Shattering the Glass Ceiling:

The Voice of Madeleine Albright

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

Baylor University

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Master of Arts

By

Collier Patton

Waco, Texas

August 2001

Copyright 2001 by Collier Patton
All rights reserved

ABSTRACT

Shattering the Glass Ceiling:
The Voice of Madeleine Albright

Collier Patton

Thesis Chairperson: Karla Leeper, Ph.D.

 

Political rhetoric has traditionally been analyzed using a masculine model. With the increasing number of women achieving higher-level political office, however, comes a need to reconceptualize our idea of political rhetoric to appreciate the contributions of women. This paper applies the work of Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Bonnie Dow, and Mari Tonn on feminine voice to the rhetoric of Madeleine Albright, the first female Secretary of State. This approach is informed by the work of Patricia Sullivan and Lynn Turner, and applies their concept of “re-visioning” strategies to change our cultural assumptions about gender roles. The paper analyzes Dr. Albright’s speeches in the areas of military intervention, international diplomacy, and human rights violations to allow for an examination of the ways in which feminine voice is managed across different rhetorical situations. The paper ends with a discussion of the implications of these rhetorical strategies for political rhetoric and feminine voice.

Approved by the Department of Communication Studies:

Michael F. Korpi, Ph.D., Chairperson

Approved by the Thesis Committee:

Karla K. Leeper, Ph.D., Chairperson

J. Kevin Barge, Ph.D.

David W. Schlueter, Ph.D.

Michael E. Bishop, Ph.D.

Approved by the Graduate School:

J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Patricia Sullivan, Kelley Skillin, and the other members of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language and Gender for their input on this project. I also wish to thank the Baylor University Graduate School for the travel award that made it possible for me to present an early draft of this project at the 2000 OSCLG conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

DEDICATION

To my mother, Dottie Sue Patton
(December 15, 1943 – February 11, 1990)
who taught me the importance of caring

CHAPTER ONE
Prospectus
Introduction
Traditionally, female rhetors have been analyzed by the same paradigms as their male counterparts. Recently, however, rhetoricians in general, and political rhetoricians in particular, have begun to appreciate the distinct feminine rhetorical style. As an increasing number of women are moving into higher-level political offices and continuing to assert their place in the political process, their valuable contributions to the body of political rhetoric are attracting more attention than ever. Madeleine Albright, the first female Secretary of State, is a recent and prominent example of a woman who has broken into this arena. Albright’s rhetoric may be analyzed in light of the paradigm of feminine voice to better understand her appeal and her effectiveness. This thesis will examine Albright’s management of feminine voice in different contexts to illustrate the potential uses of the feminine voice paradigm in the political arena.
It is not, however, the assertion of this thesis that all women and all men communicate in inherently different ways. Many scholars, including Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (1973, 1989, 1998) and Bonnie Dow and Mari Tonn (1993), have argued that these stylistic differences are generalities at best and that they represent the traditional roles into which men and women fall in our culture. The fact that women have more traditionally been involved in the private sphere, while men have focused their energies on the public sphere is the basis of this argument. As Rita Felski (1989) explains, stylistic differences appear, not because of biological gender differences, but rather because of
power structures “which serve to legitimate and to privilege certain forms of discourse traditionally reserved for men” (p. 62). Men have dominated the public world to the exclusion of women and have excluded women from the realm of rhetoric, making it a “man’s game” (Connors, 1992, p. 65). Women, therefore, have developed a feminine rhetorical style that takes advantage of a private background. Feminine style encompasses five main characteristics. Feminine style is characterized by a use of concrete examples, a personal tone, a reliance on personal experience, an inductive reasoning structure, and audience participation. By taking into account Albright’s personal history, it is possible to see the roots from which her management of feminine style across different contexts has evolved.
Biographical Context
Madeleine Korbel Albright was born Marie Jana Körbelova on May 15, 1937, in Prague, Czechoslovakia. Her father, Josef Korbel, served in the Czech diplomatic service. Marie (renamed Madeleine by her grandmother) had her first experiences with foreign diplomacy by wearing traditional Czech costumes while handing flowers to visiting dignitaries. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, Madeleine and her family fled to London. They returned after the war only to be run out of the country again in 1948 when the Communists took power. The Korbel family moved to the United States and Josef Korbel established himself at the University of Denver teaching international relations (Gibbs, 1996), where he later served as the founding dean of the Graduate School of International Studies. Madeleine attended Wellesley College and received her undergraduate degree in political science. After graduation, she married Joseph Medill Patterson Albright, with whom she shared 23 years and raised three daughters. Albright earned a Ph.D. in international relations at Columbia University. After her divorce in 1982, Madeleine taught at Georgetown University and, later, advised Geraldine Ferraro on foreign affairs (Hewitt, 1996). As a member of the National Security Council from 1978 to 1981 and as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1996, Madeleine Albright had already established herself as a political force not to be ignored. With the support of women inside and outside of the political sphere and male politicians as diverse as Al Gore and Jesse Helms, on December 5, 1996, President Clinton nominated Madeleine Korbel Albright to the position of Secretary of State (Dobbs, 1999). She was unanimously confirmed by the US Senate and became the first woman in history to hold the position (“Biography”, 1997).
These factors all contribute to Albright’s unique style. As a young woman, she was exposed to the importance of diplomacy and was involved in the Czech diplomatic service with her father. The international conflict that caused her family to become refugees gave Albright a more complete understanding of foreign policy and international relations. The fact that she is a Holocaust survivor and that her extended family suffered under both the Nazi and Communist regimes also informs Albright’s foreign policy decisions, particularly those dealing with human rights violations. By working her way through both academic and professional ladders of achievement, Albright learned the importance of balancing philosophical beliefs with pragmatic concerns. Her diverse body of supporters also shows Albright’s understanding of the importance of building coalitions and using diplomacy.
An understanding of Albright’s personal history can illuminate an understanding of her performance in the role of Secretary of State. This thesis will analyze Albright’s use of feminine voice in three distinct areas of foreign policy (military conflicts, international diplomatic relations, and international human rights violations) in order to examine the ways in which Albright manages feminine voice across different contexts. In her position, Secretary Albright was called upon to build coalitions and exercise diplomacy as well as justify American military intervention in conflict situations. Her personal history exposed Albright to a very personal understanding of both diplomacy and military force. Secretary Albright was also called upon to deal with a number of incidences of human rights violations. Her personal experiences as a survivor of the Holocaust and the second World War informed her rhetorical decisions in dealing with these human rights violations. By analyzing these three aspects of her foreign policy efforts through the lens of feminine voice, it will be possible to discover the implications of feminine voice in different rhetorical situations. The three areas of context selected for this thesis reflect the spectrum of responsibilities faced by the Secretary of State.
Rhetorical Artifacts
In order to analyze Albright’s rhetoric dealing with military intervention, diplomacy, and human rights concerns, it is necessary to examine a number of Albright’s public addresses. This effort will focus on Albright’s speeches at the beginning of her tenure as Secretary of State, those speeches presented during and around the Kosovo and Bosnia conflicts, and the Secretary’s speeches at the end of her term. The selected speeches have specifically been chosen which deal with the areas of interest to this project.
International diplomacy. Five speeches will be included to examine Albright’s rhetoric regarding international diplomacy. Secretary Albright’s statement at her confirmation hearings on January 8, 1997 will be analyzed because of its emphasis on the need for diplomacy in addition to military intervention. That theme is continued in her February 7, 1997 address at Rice University in Houston, Texas. Albright’s speech to the people of Kosovo on July 29, 1999 will also be included to show her position on post-conflict diplomacy. Albright’s speech, “Waging Peace in the Twenty-first Century”, delivered August 21, 2000 upon receipt of the Dwight David Eisenhower Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, has also been included because of its emphasis on balancing diplomacy and military intervention. Albright’s speech, “Dollars, Diplomacy and American Leadership in the Twenty-first Century”, delivered to the Women’s Foreign Policy Group Luncheon on November 20, 2000 in Washington, DC., will illuminate Albright’s vision of the future of diplomacy in American foreign policy.
Human rights violations. The area of human rights violations will also necessitate the review of five speeches. Albright drew on her own experiences in discussing the remuneration of Holocaust survivors in her December 1, 1998 remarks at the Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets in Washington, DC. In her address at the Commencement Ceremony for Georgetown University in Washington, DC on May 29, 1999, Albright discussed the human rights violations in Kosovo. A broader picture of the Secretary’s position on human rights violations will be examined in her remarks on December 3, 1998 to the Rosalynn Carter Distinguished Guests Lecture Series at Emory University in Atlanta as well as her speech, “Continuing the Fight for Human Rights in the Twenty-first Century” delivered at a Human Rights Day event in Washington, DC on December 10, 1999. Her final remarks to be examined will be from Albright’s appearance on the Oprah television program on January 23, 2001, just days after she left office, where she discussed the importance of a focus on international human rights.
Military intervention. In order to analyze Secretary Albright’s rhetoric regarding military intervention, five speeches will be analyzed. Albright’s May 22, 1997 remarks at the Annual Fleet Week Gala in New York City has been selected due to its discussion of the Bosnia crisis and the Dayton Accord. A speech given by Albright at the site of international conflict is her June 1, 1997 speech at Brcko Bridge in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and this speech has been selected because of the audiences it addresses. Albright addressed the Kosovo conflict in her February 4, 1999 remarks at the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington, DC. She dealt with the topic of Kosovo again in her June 28, 1999 remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, although the remarks were delivered to a different kind of audience. These two speeches have been selected to show the different ways in which Albright was able to adapt to her audience. Secretary Albright’s farewell remarks on January 19, 2001 at the U.S. Department of State have also been included as they discuss the Kosovo situation in hindsight.
Justification. These speeches have been selected for a number of reasons. First, an effort was made to examine the different audiences and contexts addressed by Secretary Albright. To that end, speeches have been selected from a range of situations, from addressing foreign audiences in their home countries to speaking before United States government agencies and the Congress. A college address, speeches before women’s groups, and Secretary Albright’s appearance on the Oprah television program have also been included to cover the wide range of audiences addressed by Albright. A second concern was to cover the entire range of Secretary Albright’s tenure in office. In order to achieve this goal, speeches were selected beginning with Albright’s remarks at her confirmation hearing and ending with her farewell address and appearance on Oprah shortly before leaving office. The final concern in selecting texts for analysis was that they cover the topics of interest to this thesis. Therefore, speeches were selected which dealt with the three areas of interest to this study: military intervention, international diplomacy, and human rights violations. This range of topics will illuminate the use of feminine voice in contexts ranging from the more personal aspects of human rights violations (which lend themselves to a focus on nurturing and private experience) to the more public aspects of military intervention (which lends itself to a focus on impersonal and public experience).
Literature Review
There has been a dearth of research on Madeleine Albright in the communication journals, perhaps because of the recency of her tenure in office. However, she is a woman who deserves to be studied and whose experience can inform our discipline. She held the highest political office ever held by a woman in the United States, which makes her an interesting and noteworthy subject of research. In addition to this fact, though, she is a Holocaust survivor and an American immigrant. These facts contribute to the appeal of studying Albright. Hers is a uniquely American perspective, having arrived in the United States as a young girl and growing up as the child of immigrant parents. Her personal history as a Holocaust survivor also colors her life experience. Secretary Albright knows first hand the atrocities of human rights violations and has experienced the devastating effects of international conflict. When analyzing Albright’s foreign policy discourse, the influence of her unique American experience become apparent. Albright does not attempt to hide the facts of her personal history, rather she uses her personal experience to shape her feminine rhetorical style.
Feminine Voice
Karlyn Kohrs Campbell has most fervently advocated the feminine voice paradigm. Much of her work, however, has focused on the use of feminine voice by female rhetors in the feminist movement (e.g.: Campbell, 1973; Campbell, 1989; Campbell, 1998). The reason for this focus is the historical absence of strong women in “mainstream” politics. Because our understanding of “good rhetoric” has been based on a masculine perspective, women have been judged as deficient and, therefore, largely left out of the study of political rhetoric (Kramarae, 1981; Spitzack and Carter, 1987).
Put bluntly, the role of rhetor is gendered masculine. Rhetors act in public and are leaders, expected to present their views aggressively, to debate opponents, to make cases through logical argument. By contrast, woman is a private role, and she is seen as submissive, modest, emotional, and unsuited to competition of any sort, or, when unsexed, as introducing the disturbing and dangerous qualities of sexuality and irrationality into public deliberation. . . . That Western women, among others, have been excluded from political participation has meant that rhetorical genres have traditionally been coded as masculine, that is, there have been no protocols, no precedents, to guide a woman who sought to be heard by the community. Only male models existed. (Campbell, 1998, p. 116-117)

