ETHICS and THE VAGINA MONOLGUES

Marc Peyser's recent article, "Eve Ensler Uses the V Word" (2002) depicts a dialogue that fits into the realm of Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin's feminist theory (cited in Johannesen, 2002). The communication that is discussed in Peyser's article is based on the invitational rhetor theory and its qualifying characteristics proposed by Foss and Griffin. Peyser's article focuses on Ensler's use of the word vagina in numerous instances and its effect on the audience. By applying Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin's interpretation of feminist rhetoric, I will examine how Ensler's monologue in any form--whether it is a book, stage production, or HBO special-- is a self exploration of the many women she has interviewed and an attempt to intrigue audiences into recognizing the importance of such a taboo subject.
This paper will focus on the fundamental characteristics of Foss and Griffin's "invitational rhetoric" phenomenon (cited in Johannesen, 2002). First, a description of Foss and Griffin's "invitational rhetoric" theory will provided, followed by an analysis of Peyser's article and Ensler's intent with the Vagina Monologues. I will apply the theory and its characteristics to the Vagina Monologues and its relationship with the audience, and give my personal reflection.
It should be made clear that Foss and Griffin's philosophies are based in the feminist framework (cited in Johannesen, 2002). According to Johannesen's interpretation, the feminist tendency is to prefer relationships solid in equality, where individualism and uniqueness encourage success rather than relationships that establish a sense of superiority vs. inferiority. The theory that I will emphasize for this paper is in line with Foss and Griffin's general interpretation of relationships, the theory is the "invitational rhetoric." Johannesen's summary of Foss and Griffin's theory suggests that the "invitational rhetoric" allows the rhetor to invite the participating audience to see the world as he sees it. It is an opportunity for both the rhetor and audience to stand outside of themselves and recognize another opinion. Also, the invitational rhetor does not pass judgment or denounce the others' perspectives, but rather the rhetor is open to the validation of an opinion no matter how it differs from his own (Foss and Griffin cited in Johannesen, 2002). What can be considered the goal of the invitational rhetor is the development of an equal status relationship between rhetor and audience . There is no attempt at seeking to impose opinion on the audience, which means there is no direct attempt to change the audience's opinion. However, change may be a result of the application of the "invitational rhetoric," because the audience or the rhetor himself may experience change due to new insights forming after an expression of differing ideas (Foss and Griffin cited in Johannesen, 2002).
A key aspect of Foss and Griffin's "invitational rhetoric" perspective is the ability of the rhetor to express openly, candidly, and freely his/her perspectives (cited in Johannesen, 2002). Johannesen's summary concludes that rhetors display their opinions based on what they understand and why the opinion works for them. There are three conditions that invitational rhetors seek to establish they are "safety, value, and freedom in interaction with the audience" (Johannesen, 2002, p.219). The safety condition focuses on the sense of security of the audience during the communication process. The second condition of value is based on the recognition of the audiences' intrinsic value. Finally, the freedom condition is based on the ability to accept or decline the perspectives. It is important to note that Foss and Griffin's theory allows for participants to discuss or communicate on any or all topics they deem necessary at the time, "no subject matter is off limits, and all presuppositions can be challenged" (cited in Johannesen, 2002, p. 219). The principals of the "invitational rhetoric" stem from the belief that the rhetor's ideas and perspectives are in no regard more important than the ideas of his audience.
Marc Peyser's (2002) article discusses the evolution and reaction of Eve Ensler's stage production turned HBO special, the "Vagina Monologues." Eve Ensler, writer of the "Vagina Monologues," created the monologues, a show made up solely of women talking about their most private part in 1996. She took interviews she had done with women and turned them into monologues to be performed on stage in front of audiences. The show has also gone global having been performed in 31 countries and translated into 26 languages. The irony of this stage production compared to others is that it revolves around such a taboo subject.
Despite the fact that vaginas are the main topic of discussion, Ensler has provided a show that is upbeat and funny (Peyser, 2002). It is the sacred subject that makes the performance such a hit. Peyser quotes Ensler as saying "No one had ever talked about this before, when women realized they had permission to scream about having a clitoris, they went crazy" (2002, p. 66). The word vagina is used 128 times throughout the performance, but according to Peyser's review, "The Vagina Monologues" isn't at all heavy." In fact the monologues are a compilation of women's experiences with their vaginas. Peyser goes so far as to describe the performance as "a riot" (p. 66). He quotes the performance's producer, David Stone when he says, "What Eve brought back to feminism was she made it fun. This is not only funny, it's fun. That's liberating" (p. 66). It is this fun display of shared experiences that makes the "Vagina Monologues" such an exciting performance. The lighthearted liberating approach to such a restricted subject gives the monologues their edge and allows their acceptance in mainstream America and other places.
