Grammar, Rhetoric and Politics

What voices count? If this is a basic question of politics, we should also ask: What counts as a voice? Or: What makes the difference between voices that are recognized as speech, and those who are dismissed as mere noise? – In my own view, this calls for reflection on the (meta)political role of metalanguages, i.e. of grammar, dialectic/logic and rhetoric (traditionally, the first three of the seven liberal arts). It seems obvious that the relation between logic and rhetoric is contested (an appeal to the force of the better argument begs questions about the power to discern what counts as good arguments). My talk, however, will focus on the relation between grammar and rhetoric. 

Points of departure is taken from Robert Stockhammer’s work on knowledge and power in the history of grammar (Grammatik. Wissen und Macht in die Geschichte einer sprachlichen Insitution, 2014). A recurring theme in the book is how to decide whether a deviation is to be conceived as a mistake or a figure. This implies some kind of normativity, i.e., an idea of what some specific usage is deviating from, a demarcation of ‘proper language’ over against the barbarians, both outside and inside of a community. Grammatical knowledge is power, Stockhammer states, and this power is exercised predominantly in the regulation of the foreign by the means of writing and reflected in literature.

On my own account, I will point out that this thesis finds a near perfect illustration in the work of the Norwegian linguist and poet Ivar Aasen (1813-1896). Understanding how and why ‘the language question’ became politically invested during the democratic struggles in 19th century Norway, will also elucidate theories of ‘intellectual emancipation’ and ‘populist reason’ (Jacques Rancière, Ernesto Laclau and others).