We are faced, then, with the opportunity to begin a critical analysis of female political rhetoric apart from the established feminist rhetoric. Campbell asserts that women use a unique and distinct communicative style from their male counterparts, particularly in the realms of political and public communication.
Campbell was one of the first to begin to define feminine style, but she has been joined by other voices of scholarship. Notably, Carol Gilligan (1982) contributed significantly to our understanding of gender differences in communication with her concept of the “ethic of care”. Gilligan’s theory basically held that women take a more nurturing role due to their socialization in the mother/caretaker role. Jane Sutton (1992) extended this idea to a rubric of western rhetoric in which women were excluded. In Sutton’s theory, women are associated with the body, nature and the private sphere of experience while men have traditionally been associated with the mind, culture, and the public sphere of experience. In order to understand and value the contributions of women we must take these stylistic differences very seriously.
Androgyny: A Transition Step
As discussed previously, the traditional approach to rhetoric has been a male-centered approach that only validated the masculine style. This traditional orientation neglected the feminine voice, and therefore neglected female rhetors. A transition from the masculine approach to rhetoric can be found in Sally Perkins’ 1989 analysis of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. In her examination, Perkins identifies Friedan’s use of the feminine characteristics of relating personal experiences, using concrete language, and utilizing emotionally laden speech. In addition to these feminine characteristics, Perkins also notes the use of what would be characterized as masculine rhetorical strategies in Friedan’s book. Perkins identifies the use of logic, scholarly inquiry (deductive reasoning), categorization, and a problem-solving focus as masculine characteristics exhibited by Friedan. Additionally, Friedan appropriates the traditionally masculine power of “naming” when she identifies the “problem with no name” as “the feminine mystique”. It is the assertion of Perkins that this androgynous approach to rhetoric is intentional in Friedan’s work because it creates willingness in the audience to accept androgyny on many levels (Perkins, 1989, p. 78). Whether or not one accepts this conclusion, the essay helps to highlight a shifting focus in rhetorical analysis. By identifying and validating the use of feminine characteristics, a transition can begin in which women are appreciated for their unique style of communication, not in spite of it.
Feminine Voice: Recent Applications
Building on the work of Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (1989), Bonnie Dow and Mari Tonn (1993) identify five characteristics of feminine voice used by Ann Richards, former governor of Texas. These five characteristics can be applied to other female rhetors, however, to illuminate the value of feminine voice. First, the use of concrete examples is typical of feminine voice. This focus on concrete, anecdotal reasoning contrasts with the more deductive masculine style. Secondly, feminine voice utilizes a personal tone, which includes willingness to self-disclose and develop identification with the audience. Feminine voice also relies on personal experience. The use of personal experience is typical of female culture, where shared personal experiences are used to build relationships as well as create a common worldview (Jones, 1980, p. 195). A fourth characteristic of feminine style is a reliance on inductive structure rather than the typical, deductive, scientific structure adopted in masculine style. Audience participation and interaction is also valued in feminine voice. “Such a relationship reduces distance between rhetor and audience and empowers audiences to trust their own perceptions and judgments” (Dow & Tonn, 1993). In addition to the stylistic components of feminine voice, Dow and Tonn incorporated the idea of Gilligan’s ethic of care to their rubric of feminine voice. In their conception of feminine voice, not only do women typically exhibit stylistic differences from the traditional masculine style, but feminine voice is also characterized by a focus on nurturing and interpersonal content (which draws on the experience of the private sphere of experience).
These characteristics all combine to create a new way of looking at political rhetoric. We are no longer bound by the constraints of masculine style when analyzing female rhetors. This new understanding of the way in which women typically communicate can help create an appreciation for rhetoric that would otherwise fall outside of the rubric of the masculine model. As women continue to take their places at the political table, we will be able to continue to construct a meaningful rhetoric of political women. This thesis will utilize the conception of feminine voice as modified and used by Bonnie Dow and Mari Tonn (1993).
Dow and Tonn’s concise conception of feminine voice has been employed by others in the field of rhetoric and is becoming an established paradigm for rhetorical analysis (Amaro, 2001; Hamden, 1997; Tonn, 1996; Zurakowski, 1994). Notably, Jane Blankenship and Deborah C. Robson (1995) apply the same characteristics as used by Dow and Tonn (1993). According to their analysis, “feminine style . . . is gaining legitimacy through its use by women and men in power” (Blankenship & Robson, 1995, p. 353). Blankenship and Robson analyze the use of feminine style by President Bill Clinton and Senator Dianne Fienstein. This analysis is important because it further legitimates the feminine voice paradigm envisioned by Dow and Tonn. It also, and perhaps more importantly, serves to show the potential impact of feminine style through its use by a politician who is not only male, but the President of the United States.
Method
Current Scholarship on Political Women
Although Albright has been neglected in communication scholarship, important work has been done on the rhetoric of other political women. In their 1996 book, From the Margins to the Center: Contemporary Women and Political Communication, Patricia Sullivan and Lynn Turner offered a strategy for re-visioning political rhetoric to validate and include the feminine voice. Their re-visioning will shape the methodology of this thesis. Sullivan and Turner (1996) then applied this re-visioning principle to three current women in the political scene.
First, they examined Lani Guinier, President Clinton’s ill-fated nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. In the discussion of Clinton’s removal of Guinier’s nomination, Sullivan and Turner (1996) attributed the removal to the “intersectionality” of race and gender working against Guinier, an African-American woman (p. 54). Guinier’s strategies of silence and denial in dealing with accusations about her political positions on a range of topics, according to Sullivan and Turner, served to reinforce the boundaries already established for African-American women in politics. “Thus, her initial denial and belief in the power structure, which had, after all, served her well up until the loss of her nomination, combined to keep the boundaries in place” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 66).
Sullivan and Turner’s analysis of Hillary Rodham Clinton focused on the “double bind” as defined by Jamieson. The double bind is a no-win situation for the women that it confronts. Sullivan and Turner (1996) quote Frank Rich (1995) in a column for the New York Times to explain this point.
Mrs. Clinton can’t win for losing. When she exercises her clout in private, she’s Lady Macbeth, or perhaps, as post-inauguration rumors had it, a lamp-throwing lesbian. If she does so in public, she’s a ‘bitch’. In less than three years she has also been the Yuppie Wife from Hell, Florence Nightingale, the ditzy prophet of the Politics of Meaning, the $100,000 con artist, a Superwoman effortlessly fielding her roles as mother and wife on top of health-care duties, and stealth candidate for President in 2000. (p. E17)

