In “Requirements, Problems, and Stragies: A Theory of Persuasion for Social Movements”, Herbet Simons begins by introducing a number of problems that make analyzing social movements difficult (various audiences, large scope, multiple speakers, long durations, etc.). He suggests that rhetorical analysis tools aren’t well suited for this kind of analysis because social movements are too complex and large. Simons argues that Griffin’s structured approach to social movement rhetorical analysis is a starting point, but there needs to be more work done. To this, he offers his own rhetorical analysis stemming from “a leader-centered conception of persuasion in social movements” (33).

Simons then goes on to focus on the leader of the social movement and his [sic] rhetorical actions. Simons is interested in understanding why these leaders often engage in counterproductive practices. The leader of a social movement may need to counteract some of the extreme practices or messages from the larger social movement, to provide ideological statements to the social movement in order to funnel the organization’s energy into specific ways, to focus organization efforts efficiently through the hierarchical structure, to balance conflicting roles in terms of expectations and definitions (maintain structure and breaking with it), to adapt to multiple audiences, and to work together with other leaders in various positions (35-37). The leader is required to do a lot!  Simons then offers a range of leaders from the moderate to the militant based on their rhetorical strategies and tactics. These types of leaders have various affordances and drawbacks for the success of the social movement.

Simons’ focus on the leader of the social movement made me think about Nancy Welch’s argument in Living Room: Teaching Public Writing in a Privatized World. Welch’s overall claim is that public discourse has become increasingly more private; there are no longer spaces where citizens can speak and expect to actually influence policy decisions. Stemming from this is her argument that ethos is also being privatized. Ethos, or credibility, is being commodified, something that can be bought, and subsequently credibility or expert status are only available to a select few (generally middle to upper class, white, conservative, men). People who don’t have this ethos (by virtue of identity or credentials) are encouraged to stay quiet, to be apathetic or disinterested in political issues, or to see their vote as their only chance to be part of the political system. Welch questions this apathy, and through her work with an undergraduate class she encourages her students to reclaim their own ethos and act.

So when thinking about Simons and Welch together, I think that Welch would take issue with Simons’ analysis of the leaders of social movements. Although Simons does state that social movement rhetoric is complex and requires multiple views, the fact that he starts with the leader of the social movement suggests that he views this position as critical to analysis. This focus on the leader of the social movement may lead to the assumption that only great individuals are able to lead effective social movements. Simons’ examples of leaders include Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, dynamic and powerful leaders. Even their presence seems to exude credibility. But focusing solely on the leaders neglects the larger community surrounding them, and this neglect may reinforce the power struggle that Welch is concerned about. (Think of the Greensboro Four, the NC A&T students who were credited with starting the Woolworth’s sit-ins. They were actually part of a large community network, and they were there with female students from local Bennett College as well as community leaders, but only the four men are memorialized). Why does history remember these powerful leaders? What makes them the experts or ethos embodied? Why are the women and other community members forgotten? I think Welch would argue this is an example of privatized ethos. Some people are recognized as having ethos based on their identities or credentials, and everyone else can stay home. I also think that Welch would take issue with Simons’ attention to the leader as it is an example of recruiting apathy. By focusing on the rhetorical acts of the few individual leaders, this form of analysis ignores the rhetorical acts of the many, including typically marginalized people, and this suggests that their contribution is somehow less meaningful.

After reading both these articles, I wonder how both Simons and Welch would address social movements that are decidedly anti-hierarchical. There were some feminist organizations who operated this way as a community without leaders, and I think the Occupy movement was also similar in its focus on the 99% as opposed to the 1%.