking to problematize, question, rethink, or pursue the field’s prior assumptions. For example, a proliferation of foundational and persistent scholarship in the past two decades on Chinese rhetorics means that a good number of our contributors, even if they are not principally Chinese rhetoric scholars, could contribute to that category. Furthermore, among the three editors of this version, our collective strengths lie in comparative methodologies as well as African, Arabic, and South Asian rhetorical traditions, which may explain why those traditions have received more attention. In expanding our South Asian category, in particular, we hope to provide access to more scholars who wish to explore that field. Sue Hum and Arabella Lyon have observed that the prior dearth of publication on the rhetorics of South Asian cultures has made it difficult for one to find a starting point (“Recent” 161). We can and do extend this observation to a number of traditions in this Bibliography, and thus encourage our readers to consider each tradition as merely a “starting point.” III. Two Critical Interventions Given the dual function of this Annotated Bibliography—to serve as both introduction and interrogation —its organization is not only practical, it also signals a commentary on two critical interventions we hope to make in our field. First, in naming rhetorical regions, we propose a hybridized organizational model for global rhetorical studies that both offers a regional and geographic organization (African, the Americas, Chinese, Japanese, Korean), and features linguistic (Arabic, Celtic), cultural (Egyptian, South Asian), and religious (Jewish) sections to show the complexity and hybridity of this field. That is, in differentiating the myriad cultural differences within what have historically been understood as large language groups, we hope to challenge long-held assumptions about language and tradition in non- Western rhetoric and global rhetorical studies by employing a set of categories (or rhetorical regions) that are not wholly uniform. Second, in using tags to foreground various themes that cut across rhetorical regions, rather than to delimit the dominant conversations about each region, we hope to trouble static conceptions of how language, rhetoric, and communication function within each region. Naming Rhetorical Regions For the editors and contributors of this Annotated Bibliography, naming is less an act of epistemic declaration than it is a courting of particular traditions and an attempt to make those traditions more available for teaching and study. We first noted the need for a hybridized naming schema while planning the un-annotated version of this bibliography. When contributors suggested entries for annotation, they did so according to the organizational schemas that had served them as inroads to understanding comparative rhetorics. A set of geographical categories emerged as a natural starting place because we could name as many geographical areas as we needed in order to signify cultural, ethnic, and even linguistic groupings reflected in their suggestions. However, we wanted the categories to reflect the breadth and depth of explicitly global and cross-cultural rhetorical studies; thus, once contributors finished their work, we condensed over 25 categories into 14, inviting more contributions in areas where coverage was thin, or inviting further clarification from new students and seasoned scholars alike on how to optimally recognize the various ways in which a single tradition might be categorized, knowing ultimately that we could rely on the tagging feature of PresentTense to cross-list as much as was necessary. In doing so, we hoped to lay the groundwork for an inclusive naming practice. Ideally, our named regions would function as linguistic and cultural hybrids, and we recognize that this marks a simultaneous reliance on, and departure from, some of the field’s core organizational logics. In some respects, we follow the same logic guiding Lipson and Binkley’s Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks and Ancient Non-Greek Rhetorics, in which they include geographic areas while pointing out the importance and contribution of each area to its scholarship. Specifically, they identify six civilizations occurring between 5000 and 1200 BCE—Middle East; Egypt; the Indus Valley; China; Mesoamerica; and the two Andean civilizations—but acknowledge that the book deals with only three (Rhetoric, 4). Moreover, they make distinctions among Near Eastern cultures, organizing them further according to time and place, such as with Mesopotamian and Egyptian, and they draw attention to religion as a viable category when there is a distinct body of work, such as with Biblical Rhetorics (17). They also distinguish alternative Greek rhetorics, such as Rhodian, and end with “Suggestions for Teaching Ancient Rhetorics.” We do some of the same things in our Annotated Bibliography, entertaining both ancient