Sullivan and Turner (1996) assert that Rodham Clinton adopted a strategy of “rhetorical stunting” to combat this double bind (p. 88). Their analysis offers a scathing indictment of her use of this strategy. Instead of advancing the cause of women in politics, Sullivan and Turner hold that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s avoidance of scandal and rhetorical reticence did a disservice to the cause of political equality.
Sullivan and Turner’s treatment of Janet Reno is much more favorable than their treatments of both Lani Guinier and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Their analysis asserts that Reno was faced with the same moral boundaries and had to confront the same lenses of gender, as did the other women in the study, but that her rhetorical strategies were much more effective. Janet Reno’s attempt to “re-vision patriarchal assumptions” was effective in her political life to the detriment of her personal image. “Although Reno avoided rhetorical stunting and denying, she did not escape vilification by the media. For the most part, she was lauded by the media in her role as Attorney General, but criticized as a ‘woman’” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 110). As opposed to their treatment of the other women in question, in the case of Janet Reno, Sullivan and Turner assign blame to the media for her unfavorable portrayal. From this study, they build their closing chapters that lay a groundwork for re-visioning political communication and our culture to make the efforts of Reno and others more successful.
Debate over Feminine Voice
Anyone familiar with popular culture would be aware that there are pundits who strongly believe in the differences between masculine and feminine styles of communication. For example, John Gray became a millionaire and a household name virtually overnight with the popularity of his much-debated book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus (1992). We all have heard the arguments that men and women exhibit differing communication strategies. It would be unfortunate to deny, however, that there has been a great amount of disagreement regarding the existence of a difference in masculine and feminine styles of communication. The concept of this paper borrows very strongly from the work of Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (1973, 1989, 1998) and Bonnie Dow and Mari Tonn (1993). Many scholars, particularly those involved in small group and interpersonal communication, have noted differences between a masculine and feminine style based on a number of variables. For example, talk time (Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985) has been seen to be dominated by those exhibiting a masculine style. Scholars have also noted that men tend to use more verbalized pauses and interruptions (Baird, 1976; Eakins & Eakins, 1978; Hall, 1984; West & Zimmerman, 1983). Furthermore, women were seen to exhibit more use of questions (Fishman, 1978; Smythe & Huddleston, 1992). These are merely three examples of research that has produced results delineating specific differences in masculine and feminine styles of communication. These examples, however, are also telling of the great debate surrounding gender differences in communication. For example, a number of scholars found no significant difference between men and women in the use of vocalized pauses and interruptions (Dindia, 1987; Kennedy & Camden, 1983; Smythe & Schlueter, 1986). There is also dissent regarding the finding that women use questions more often than men (Mulac, et al., 1988). Perhaps the most credible opposition to the gender-difference theory comes from Smythe and Schlueter, who performed a meta-analysis that discovered no significant difference between masculine and feminine style on a number of variables (1986). The concept of feminine voice is very controversial. Gender differences may not be apparent in some contexts, but in the area of political rhetoric, however, the divide between a traditionally feminine personal sphere of experience and a masculine public sphere of influence becomes distinguishable (Campbell, 1989). Consequently, it is the intent of this paper to discuss the political and public context, where significant differences have been found between the masculine and the feminine styles of communication.
Applying Feminine Voice
The methodology employed by this project will take its form from Patricia Sullivan and Lynn Turner’s book, From the Margins to the Center (1996). In this excellent analysis of current political women, Sullivan and Turner (1996) work from the foundational concepts of Sandra Bem’s (1993) lenses of gender and Joan Tronto’s (1993) moral boundaries. Bem’s lenses of gender, while not specific to the field of communication, illuminate the basic assumptions of our culture that set women at a disadvantage in the rhetorical/public sphere. According to Bem (1993), the underlying assumptions of our culture are that men and women are opposites, men are the dominant and superior gender, and that these conditions are the “natural” order of things. These lenses of gender have established the development of a feminine voice because women have been disenfranchised from the public arena. Tronto (1993) elaborated on the idea of separate realms of experience. She proposed the idea of moral boundaries. These boundaries include the boundary between morality and politics, the moral point of view boundary, and (most importantly for this project) the boundary between public and private life.
By following the theoretical framework established by Sullivan and Turner (1996), this thesis will propose a “re-visioning” of these foundations. In order to apply the paradigm of feminine voice, the methodology of this thesis will establish the need to re-vision the way we consider gender and our moral boundaries. By beginning with these steps, an application of feminine voice will be more effective and coherent. If one were to attempt to apply the model of feminine voice without taking into account the underlying assumptions of our society, the application would be incoherent at best. By beginning with a re-visioning of our basic assumptions, however, the feminine voice model will inform our understanding of the rhetorical choices of Secretary Albright in different contexts.
Preview of Chapters
Chapter two will elaborate on the method to be used in this analysis. A discussion of Bem’s lenses of gender as well as Tronto’s moral boundaries will serve as our foundation for applying the rubric of feminine voice as defined by Campbell and refined by Dow and Tonn. The critical vocabulary to be used in this analysis will come strongly from these sources.
The third chapter will attempt to examine the characteristics of feminine voice noted by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (1989) and Bonnie Dow and Mari Tonn (1993) as utilized in the rhetoric of Madeleine Albright in different foreign policy contexts. One of these characteristics is the use of concrete examples. According to their studies, women tend to avoid abstraction and focus on concrete examples and real-life applications. Another characteristic of feminine voice is the use of a personal tone. Since women’s domain has historically been the private sphere, and also because women have traditionally focused more on interpersonal relationships rather than public communication, the feminine voice relies on a conversational, personal tone (Campbell, 1989; Dow & Tonn 1993). By relying on personal experiences, women are able to bring their traditional family and interpersonal wisdom into the public arena. Personal experiences are certainly used by both men and women in political rhetoric, but they are more closely linked with feminine voice (Campbell, 1998). Not only does Albright use her current personal experiences to shed light on foreign policy issues, but she has also been able to tap into her much publicized family history. Madeleine Albright also uses her experiences as a US diplomat and policy maker to share personal examples of what would otherwise be thought of as nameless and faceless problems. This use of personal, first-hand experience corresponds also with the tendency of the feminine voice to avoid abstraction and rely heavily on concrete, sensory information. The final aspect of feminine voice examined in this essay is the reliance on inductive reasoning rather than the traditional male model of deductive logic. Chapter three will also discuss Secretary Albright’s use of more traditional, masculine rhetorical strategies in different contexts. By discovering the feminine voice strategies used (or not used) in different foreign policy situations, this chapter will seek to analyze the impact of context on Albright’s rhetorical strategies.
In the final chapter, implications of Albright’s use of feminine voice will be examined. Not only will this chapter investigate Albright’s strategic use of feminine voice; it will also examine the implications of Albright’s style on the future of political rhetoric. A discussion of the applications of feminine voice in different contexts will inform our understanding of feminine voice as well as the constraints of political rhetoric. By examining the ramifications of feminine voice across different contexts, we will begin to move feminine voice beyond being a mere categorization tool and allow for conclusions to be drawn about the use of feminine and masculine rhetorical strategies in different contexts. Areas for future research will be discussed and new directions for the study of feminine voice will be defined.

CHAPTER TWO
Method

This project will apply the model of feminine voice to the work of Madeleine Albright in different contexts. In order to achieve a coherent and meaningful application of this paradigm, however, it is necessary to explain the methodology employed in the analysis. This chapter will first address the basic assumptions that underlie our understanding of gender as it relates to rhetoric. A re-visioning of those basic assumptions will then be offered. A discussion of feminine voice will follow, ending with a guide to practical applications of feminine voice.
Foundational Assumptions
Lenses of Gender
To begin a discussion of gender differences in communication, we must first discuss what basic assumptions underlie the role of gender in our American political system. Our Western culture is based on belief structures that “place women on the margins of the political world” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 2). These belief structures can be seen as lenses through which we view our world. Sandra L. Bem, in her book Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality (1993) illustrates three main areas which demonstrate the gender lenses through which we view our political world. Bem argues that androcentrism, gender polarization, and biological essentialism are three of the underlying assumptions that our Western culture makes about the roles of
men and women in the political process. If we are to hope to overcome, or re-vision, these assumptions, we must first understand what each assumption entails.