Despite the candid and fun performance, controversy can and does strike. Some people in society are not yet willing to accept women discussing their most private body parts. "I don't think it ever stops being controversial…We're not in a world yet where people are like, 'vagina, vagina, vagina'" (Ensler quoted in Peyser, 2002, p. 67). However, what people need to keep in mind is that a monologue provides a perspective, and does not seek to impress values or perspectives onto the audience. Ensler's goal is to provide women with a sense of security in disclosing their feelings on the topic of vaginas. By audience members choosing to purchase tickets or click the channel, they are making the conscious decision to pay attention and listen to what is being presented. This attitude is what makes it clear that Ensler's "Vagina Monologues" fits into Foss and Griffin's "invitational rhetoric" theory. To analyze the monologue and its relationship to audience members, Foss and Griffin's theory will be applied to show just how the performance either on stage or HBO represents the "invitational rhetoric" theory.
First, it is best to recognize that the "Vagina Monologues" are in fact monologues performed in front of a given audience. As can be understood from the description of the "Vagina Monologues," the rhetor, or Ensler, is performing to express her and other women's opinions on their vaginas. Therefore, it is fair to say that the "Vagina Monologues" do as is suggested by the "invitational rhetoric" and invite the audience to see the world from the rhetor's perspective (Foss and Griffin cited in , 2002). Peyser's article did not quote nor suggest that Ensler seeks to judge or denigrate any perspectives that are not her own which are qualities that Foss and Griffin's theory touches on (cited in Johannesen, 2002). In fact by presenting and performing monologues of other women's experiences, she is in essence capitalizing on this dimension of the "invitational rhetoric," by allowing herself to value other perspectives or experiences even if they were not her own. There is no actual dialogue taking place on a normal basis between Ensler and the audience therefore, she is not denouncing anyone else's opinions. If people disagree with her interpretation of the vagina they may do so, but they should remember they have chosen to take on the role of an audience member. Ensler makes no attempt in her performances to put one performance ahead or higher than another in effect or meaning. She does not appear, according to Peyser's article, to see the views that she presents on the vagina as superior to anyone else's, she is only performing what she has researched and learned through interviews with other women. It is not the intent of Ensler to seek to change the perspective of her audience on the openness in expression of the subject. If people become more open with the term or more willing to discuss it, laugh at it, or express what they feel, then that may be a result of Ensler's performance, but it is not Ensler's direct aim at changing her audiences opinions.
Ensler's "Vagina Monologues" definitely embodies the characteristics of careful, complete, and passionate expressions of perspectives (Foss and Griffin cited in Johannesen, 2002). The various parts of the "Vagina Monologues" contain funny and liberating moments according to Peyser (2002), which can be concluded to mean the performance is careful, complete, and passionate in its execution. The "Vagina Monologues," because it is a genuine depiction of women and their experiences, represents the "invitational rhetoric" principle that rhetors should display their knowledge of a subject and their perception of the world (Foss and Griffin cited in Johannesen, 2002).
The three conditions sought by the "invitational rhetoric," safety, value, and freedom, can also be applied to the "Vagina Monologues." Being that Ensler's performance is in the form of a monologue, and no actual dialogue takes place on a constant basis between audience and participants of the monologue, the participants do not have to fear a negative response from the audience because of the attitudes they express in the performance. The value condition can be applied because Ensler seems willing to perform for her audiences, she does not according to Peyser, seem to undermine the importance of an audience. The freedom condition allows the rhetors of the "Vagina Monologues" to introduce any topic or experience they chose to therefore, making the use of the word vagina acceptable according to Johannesen's interpretation of Foss and Griffin (2002). In terms of the audience, Ensler is simply performing, she is not requesting that the audience accept her view or the views she presents on vaginas.
By analyzing the "Vagina Monologues" and Marc Peyser's interpretation of the performance and its writer Eve Ensler and applying the "invitational rhetoric" theory it is evident that the "Vagina Monologues" do exhibit the qualifying characteristics needed to fulfill the theory. The "Vagina Monologues" fully utilized the characteristics presented in Johannesen's interpretation of Foss and Griffin's theory.
When viewing Peyser's article, both his reaction to the monologues and his interview with Ensler, many aspects can be seen. I thought that the "Vagina Monologues" is a great representation of what Foss and Griffin describe as "invitational rhetoric"(cited in Johannesen, 2002). Ensler's lighthearted liberating performance is simply a performance and should be viewed as such. There is no need for anyone to be offended or made to feel like Ensler is imposing her views or desires to shout the word vagina on anyone. She is taking a subject, in my opinion, that is usually kept quiet in our society and presenting it in a more open light. She uses humor to break through the glass shield that normally encases the word. It is her ability to be completely passionate in her monologues that allows her to fulfill the role of an "invitational rhetor." Also, her ability to invite an audience into her unique world is another tactic that suits her as an "invitational rhetor."

References
Johannesen, R.L. (2002). Ethics in Human Communication 5th ed. Illinois: Waveland
Press.
Peyser, M. (2002, Feb. 18). Eve Ensler Uses the V Word. Newsweek, pp. 66-67.