and modern, intra-cultural and intercultural, and theoretical and practical. However, where we differ from Lipson and Binkley’s approach is in adopting a categorical framework that invites a critical questioning of regionalism and regional identifications. In other words, we utilize— even capitalize on—the problem of delineating traditions. In retaining several geographic sections, as well as featuring non-regional sections, and using the tagging feature to mark complexities, we are able to offer a representation of the flexibility and complexity of the work that is featured in global and Non- Western rhetorical studies by making visible the discrepancies in naming. For example, we included an Arabic Rhetoric category to distinguish the research on Arabic rhetorical tradition which was not tied to one geographic location, but rather associated with religion and emerging from within different cultural historical contexts, such as the Greco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad (see more discussion of how we organized tags to identify specialized categories). This movement is largely made up of non-European commentators on Aristotle’s works, and could serve as part of the Western tradition; however, as a result of our deeply held assumptions about the dominance of Aristotelian logical thought that forms the foundation for Western rhetorical tradition, we have incorporated these contributions under “Arabic Rhetoric” to better reflect how the contributions of some Arabic rhetorical theorists are still understudied, if not ignored (Borrowman 98). Arabic Rhetorics aren’t the only complicating category. The problem of delineating traditions can be further illustrated in the case of Egypt because it marks a set of traditions rhetorically and culturally different from other Arabic languages and groups and because of the formation of the tradition we know as Ancient Egyptian rhetoric. Recent work on Egyptian rhetoric demonstrates Egyptian rhetorical tradition has different assumptions about language, communication, and the individual from Arabic rhetorical tradition, as evidenced in the principles of maat that served as principles of governance in Africa (Blake) and organized Ancient Egyptian life (Lipson). Distinguishing between Egyptian and Arabic rhetorics urges us to think differently about how we categorize and organize linguistic and cultural markers on global, cultural, and rhetorical traditions. For example, while Edward Said’s “Living in Arabic” describes the particular use of standard Arabic and dramatic delivery in political speeches of Palestinian and Egyptian leaders, we locate this annotation in “Arabic Rhetoric” and not “Egyptian Rhetoric” for two reasons: first, because Said narrates his own personal experience living in Arabic- speaking countries and learning classical and colloquial Arabic; and second, because the “Egypt” categorization in this Bibliography includes entries that primarily address the rhetorical traditions of Ancient Egypt. Tagging as Troubling We further use tagging in both practical and critical ways. Practically speaking, the tags that follow each annotation identify themes that are present, as well as themes which can cut across the broad categories, mostly geographical, into which we have organized the literature; such categories as Chinese, South Asian, or African can hardly represent the great diversity of themes that come into play in the discourse on global and Non-Western rhetorics. However, the tags also serve to identify not only the themes that cross cultures, but those that emerge as importantly present within a culture, a methodological approach, or a theory, some of which have not been a significant part of the conversation in rhetorical studies. Thus, tagging is an integral part of this project, as it serves to foreground various threads and themes of scholarship currently lively in the discourse of this nascent field, and to aid scholars who are seeking unresolved avenues of inquiry. Following Arabella Lyon in her aptly named “Tricky Words,” we felt this tagging should reflect our shared “attempt to understand new cultures” and not merely serve as “an extension of what we already know” (Lyon 243)—i.e., forcing “square pegs into round holes” (Mao 213)—or an attempt to prescribe the themes best suited to covering diverse rhetorics still coming to light in our emerging field. Thus, we employ tagging as an “attempt to engage concepts, beyond [our] discipline” (Mao 244), and to recognize what LuMing Mao calls the “importantly present” (216). Walking a narrow line between latent categories and emergent ones, we have privileged tags that have emerged from the critical (often unfamiliar) vocabulary of the material itself, so as to best represent the topics and themes offered there. Like our named regions, this list, too, defies a parallel structure, yielding terms such as harmony, indirection, moksha, nommo, and ritual—tags which have not been a significant