Androcentrism. Androcentrism is defined as “male-centeredness”. It may be easy to assume at first that this lens of gender only addresses the assumption of male superiority (Bem, 1993; Sullivan and Turner, 1996). However, the lens of androcentrism is much more deeply ingrained in our culture than overtly sexist sentiments. The fact that women are characterized as the “other” in Western culture is the basic area of contention. Our culture has defined men as the “norm” and women, being a deviation from the male “norm”, as the “other” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996). Certainly, a claim could be made that our culture is evolving to a place where this androcentrism is no longer universal, but the male-centeredness of our American culture is entrenched in our social structures.
The nature of the English language serves to reinforce this idea of male as the standard. The fact that expressions such as “mankind”, “all men are created equal”, and the standard (although changing) use of the male pronoun all serve the purpose of reifying this gendered assumption about the way we live. Not only language, but also our socio-political system serves as a manifestation of androcentrism. Women CEOs and high-level politicians are still an anomaly. Androcentrism encompasses both these facts about the nature of gender and power as well as the way those power structures are perpetuated. Bem explains that androcentrism “goes beyond telling who is in power to tell how their power is culturally and psychologically reproduced” (1993, pp. 40-41). What this tells us is that, although overt changes may be occurring which seem to empower women in the political spectrum, our underlying assumptions about the roles of men and women in our culture are reinforced by the very nature of the power structure in America. This power structure reveals itself in our language as well as our cultural situation. In order to overcome this androcentric lens, it will become necessary to re-vision the way we look at the American political system and, indeed, our Western culture.
Gender polarization. A second lens of gender illuminated by Bem is that of gender polarization. This lens assumes that men and women are diametrically opposed creatures. “As we look through the lens of gender polarization, we assume that women and men ‘naturally’ adopt opposite sets of gender roles” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p.7). This assumption is the result of Western Judeo-Christian teachings about separate roles for women and men in the home and the public arena. These teachings, which are embodied in the basic functions of our society, teach women to keep silent in churches and public arenas and make clear that men are to be the leaders of the family as well as the church. This is not to say that these Judeo-Christian edicts are wrong or immoral, but instead to point out that the basis of our culture rests in these assumptions about the roles of women and men.
“This lens provides completely different ‘scripts’ for males and females, reifying their opposition to one another. A second limitation is the definition of any deviation from the scripts as wrong religiously, biologically, and psychologically” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 7). The lens of gender polarization is observable in the most basic functions of our society. Baby boys are traditionally given blue blankets while baby girls are given pink blankets. Although there are hospitals that are moving to the more culturally sensitive yellow blankets for all babies, the standard still exists. Imagine, for example, walking up to a new father holding his baby in his arms. The baby is wearing a dress and has a bow in its hair. Of course, your assumption would be that the father is holding his daughter. However, if the family has chosen a “deviant” clothing scheme and, indeed, the father is out for a stroll with his son in a dress, our cultural assumptions about gender opposition are violated.
In much the same way, women are assumed to fulfill a certain role in society and act according to a social script set out for them. Although it is becoming more acceptable for women to violate these gendered norms, the fact that norm violations are easily identifiable proves the point that our culture still views men and women through a lens of gender polarization. This situation results in the “double bind” described by Jamieson (1995). The crux of this argument is that women are placed in a situation, because of the lens of gender polarization, where conforming to societal scripts about the roles of women in the public sphere will result in failure and submission, but to violate these scripts would also lead to failure and ridicule. Again, if we are to move to a social situation in which women are given the true opportunity to succeed, we must re-vision the assumption of gender polarization.
Biological essentialism. The lens of biological essentialism is perhaps the most dangerous of the lenses of gender. The assumptions underlying this lens are that the perceived differences in gender have a natural/biological basis. “For Bem (1993), the lens of biological essentialism enables the lenses of androcentrism and gender polarization to stand unchallenged in the U.S. culture. When we view gender identities through the lens of biological essentialism, these identities seem ‘natural’” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 12). Biological essentialism is not a new phenomenon. It can be traced back to the beginnings of the science of medicine, when women’s illnesses were often assumed to have something to do with their gender. The etymology of the word “hysteria”, for example, comes from an assumption that if women exhibited even the mildest psychological stress it was the result of a problem with their ovaries (Ehrenreich and English, 1978).
The inherent danger in the lens of biological essentialism is that, by claiming a scientific basis for our assumptions about gender roles, we validate and strengthen the biases that exist. “When cultural assumptions about gender are ‘naturalized’ and presented under the cloak of science or ‘objective’ fact, they emerge as immutable” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 14). The lens of biological essentialism, however, does more than just serve to limit the possible roles of women in society. It also tells us that if women chose to act outside of the proscribed rules and norms of behavior, they are not only deviant, but also biologically flawed. Therefore, radical feminists are no longer “women”, but instead are some other gender class. Women who chose to violate the norms of gender polarization and androcentrism and instead take a traditionally male role in society are somehow biologically deficient. Obviously, these basic assumptions about gender roles must be reconsidered before any meaningful analysis of the political rhetoric of women can begin. If one neglects to re-vision these assumptions, the examination of women’s rhetoric will be tainted by underlying assumptions which set women in a deficit position.
An understanding of the lenses of gender as described by Bem (1993) and utilized by Sullivan and Turner (1996) enlightens our understanding of the basic assumptions of our culture. These assumptions serve to not only re-create male domination and power to the exclusion of women in the public sphere, but they also serve to color our understanding of the way in which women communicate. Since our culture works from these sub-textual assumptions about the roles of women and men, we must actively choose to reject and re-vision these assumptions if we are to have any hope of providing a fair and even-handed analysis of female rhetors. Androcentrism, gender polarization, and biological essentialism work together to exclude women from the political process. To understand how these lenses of gender are put into practice, Sullivan and Turner suggest an examination of Joan Tronto’s (1993) idea of moral boundaries.
Moral Boundaries
The connection between Bem’s lenses of gender (1993) and Tronto’s moral boundaries (1993) is one made by Sullivan and Turner (1996). However, it is a logical and useful connection, in that Tronto’s moral boundaries concept clearly represents what the lenses of gender look like in practice. Tronto (1993) referred to Western “conceptions of morality” which closely mirror the lenses of gender as described by Bem (1993). The logical next step of this discussion is to discover what exactly we mean by moral boundaries.
Tronto (1993) explains that our Western ideas of values and morality have their basis in the patriarchal structure of our culture. Again, this closely mirrors Bem’s conceptions of the lenses of gender, which reify the male dominance in our society. Tronto also contests the idea of “women’s morality” which has informed much of the feminist movement and was particularly evident during the suffrage movement, because it creates a “strategic trap” which functions as a double bind, excluding women from the political process. The claim that women are inherently more moral than men, instead of opening doors and allowing women to participate in the political process, closed doors because the “moral women” in question were being protected from the dirty business of politics. The appeal of “women’s morality”, however, still exists today because many scholars are truly seeking a “better world.”
In suggesting that feminist ideals could inform a good society, Tronto proposes to place at the center of the moral decision-making all the values traditionally associated with women in the private sphere, and, because of the lens of gender polarization, excluded from public discourse. These values of care include attentiveness, compassion, and nurturance. (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 30)

