The ideological significance of discursive form: A response to Solomon and Perkins

In responding to Solomon and Perkins, this article begins by noting that a significant change in rhetorical scholarship results from recognizing that speeches are not the only discursive forms that produce effect. It then examines the ideological significance of forms to illuminate the potential of feminist studies in order to identify elements of language that are ostensibly as neutral and opaque as discursive forms. The article contends that recognizing discursive form as active rather than passive gives full measure to its power and to the power of those who see through the conventions and deconstruct them. It also contends that recognizing the ideological significance of form has political as well as critical consequences. Furthermore, it shows that acknowledging the ideological qualities of form juxtaposes theory with analysis, history with subjectivity, and language with practice. The article concludes by noting that the potential for bringing about such juxtapositions in our field remains untapped.