part of the conversation in Western rhetorical studies—alongside more familiar terms such as rhetorical silence, persuasion, deliberative rhetoric, invention, and logic. In sum, knowing that both “Western” and “Non-Western” are “politically motivated construct[s],” knowing that we cannot approach the cultural and heterogeneous linguistic practices of all cultures by foregrounding Western assumptions, and knowing that we must work against efforts to “distort and colonize an alternative understanding revolutionary to Western rhetoric” (Hum and Lyon 157), we settled for naming categories and archival tags that do not all operate uniformly but rather make visible some categorical tensions. We tried to think historiographically about how, in this moment, the named traditions could be valued as distinct while also employing tags to demonstrate their categorical mobility. IV. Future Directions Given the coevality of the many aspects underlying global rhetorical traditions (including, but not limited to antiquity, geography, language, and duration), we and the 26 contributors to this Annotated Bibliography take seriously the need to “frequent places where rhetoric is unrecognized, or is evidenced only by barely acknowledged traces or gaps” (Mao and Wang, “Symposium” 241). In its ideal form, this Annotated Bibliography would offer as many representations of non-Western rhetorical traditions as possible. Yet, recognizing potential criticism of reductionism, scopism, or “rhetorical accommodationism” on our work (O’Mally, “Not”), we offer this Bibliography simply as a reflection of selected key critical developments in what is not strictly Euro-American rhetorical study, tapping into several traditions that we know are being noticed, identified, and opened up as having richer alternative sources for their own historical study. Moreover, we offer this Bibliography as a representation of what is now made possible through comparative rhetorical epistemologies, which need not function only within binary associations, and our contributors help us to witness the types and kinds of traditions that challenge such binaries toward noticing an expanded range of critical possibilities. We initially wanted this first publication of the Annotated Bibliography to offer starting points for scholars interested in global rhetorical studies, not necessarily comparative. However, as contributors submitted entries for consideration, it continued to grow in several directions. As a result, several entries that do not appear in this version of the bibliography have already been slated for the second edition. For example, in spite of the fact that two of our editors’ scholarship lies within the area of transnational feminist rhetorics, the adequate development of such a category would call into question national and international policies, politics, narratives, and local cultural definitions—all questions that we felt needed more attention than the first edition of this project could reasonably offer. As a result, we chose to exclude Gloria Anzaldua’s Borderland, Shireen Hassim’s “Nationalism, Feminism and Autonomy: The ANC in Exile and the Question of Women,” Saba Fatima’s “Muslim-American Scripts,” and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s “How Do We Write, Now?” In other cases, we chose to retain the entries in the Bibliography, but to disperse them among various categories, knowing they would be better served not in a section on transnational feminism, but in one or more separate categories where they could be framed in terms of the global rhetorical tradition from which they emerged or to which they contributed, for example pre-Columbian American, Palestinian, Muslim, and/or Chinese. Moreover, they were also tagged as “feminist rhetorics” for easy identification. Readers can expect that, as this Annotated Bibliography project evolves, some categories will move into and out of clear delineation according to the religious, geographic, and cultural issues that they evoke. V. Conclusion We have acknowledged that the call for rhetorical studies to globalize their focus is not a new one, although we do still anticipate a radical recentering of college and university curricula so that global becomes a driving force rather than an additive or an inclusion, and so that Western reveals both indigenous and exogenous claims. As we remain aware of how our recentering continues to shape power imbalances both in our scholarship and in our classrooms, we need to foreground our curricula by further asking our students to examine their own work, help them acknowledge and examine their own assumptions and beliefs, and “incorporate self-reflexive practices to open up new spaces for writing and creating knowledge” (Khoury 172). These new areas of inquiry ask us to reach beyond our borders and edges, and this work poses “particularly high hurdles” for scholars trained in Rhetoric and Composition due to a lack of specialization in languages and