In order to overcome these moral boundaries, Tronto suggests a re-visioning of the established lenses of gender in order to include the “ethic of care” embodied by women. Before we can re-vision the moral boundaries, however, we must first understand the boundaries as they exist in our society. Tronto (1993) outlines three boundaries: the boundary of morality and politics, the moral point of view boundary, and the public and private boundary.
Morality and politics. The boundary between morality and politics manifests itself in two main ways. One of the ways in which this boundary makes itself apparent is in the “morality first” worldview. This perspective denies the existence of situational concerns and holds that there must be a uniform standard of morality that applies to every situation. This worldview excludes women because it assumes that women do not have the knowledge or public experience to understand and apply the universal morality. It also discounts the realm of personal experience (which has traditionally been the arena to which women were consigned) in favor of universal laws and truths.
The second manifestation of the morality and politics boundary is the “politics first” worldview. According to this theory, political power must be maintained at any cost. Morality is not a factor in this worldview, because power is the absolute reward. This perspective precludes the feminine style of the “ethic of care” and devalues any humanitarian or nurturing concerns. Women are excluded, therefore, from this manifestation if they adopt the traditionally female position of the “ethic of care.”
The underlying principle behind both of these worldviews is an assumption that the moral world (the world of nurturing and care) and the political world (the world of power and influence) are mutually exclusive. This boundary says that women must choose which area they wish to pursue, either morality or politics, but that both cannot be pursued concurrently. To move past this boundary and alleviate the double bind placed on female rhetors by this perspective, it is necessary to allow the ethic of care (the concern with nurturing and the personal realm) to exist as part of our political vision.
Moral point of view. The second boundary outlined by Tronto (1993) is the moral point of view boundary. This perspective argues that morality must come from a disinterested, detached, objective point of view. This perspective, again, discounts any experience in the personal realm and relies solely on absolute principles of morality without concern for the needs of others. This boundary serves once more to devalue the contributions of women and focus on the “expertise” of men, the public realm.
In order to function in this moral point of view boundary, rhetors must become “separate knowers” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 40). “Separate knowers” see no connection between themselves and the objects they are evaluating. This relationship demands a focus on impersonal, public data to the exclusion of experience gained in the private realm. Tronto does not argue, however, that this “separate knower” standard only applies to men (1993). Women are not inherently unable to exhibit this impersonal public understanding. However, since our culture has traditionally divided the roles of man and woman into distinct public/private spheres, women are placed at a disadvantage when our society values impersonal public moral judgments.
Public versus private. The last moral boundary discussed by Tronto (1993) is the schism between public and private lives. This divide obviously underlies the other two moral boundaries, and therefore is the most important of the boundaries. The world of men is that of politics, rhetoric, and public life. The world of women, however, is “an island beyond politics” (Held, 1993, p. 54). Tronto argues that the division between the public and the private is not a necessary one. The problem becomes the fact that our society often considers “private” matters to be highly secretive and discrete. “While private issues may not be appropriate for public discourse, the personal ‘is where our most idealistic and our deadliest politics are lodged, and are revealed’” (Tronto, 1993,
p. 93 quoted in Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 41).
The arbitrary division between public and private spheres of experience is another boundary to women in the political arena. In reality, the most volatile public issues are those that have private import. To ignore this interaction and pretend that there is no connection between the public and private realms is folly. The division between public and private arenas has only served to exclude women from politics and rhetoric. In order to participate in the public arena, one would have to abandon all vestiges of the private life. Therefore, the only women who could traditionally succeed in the political world were those who abandoned the very characteristics that made them unique and adopted a masculine rhetorical style. “Public speaking and femininity were perceived as mutually exclusive” (Campbell and Jerry, 1988, p. 123).
Implications. The overriding principle behind each of these moral boundaries is the assumption that, because of some fundamental aspect of being a woman, women are not qualified to participate in the public arena. The lenses of gender manifest themselves in the boundaries that women in politics are currently facing. The distinction between morality and politics excludes women because it forces feminist issues out of the political arena and devalues the ethic of care. The moral point of view boundary excludes women because it tells them that their personal experience is not a valid starting point for ethical considerations, that instead they must be impartial observers of the world around them. The public and private boundary excludes women outright by telling them that the appropriate place for a woman is in the private world, the home. These boundaries are the reason why women have been excluded from the rhetorical world. In order to make any progress, we must attempt to change the way we look at these boundaries and overcome them.
Re-visioning Political Communication
Sullivan and Turner (1996) outline three different strategies used by female rhetors to overcome the limitations set forth by these boundaries. The first strategy, denying the existence of the moral boundaries, attempts to ignore the boundaries and proceed as if women and men were starting from a position of equality. This strategy, although optimistic, is impractical. Ignoring the limitations placed on women, sadly, will not make them go away. The result of the denying strategy is that the woman in question will be discounted whether or not she acknowledges the existence of a barrier.
The second strategy is confronting and accommodating. Although the two strategies are dissimilar, female rhetors often use them in combination with each other, so Sullivan and Turner treat them as one. Women who confront the boundaries “find their voices outside of governmental politics” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 47). When women accommodate the boundaries, however, they limit themselves and exclude themselves from political success. “When women rely upon this strategy, they overlook the power of double binds” (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 48). Women who confront and accommodate are faced with a no-win situation, because to challenge the boundaries will cause them to be excluded from the political arena and to accommodate the boundary will cause them to be disempowered in the political arena.
The strategy advocated by Sullivan and Turner (1996) is that of re-visioning the boundaries.
Re-visioners recognize that naming in politics has been a male prerogative, and that the moral boundaries must be “redrawn”. When the boundaries are “redrawn” and moral decision-making is re-visioned, political decision-making will take into account the value orientations of “others” (i.e., women, slaves, people of color) who have been on the margins of discourse. (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 49)

This re-visioning would appreciate the traditionally private realm of women and would allow female rhetors to add their life experience to the body of rhetoric. By moving toward a focus on the “ethic of care”, rhetors who employ feminine style would be able to apply their understanding of the world to the political sphere. One way to allow this re-visioning to take place is to move toward a focus on feminine voice. Women have traditionally been either excluded from the body of rhetoric or have been forced to adopt a traditionally masculine style in order to achieve success. A move towards appreciating the contributions of feminine voice, however, would allow us to re-draw what we consider to be good rhetoric and to allow for the contributions of the private sphere to the public, political arena.
Feminine Voice
Definition
Feminine voice is most easily understood as the rhetorical style employed by many women (although it is not used by all women nor is it used exclusively by women) which embodies the experiences and mindset of the traditional female realm, the private sphere of influence. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell’s work, “The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation: An Oxymoron” (1973) is held by many to be the starting point for a discussion of female rhetors (Dow, 1995). In her essay, Campbell (1973) focuses on the idea of differences in the way men and women communicate. Campbell asserted that female rhetors should not necessarily be evaluated using the androcentric model of rhetorical eloquence. Instead, Campbell began a discussion of the unique ways in which women communicate. In Man Cannot Speak For Her (1989), Campbell clearly defines what exactly is meant by a “feminine style”. According to Campbell, feminine style reflects an emphasis on concrete data, personal tone, personal experience, inductive structure, and audience participation.
Campbell’s conception of feminine style rejects the assumption that women communicate differently than men because of biological differences, and instead, focuses on the differences that have evolved due to the different socialization processes experienced by women and men. “That style emerged out of their experiences as women and was adapted to the attitudes and experiences of female audiences. However, it was not, and it is not today, a style exclusive to women” (Campbell, 1989, p. 12). The style came from the fact that women have traditionally been relegated to the home, and therefore have a base of knowledge that values real world examples over theoretical debate, interpersonal dialogue over public monologues, family and personal experience over academic knowledge, inductive reasoning over proving hypotheses, and interaction over detached formality. Campbell elaborates that “while there is nothing inevitably or necessarily female about this rhetorical style, it has been congenial to women because of the acculturation of female speakers and audiences” (1989, p. 14).
A Caveat
Bonnie Dow has followed in the footsteps of Campbell and continued to put forward scholarship on the feminine voice. Dow echoes the concerns of Campbell that scholars not confuse stylistic differences with biological differences (Dow, 1995). She goes a step further, though, by discussing the paradox created by a discussion of feminine style. “In relying on difference as the rationale for our work, we risk limiting our definitions, our evidence, our audience, and our purposes” (Dow, 1995, p. 108).
Her first concern is that by beginning from a focus on differences, we may inadvertently essentialize all women under the rubric of feminine voice. To assume that all women had the same experiences that would lead to the same stylistic manifestations in their rhetorical strategies would be untrue. “This is a lesson that feminists have learned through long hard struggle over the ways that the political uses of the category of ‘women’ has often elided differences produced by the experiences of race, class, and sexuality” (Dow, 1997, p. 247). Bonnie Dow attempts to clarify that the paradigm of feminine voice may not apply to all women since its foundation was based on study of the early feminists (Campbell, 1989) who were predominately White, middle class women.
A second disturbing manifestation of this essentialism is that, in much the same way that feminine voice runs the risk of essentializing all women as the same, scholars may neglect to apply the paradigm of feminine style to male rhetors. “The very label ‘feminine style’ carries essentialist implications that limit this rhetorical style to female rhetors” (Dow, 1995, p. 109). Dow’s fear is that the label of “feminine” style may cause the use of feminine style by men to be overlooked. Blankenship & Robson (1995) were able to move past this temptation to produce an analysis of President Clinton’s use of feminine style. The concern is still relevant, though, and is a danger of focusing on differences in rhetorical style.
Re-visioning as a Solution
In order to resolve these concerns expressed by Bonnie Dow, it is necessary to apply the concept of re-visioning described previously. Re-visioning requires a reassessment of the established moral boundaries that identify women as the “other” and set a focus on differences. Through an application of the concept of re-visioning the boundaries, the paradigm of feminine voice will be able to be meaningfully applied to texts regardless of the gender of the speaker and without fear of essentializing the rhetor being studied. There have been attempts to apply this re-visioning, including Judith Butler’s “Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory” (1990) and Raymie McKerrow’s “Corporeality and Cultural Rhetoric: A Site for Rhetoric’s Future” (1995).
This thesis will attempt to apply the re-visioning of moral boundaries as set forth by Sullivan and Turner (1996). As we apply the paradigm of feminine voice to the texts of Madeleine Albright, it will be necessary to also pay attention to the central role of the content component of feminine voice, the ethic of care.
Re-visioning our political structures to incorporate values associated with care obviously does not mean controversies will dissolve. Our approach to those controversies might change, however. Discussion and decision-making framed by care will enable us to bring together in political decision-making the following values, all grounded in respect for the people with whom we are communicating: (1) openness; (2) reverence for diversity of opinion; (3) a commitment to understanding the language and culture of the people with whom we communicate; and (4) a pledge to monitor our language for polarizing terms and images. (Sullivan and Turner, 1996, p. 118).

This project will attempt to both embody these values in the textual analysis to follow as well as seek out expressions of these values in the speeches of Madeleine Albright. By re-visioning the way we think of political communication and by seeking out that new vision in the rhetors we analyze, it is possible to apply the paradigm of feminine voice without falling victim to the dangers concomitant with a “difference” perspective. This re-visioning will allow the analysis to go forward while still avoiding the traps of the double bind and essentialism.
Characteristics of Feminine Voice
As discussed above, feminine style reflects an emphasis on concrete data, personal tone, personal experience, inductive structure, and audience participation. If we are to use this style as a paradigm for analyzing texts, however, we must first examine each of the different aspects of feminine style.
Concrete data. The use of concrete data is the first characteristic of feminine voice. Because women have traditionally been excluded from the public realm, they tend to rely on concrete data instead of abstraction. This orientation is illustrative of a life lived in the private world where women concerned themselves with the day to day matters of family and home instead of the realm of philosophy and abstraction. Sara Ruddick (1989) claimed that women’s reliance on concrete examples is interrelated to the traditional female role of raising children and dealing with the issues which arise from parenthood (p. 96-97). The use of concrete examples, according to Campbell, is empowering to audiences. By using concrete examples, purveyors of feminine style are validating the observations of the audience. Instead of offering a philosophical or theoretical argument why the audience should agree, rhetors who employ the feminine style model are encouraging the audience to validate the proof being offered with their own personal observations. The reliance on concrete examples does not mean to imply that those using a feminine style are unwilling or unable to engage in meaningful theoretical discourse. Instead, the use of concrete examples serves to bring the topic at hand down from the “ivory towers” and into the real world of the audience’s experience.
Personal tone. The use of a personal tone is another characteristic of feminine voice as defined by Campbell (1989) and Dow and Tonn (1993). Again, building from the foundation that women have been socialized into the private world, it is not surprising that feminine style would embody a reliance on personal tone. Feminine style challenges the traditional relationship between rhetor and audience in favor of a more interpersonal style of communication. By using a personal tone, feminine style engages the audience and moves away from the formalized speaker-audience relationship and toward a more receptive and collegial style. One of the goals of feminine style, as defined by Campbell, is audience identification (1989). To achieve this goal, those who employ feminine style adopt a personal tone that endeavors to break down the barriers between speaker and audience.
Personal experience. An aspect of feminine voice that is closely related to the use of personal tone is the reliance on personal experience. By disclosing details of the rhetor’s personal life, feminine style again encourages audience identification. “The telling of personal experience presupposes a personal attitude toward the subject and a willingness for audience identification” (Dow and Tonn, 1993, p. 292). The use of personal experience connects the speaker and the audience and allows for the topic being discussed to become more personal and salient in the minds of the audience. There is, therefore, a dual role played by personal experience as a tool of feminine voice. Personal experiences are shared to not only enhance the relationship with the audience (although that is certainly an important goal), but also to create a shared worldview (Jones, 1980, p. 195).
Inductive structure. The use of an inductive structure also characterizes the feminine style. This idea relates very closely to the concept of using concrete examples. In both of these strategies, women rely on their practical experience to draw conclusions. Instead of relying on a deductive structure, which would start from a theoretical premise and seek to offer proof of the premise, those who use feminine style begin with their first hand observations and build theory on that basis. This characteristic could be interpreted as a lack of self-assurance in the rhetorical arena. In fact, the underlying assumptions of feminine voice indicate that, since women have largely been left out of public life, those using feminine style would less adept at deductive logic. A better explanation, however, may come from the reliance on practical knowledge instead of theory. Speakers who utilize feminine style tend to rely on the practical over the abstract. The reason behind this could very well be that women have had to deal with real situations in the practical world of the home and family while men have been given the opportunity to focus on more abstract political concerns.
Audience participation. Audience participation is the final stylistic aspect of feminine voice to be addressed in this project. By employing a feminine rhetorical style, rhetors are able to avoid the constraints traditionally standing between speakers and their audiences. Those who use feminine style tend to break down the “fourth wall” separating the speaker from the audience and try to encourage audience participation. When this is not possible, due to mediated communication or other barriers, the rhetor who employs feminine style still appeals to the audience to find a personal application for the evidence that he or she is sharing. “Identification is the goal of the personal connection forged between speaker and auditor in feminine style, and this identification serves as the basis for empowerment” (Dow and Tonn, 1993, p. 296). All of the aspects of feminine voice work together to empower the audience to adopt an ethic of care.
Ethic of care. The content component of feminine voice, as reflected in the ethic of care will also be identified in the texts of Madeleine Albright. This aspect of feminine voice is based upon Carol Gilligan’s theory that there are two different moral frameworks from which people can operate. A rhetor either adopts the traditionally masculine, individual model or the traditionally feminine, connection model based on care and nurturing. “The different voice I describe is characterized not by gender, but theme” (Gilligan, 1982, p.2). The idea of the ethic of care has been adopted in many other theorists’ work. These efforts have applied the ethic of care to many different contexts, including rhetoric and political rhetoric (Amaro, 2001; Fisher & Tronto, 1990; Manning, 1992; Nodding, 1984; Ruddick, 1989). Joan Tronto used this framework of the ethic of care, in fact, to inform her understanding of moral boundaries (Tronto, 1993).
Applying Feminine Voice to Texts
This analysis will attempt to illuminate examples of Albright’s use of feminine voice to put forward a worldview centered on caring and nurturing. By undergoing a close reading of her texts, it will be possible to outline Albright’s reliance on the characteristics of feminine style. A mere taxonomy of Albright’s use of feminine style, however, would serve little purpose. Therefore, to make the interpretation meaningful, this project will also focus on the way that Albright uses feminine style as a tool to re-vision her role as Secretary of State in different rhetorical situations. Taken together, these aspects of Albright’s rhetorical style should make clear her impact on foreign policy and our culture.

CHAPTER THREE
Analysis

This chapter will address the rhetorical strategies utilized by Madeleine Albright in the various contexts she faced as Secretary of State. The rhetorical strategies examined will include a discussion of Secretary Albright’s strategic use of feminine voice as well as a traditional masculine style. Albright’s international diplomacy, human rights, and military intervention rhetoric will constitute the contexts in this analysis. By examining the similarities and differences in how she manages her use of feminine style across these areas, this chapter will seek to discover relevant patterns in the discourse of Madeleine Albright.
The contextual constraints of foreign policy are a very important factor in the analysis of Madeleine Albright’s rhetorical strategies. This analysis will examine Albright’s use of feminine voice throughout her different functions as Secretary of State. Furthermore, this study will examine the way Albright managed her use of feminine voice very differently depending on the context of the situation. The issues and policies under discussion shaped the way that her rhetoric was constructed. It has been long understood that different foreign policy issues necessitate different foreign policy strategies (Rosenau, 1966). Also, both the international and domestic contexts of the foreign policy issue at hand have the ability to color the rhetorical choices made by foreign policy makers (Cimbala, 1969; Hudson, Hermann, & Singer, 1989; Lowi, 1964). The contexts of foreign policy rhetoric are complex and not as clear-cut as might appear


on the surface. As Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright had to consider not only the demands of the unique situations with which she was presented, but also the foreign policy precedents set up by previous administrations, the international implications of action (or inaction), and the American reaction to foreign policy endeavors. The concerns of the international community had to be balanced with the concerns of the American people. Therefore, Albright’s foreign policy rhetoric attempted to adapt to not only the international situation in question, but also to the domestic American constituency as well. Not all foreign policy issues are handled in the same way. Obviously, some foreign policy concerns are dealt with through international diplomacy and some are handled with military force when diplomacy fails. It should come as no surprise, then, that foreign policy rhetoric varies depending on context. For example, research has shown that there are differences in the ways in which foreign policy crises are addressed from the ways in which long-term foreign policy concerns are addressed (Brecher & Wilkenfeld, 1982; Hermann, 1986; James & Oneal, 1991). In order to appreciate the different ways in which Secretary Albright used feminine voice to address different concerns as Secretary of State, three different foreign policy contexts will be analyzed.
The three categories to be examined are international diplomacy, human rights violations, and military intervention. Those speeches that have been categorized as international diplomacy occurred during the diplomatic phase of negotiations and intervention. The speeches that have been categorized as human rights violations speeches focus primarily on rhetorically constructing the nature of the human rights violations in the absence of a discussion of diplomatic or military intervention. Finally, those speeches that have been categorized as military intervention focus on the role of the military in the foreign policy situation. The use of these categories is not intended to imply that there are clear distinctions between these topic areas. On the contrary, much of the discussion about international diplomacy and military intervention centers on action in places where human rights violations are occurring. Similarly, since many diplomatic efforts evolve into military interventions, they too share a common ground. The distinctions made, however, involve a difference in focus more than anything else. Secretary Albright’s speeches have been divided into the three categories based on the primary topic area of the speech. In order to discuss each topic area fully, five speeches have been selected from each category that focus on the category area in question. To give breadth to this analysis, speeches were selected from the entire continuum of Secretary Albright’s time in office, beginning with her confirmation hearing and ending with her farewell remarks and interview with Oprah Winfrey days before leaving office. To give depth to the analysis, attention was paid to ensure that the speeches selected covered several different international situations. During her time in office, Madeleine Albright spoke on a great number of different issues and before many different audiences. In order to thoroughly reflect that variety, an attempt was made to select not only traditional State Department addresses, but also commencement speeches, her remarks at her confirmation hearing, her televised interview on Oprah, and a number of other unique rhetorical situations. By using these criteria to select five speeches representative of each category, a representation of the rhetoric of Madeleine Albright was obtained.