civilizations of non-Western ancient cultures within their academic programs (Lipson 4), which takes time to fully achieve. In the meantime, we suggest that readers approach this Annotated Bibliography with a feminist lens, raising questions about how such projects contribute to the re/formation of intellectual landscapes, and reflecting critically on how they read, interpret, understand, evaluate, and value alterity. The feminist rhetorical work of “rescue, recovery, and (re)inscription” has given our field a deeper and richer understanding of underreprented rhetors throughout history (Royster and Kirsch 31). However, as we move past the emergence of rhetorics grounded in just these three approaches, we see that the “edges” that inform this intellectual landscape become more deeply etched (Royster and Kirsch 43). Like most work in non-Western and global scholarship, the real strength of feminist scholarship lies not in the promotion of a particular landscaping practice, but in the implicit interrogation of its foundational assumptions. If this Annotated Bibliography can be of use to contemporary rhetorical scholars, rhetorical historians, cultural rhetoricians, and/or comparatists, let it be for facilitating the closer examination of texts within their historical, cultural, and linguistic frameworks, and for promoting descriptive analysis of these texts, rather than for drawing revisionist conclusions about them. Navigation Introductory Overviews Methodologies African Rhetorics The Americas (pre-Columbian American) Ancient Egyptian Rhetorics Arabic Rhetorics Celtic (non-Anglo Irish) Rhetorics Chinese Rhetorics Japanese Rhetorics Jewish Rhetorics Korean Rhetorics Near Eastern Rhetorics Pedagogy for Global/Non-Greek Rhetorics South Asian Rhetorics Tags Aesthetics Afrocentric Rhetorics Al-Farabi American Writing Pedagogy Analects Analogy Ancient Rhetorics Archaeology Argumentation Aristotle Asiacentric Rhetorics Audience Averroes Biblical Rhetorics Celtic Rhetorics Chancery Writers Chinese Rhetorics Chinese Women Writers Citizenship Classical Chinese Rhetorics Colonial Rhetorics Communication Theory Comparative Rhetoric Confucius Consciousness Consensus Contact Zone Contrastive Rhetoric Cosmology of Speech Cross-Cultural Rhetorics Cultural Rhetorics Dao/Tao Debate Deliberative Rhetorics Delivery Democratic Rhetorics Dialogue Diasporic Rhetorics Didactic Rhetorics Discourse Analysis Divinity of Speech Drama Egyptian Rhetorics Eloquence Emotion English Language Enthymeme Epics Epideictic Epistemology Epistolary Rhetorics Essay Genre Essentialism Ethics Ethnography Exegesis Feminist Rhetorics Fieldwork Gendered Rhetorics Genres Governance Greek Rhetorics Guiguzi Han Feizi Harmony Heart Hindu Rhetorics Historiography Human Rights Hybridity Identity Ideology Imperialism Indian Communication Theory Indian Rhetorics Indigenous Rhetorics Indirection Intercultural Communication Invention Islamic Rhetorics Japanese Rhetorics Jewish Rhetorics Justice Kenneth Burke Latin American Rhetorics Legalism Levels of Speech Theory Linguistics Logic Maat Magic Mantra Manuals Meaning the Media Mesopotamian Rhetorics Metaphor Methodology Modern Japanese Rhetorics Modern Standardized Japanese Moksha/Mok ṣa Multimodal Rhetorics Mythology Native American Rhetorics Natyashastra/Nāṭyaśāstra Near Eastern Rhetorics Nelson Mandela Nommo Nyaya/Nyāya the Other Oral Literacies Oratory Othering Pathos Pedagogy of World Rhetorics Performance Persuasion Philosophy Place Plato Pluralistic Rhetorics Poetics Political Rhetorics Popular Culture Post-apartheid Rhetorics Post-colonial Rhetorics Post-Mao Rhetorics Power Pragmatism Racism Ramayana/Rāmāyaṇa Rasa Recontextualization Register Religious Rhetorics Repetition Representation Resistance Rhetorical Education Rhetorical Figures Rhetorical Histories Rhetorical Silence Rhetorical Theory Rhetorical Traditions Ritual Sadharanikaran/Sādharaṇikaraṇ Sanskrit Rhetorics Sanskrit Stylistics Second Language Shankara/Śaṅkara South African Rhetorics Speeches Spiritual Rhetorics Storytelling Subaltern Literacies Subject Positions Survivance Textbooks Thick Description Translation Transnational Rhetorics Truth Uchi-soto Vedic Rhetorics Vernacular Rhetorics Visual Rhetorics West African Rhetorics Wisdom Women’s Rhetorics Worldview Writing Studies Endnotes Home $ Bibliographies $ An Annotated Bibliography of Global and Non-Western Rhetorics: Sources for Comparative Rhetorical Studies Search this site... Search Categories Bibliographies Book Reviews Editorial News Volume 1 Issue 1 Issue 2 Volume 2 Issue 1 Issue 2 Volume 3 Issue 1 Issue 2 Volume 4 Issue 1 Issue 2 Volume 5 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Volume 6 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Volume 7 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Volume 8 Issue 1 Issue 2 Volume 9 Issue 1 Issue 2 June 22, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 About Past Issues Submissions Contact Help Whitworth English Department