International Diplomacy
Both international and domestic concerns must be addressed when considering the rhetoric of diplomacy (Evans, Jacobson, & Putnam, 1993). “Diplomatic strategies and tactics are constrained by what other international actors will accept and by what domestic constituencies will ratify” (Moravcsik, 1993, p. 15). Madeleine Albright had to balance these foreign and domestic concerns, and feminine voice was a tool she used to strike this balance. International diplomacy is one of the most important aspects of foreign policy, since other countries pay particular attention to diplomatic rhetoric to identify shifts in doctrine and new policy positions. Diplomatic rhetoric not only establishes the possible US actions, should diplomacy fail, but it also defines the nature of our international relationships. Diplomacy is both a way to build friendships with other countries, and is often the last option before military intervention.
The idea of building positive relationships with other nations plays into the strategies associated with feminine voice. A focus on interpersonal and relational issues corresponds well with a desire to build a mutually beneficial relationship with another country. The ethic of care would appear to correlate with desires to reach mutually beneficial, non-violent ends to international conflicts. However, the issue of international diplomacy has a very distinct connection with the possibility of future military intervention. “War is not represented positively but considered a necessary and legitimate agency when other, more desirable, methods such as diplomacy have failed” (Ivie, 1974, p. 341). In this way, diplomacy is not only a matter of negotiation and relationship building. International diplomacy is primarily a matter of the United States achieving its desired goals with a minimum of force. Diplomacy attempts to make other nations do what we want voluntarily, so that military intervention will not be necessary. The threat of violence, however, is always just below the surface in matters of diplomacy. This reality complicates the use of feminine voice and the ethic of care. If perceived as a purely humanitarian effort (as much diplomatic rhetoric would have one believe), then the ethic of care fits in perfectly with the goals of international diplomacy. The fact that diplomacy masks a more violent alternative if the desires of the United States are not met, however, makes the exclusive use of feminine voice difficult. Feminine voice and the strategies of the ethic of care do not easily reconcile themselves to violence and military intervention. It is difficult to have an empathic connection with the suffering people of a nation and to build a positive relationship with them when the threat of bombs dropping looms overhead. Therefore, Secretary Albright was faced with balancing the feminine voice characteristics that nurture a positive relationship with the constraint of understanding that a failure of diplomacy often leads to military intervention.
The speeches selected for analysis cover a range of diplomatic topics and span Albright’s tenure as Secretary of State. Albright’s statement at her confirmation hearings on January 8, 1997, as well as her February 7, 1997, address at Rice University in Houston, Texas both address the theme of balancing diplomacy with military force. Albright’s address in Kosovo on July 29, 1999 is included as an example of direct diplomatic rhetoric in action. Albright’s speech, “Waging Peace in the Twenty-first Century”, delivered August 21, 2000 upon receipt of the Dwight David Eisenhower Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars is included, as is her speech, “Dollars, Diplomacy and American Leadership in the Twenty-first Century”, delivered to the Women’s Foreign Policy Group Luncheon on November 20, 2000 in Washington, DC. These two speeches show Albright’s vision for the future of diplomacy as a foreign policy tool.
One of the least obvious ways in which Madeleine Albright uses feminine voice is in her use of concrete examples and an inductive structure in her speeches on diplomacy. Instead of beginning with her abstract beliefs and proving them deductively in her comments at her confirmation hearing, Secretary Albright uses concrete examples to lead the Senators to her position on what must be done to support American interests worldwide.
Do not doubt, those interests are not geopolitical abstractions, they are real.
It matters to our children whether they grow up in a world where the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction have been minimalized or allowed to run out of control. It matters to the millions of Americans who work, farm or invest whether the global economy continues to create good new jobs and open new markets, or whether – through miscalculation or protectionism – it begins to spiral downward. It matters to our families whether illegal drugs continue to pour into our neighborhoods from overseas. It matters to Americans who travel abroad or go about their daily business at home whether the scourge of international terrorism is reduced. It matters to our workers and our business people whether they will be unfairly forced to compete against companies that violate fair labor standards, despoil the environment, or gain contracts not through competition but corruption. And it matters to us all whether through inattention or indifference, we allow small wars to grow into large ones that put our safety and freedom at risk. . . . To cope with such a variety of threats, we will need a full range of foreign policy tools. . . . It is also why we need first-class diplomacy. Force, and the credible possibility of its use, are essential to defend our vital interests and to keep America safe. But force alone can be a blunt instrument, and there are problems it cannot solve. To be effective, force and diplomacy must complement and reinforce each other. For there will be many occasions, in many places, where we will rely on diplomacy to protect our interests, and we will expect our diplomats to defend those interests with skill, knowledge, and spine. (Albright, 1997a, 6-12, 17-20)

This use of concrete examples also contributes to the ethic of care. Instead of discussing the matters of international diplomacy as abstract political ideals, Albright makes the issue very personal by discussing the impact on each of our families and the duty of each of our diplomats. Secretary Albright uses this strategy to very subtly introduce the feminine voice to the realm of foreign policy rhetoric. Instead of blatantly arguing in favor of an ethic of care (which she will do in later speeches), Albright uses her confirmation hearing to emphasize the importance of international diplomacy. Albright directly addresses those who would be critical of a foreign policy guided by caring later in her speech when she discusses the lack of diplomatic action in Rwanda.
It is said that foreign policy should not be influenced by emotion. That is true. But let us remember that murdered children are not emotions; they are human beings whose potential contributions are forever lost. America has an interest, as do all civilized people, to act where possible to prevent and oppose genocide. (Albright, 1997a, 99)

Albright explains this subtle aspect of feminine voice by directly addressing her own use of concrete examples in her Rice University address. In fact, she uses the speech to explain her avoidance of abstraction when she says:
As Secretary, I will do my best to talk about foreign policy not in abstract terms, but in human terms – and in bipartisan terms – I consider this vital because in our democracy, we cannot pursue policies abroad that are not understood and supported here at home. When I was nominated by the President, I said that I would have an obligation to explain to you the “who, what, when, where” and especially the “whys” of the policies we conduct around the world in your name. Today I intend to begin that job. (Albright, 1997b, 9-11)

By explaining her use of concrete examples so early on in her tenure as Secretary of State, Secretary Albright established her modus operandi as having a foundation in feminine voice. Again, because the use of concrete examples is a more subtle aspect of feminine voice, establishing it as her rhetorical strategy early on helped to overcome any objections to her very real-world view of foreign policy.
A more obvious use of feminine voice in her remarks at her confirmation hearing occurs when Albright utilizes a personal tone and relies on personal experience to relate her foreign policy perspective. By utilizing these aspects of feminine voice, Albright is able to use her personal history to make herself seem more approachable and genuine.
I could say to you that it had always been my ambition to be Secretary of State of the United States. But that is not true. Frankly, I did not think it was possible. I arrived in America when I was 11 years old. My family came here to escape Communism and to find freedom and we did. My ambition at the time was only to speak English well, please my parents, study hard, and grow up to be an American. (Albright, 1997a, 127-128)

This use of a personal style allows the Senators to see beyond the fact that she is a skilled diplomat and foreign policy scholar to the facts of her personal life. Albright is able to give her own life story a voice and make herself seem like more than just another faceless bureaucrat. This use of feminine style is able to bridge the gap between the public and private world and give preference to Albright’s private experiences. Not only did Albright have the foreign policy experience and credentials for the job of Secretary of State, she understood from her personal experiences the importance of foreign policy in people’s lives. In doing this, Albright was able to use feminine voice to construct herself as approachable. Since this was the first official contact she would be making as a potential Secretary of State (although the Senators were no doubt aware of her work as the UN Representative) Albright managed her use of feminine style to build a common understanding between herself and the Senators.
In her speech, “Waging Peace in the 21st Century”, where she outlines the importance of balancing diplomacy with military power, Albright again uses her personal experience and a very personal tone to highlight her address.
As you may know, I spent some time when I was very young in a bomb shelter in London, trying to keep safe from Hitler’s bombs. The Nazis had conquered my native Czechoslovakia and were attacking the land in which my family had sought refuge. Our world was in flames and we were uncertain what the future would hold. It’s no wonder that we kept our ears glued to the radio. And through the darkness, we were sustained by the inspiring words of leaders such as Churchill and Eisenhower, and by the heroism of allied troops. I was just a little girl, but in my heart, even then, I came to admire those brave enough to fight for freedom, and I fell in love with Americans in uniform. If not for you, and many like you, I would not be here tonight. And liberty’s torch, which now burns in the world so brightly, would long ago have flickered and gone out. (Albright, 2000a,
4-7)

By beginning her speech with such a personal account of the importance of military intervention, Albright is able to use her personal experience to establish herself as an expert on matters of international conflict while, at the same time, using a personal tone to establish a connection with the audience. She emphasizes the human consequences of military intervention as opposed to the strategic implications of military action. By establishing the ethic of care in this way, the importance of international diplomacy to avoid military intervention can be established without discounting the vital role that military intervention has played in past conflicts.
Another aspect of feminine voice exemplified by Secretary Albright in her diplomacy discourse is the use of audience participation. This audience participation is one of the more overt ways in which she was able to use feminine voice in the context of international diplomacy to build a focus on interpersonal interaction. During her remarks at her confirmation hearing, Albright utilized audience participation to get the Senators actively involved in her foreign policy agenda.
Senators, you on your side of the table and I on my side, have a unique opportunity to be partners in creating a new and enduring framework for American leadership. One of my predecessors, Dean Acheson, wrote about being present at the creation of a new era. You and I have the challenge and the responsibility to help co-author the newest chapter in our history. In so doing, let us remember that there is not a page of American history of which we are proud that was written by a chronic complainer or prophet of despair. We are doers. (Albright, 1997a, 132-134)

Albright appeals to the Senators to not only confirm her nomination to the position of Secretary of State, but also to work with her in that capacity to build foreign policy for a new era. By taking such an active position, Albright makes her concepts of an active and involved diplomacy come to life. In this speech, Albright set the tone for the rest of her tenure as Secretary of State and began to establish her position on the need for an active, balanced diplomacy. In this way, her remarks take on the tone of an interpersonal dialogue, in which she works together with the Senators to accomplish her goals.
Her Rice University speech is another speech that uses the idea of audience participation to achieve a personal connection with the audience. She calls directly upon the audience to become concerned about foreign policy matters. Albright explicitly tells the listeners that the decisions made in the foreign policy arena are relevant to their everyday lives. Audience participation, in this instance, functions in the same way as her use of concrete examples to make the realities of foreign policy less abstract and more practically applicable to their lives.
Whether you are a student, a parent, a teacher, or worker, you are concerned about the future our young people will face. Will the global marketplace continue to expand and generate new opportunities and new jobs? Will our global environment survive the assault of increasing population and pollution? Will the plague of AIDS and other epidemic disease be brought under control? And will the world continue to move away from the threat of nuclear Armageddon, or will that specter once again loom large, perhaps in some altered and even more dangerous form? If you are like most Americans, you do not think of the United States as just another country. You want America to be strong and respected. And you want that strength and respect to continue through the final years of this century and into the next. Considering all this, one thing should be clear. The success or failure of American foreign policy is not only relevant to our lives; it will be a determining factor in the quality of our lives. It will make the difference between a future characterized by peace, rising prosperity and law, and a more uncertain future, in which our economy and security are always at risk, our peace of mind is always under assault, and American leadership is increasingly in doubt. (Albright, 1997b, 27-29).

By making the issues of foreign policy so relevant to the audience, she is able to get the audience concerned about the real world ramifications of foreign policy. She brings her idea of the ethic of care to the forefront in their minds. International diplomacy is no longer an abstract concept, it now has a face and a real application to the lives of the audience members.
The ethic of care has already been discussed in a number of these stylistic aspects. In her diplomacy rhetoric, Secretary Albright was able to use a number of the stylistic components of feminine voice to bring about an implicit emphasis on the ethic of care. However, her discourse on diplomacy rarely was able to directly advocate an ethic of care. As she said in her confirmation hearing, foreign policy concerns are rarely colored by emotion. The area of international diplomacy, with its potential for evolution into military intervention, is an area that is apparently unsuitable for an explicit focus on the ethic of care. Albright had to attempt to balance the interests of her domestic and international audiences while living up to the expectations of foreign policy rhetoric. Instead of relying on the content of ethic of care to put forth her foreign policy agenda, Albright depended on the more subtle stylistic components of feminine voice to build a focus on nurturing in her diplomacy rhetoric.
To balance these aspects of feminine voice, Secretary Albright also relied upon a number of aspects of traditional masculine voice. These characteristics exhibit the way in which Madeleine Albright had to alter her rhetorical style to adapt to the military component of international diplomacy. Although feminine voice, particularly the more subtle applications of feminine voice, is appropriate for discussions of relationship building and humanitarian aid, the military ramifications of international diplomacy called for a more stringent and traditional rhetorical posture. In her speech at Rice University, Secretary Albright turned away from an ethic of care to discuss the reality of diplomacy.
Because the United States has unique capabilities and unmatched power, it is natural that others turn to us in time of emergency. We have an unlimited number of opportunities to act. But we do not have unlimited resources, nor unlimited responsibilities. We are not a charity or a fire department. If we are to protect our own interests and maintain our credibility, we have to weigh our commitments carefully, and be selective and disciplined in what we agree to do. (Albright, 1997b, 48)

This example illustrates that Albright is able to move from an ethic of care to say that all suffering is not the responsibility of the United States to solve. She explains that our national interests are really the driving force behind diplomacy. This move away from the ethic of care is one way in which the rhetorical style of Secretary Albright is made to adapt to the contextual constraints of her position.
In her speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Albright again asserts that it is not always humanitarian rationales that drive foreign policy. She explains that international stability and commitment to a consistent foreign policy caused the situation in the Balkans to escalate from diplomacy to military intervention.
When President Clinton took office, war was raging in the Balkans, where a UN peace operation was failing, and atrocities were being committed on a daily basis. Many argued that America should look the other way and hope the fighting would simply burn itself out. But history warns us that in this region there is no natural firebreak to conflict. So when diplomatic options were exhausted, the Clinton-Gore Administration called for NATO airstrikes to end the war in Bosnia. And when Milosevic launched a campaign of terror in Kosovo, our Alliance stopped him. This was not simply a humanitarian intervention. President Clinton made good on President Bush’s pledge to the people of Kosovo, and thereby reminded the world that America meets its obligations. NATO proved it could act with unity and resolve to defend European stability. (Albright, 2000a, 31-34)

Although this statement is littered with references to atrocities and a “campaign of terror”, Albright makes it clear that the rationale behind the escalation from diplomacy to military intervention had less to do with the ethic of care than it did with the international standing of the United States and the stability of Europe. These impersonal concerns contrast starkly with the concerns of the ethic of care which focus on the individual. NATO did not bomb Kosovo because of the people who were suffering. In this statement, Albright tells us that we Kosovo was bombed because of the stability of the international situation.
These examples show that, although Secretary Albright uses feminine voice in her foreign policy rhetoric, it is not a paradigm that constricts her ability to function in the role of Secretary of State. When feminine voice is not an appropriate rhetorical strategy or when the ethic of care is not the most paramount motivation behind a foreign policy position, Secretary Albright was able to adapt her rhetorical style to the demands of her context. Diplomatic rhetoric, on the surface, allows for a use of feminine style. The demands of diplomacy, however, are complex and require a sophisticated mixture of rhetorical styles to be effectively communicated.
Human Rights Violations
The second area to be analyzed in this project is Secretary Albright’s rhetoric regarding human rights violations. Although, as explained previously, many of the diplomatic and military intervention speeches deal with areas where human rights violations have occurred, the speeches selected for this section deal primarily with discussing the human rights violations per se, without a focus on military or diplomatic courses of action. This section will examine Madeleine Albright’s use of feminine voice to overcome the traditional way in which human rights violations are typically discussed. The traditional approach to human rights rhetoric has been to discuss the atrocities committed against nations or groups of people rather than individuals. In this way, human rights rhetoric has largely dehumanized the very atrocities it has attempted to confront.
A language which takes nations as its irreducible unit, like any other that trades in vast numbers of people, differs from and will, under certain circumstances, conflict with ways of talking about the world that centers on human beings as individuals. These conflicts become acute when the subject is an action having human suffering as its inevitable consequence. . . . Such language will prove inadequate precisely at the point at which pain and death come to people who have committed no crime, whose guilt has not been established, or whose punishment is out of proportion to the alleged offense. . . . Language dealing with vast numbers of people typed according to race, religion, or nationality obscures the relationship between official policy and human experience. (Wander, 1984, p. 353-354)

It has also been observed that official foreign policy may or may not have any basis in human rights concerns or ideological differences. “Ideology, according to one former State Department official in the early 1970’s, plays little or no part in actual decisions which are garbed in moral terms to satisfy onlookers” (Wander, 1984, p. 339). Whether this remained true during the Clinton administration or not, many of Secretary Albright’s speeches serve to construct a concept of human rights as imperative to foreign policy. By employing feminine voice and the ethic of care, Secretary Albright was able to use these very moral terms to come to grips with human rights violations, transcending the moral boundaries assumption underlying our political system. Instead of discussing the violations as affecting groups of people or nations, Albright employed feminine voice to put a real face on the human rights violations she observed. As opposed to the other contextual constraints faced by Madeleine Albright in her use of feminine voice in military intervention and international diplomacy, the area of human rights violations provided a fertile ground for relying on feminine voice characteristics. Instead of using the traditional foreign policy tactics of dehumanizing the issues of human rights, Albright used her feminine style to focus on an ethic of care.
In order to illuminate Secretary Albright’s use of feminine voice in the area of human rights violations, it will be necessary to review five speeches. Albright’s December 1, 1998 remarks at the Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets in Washington, DC uses her personal history as a holocaust survivor to discuss the World War Two violations that have still remained unaccounted for. The Commencement Ceremony for Georgetown University in Washington, DC on May 29, 1999 provided Albright with an opportunity to discuss the human rights violations in Kosovo. In order to gain a complete understanding of the Secretary’s position on human rights, her remarks on December 3, 1998 to the Rosalynn Carter Distinguished Guests Lecture Series at Emory University in Atlanta as well as her speech, “Continuing the Fight for Human Rights in the Twenty-first Century” delivered at a Human Rights Day event in Washington, DC on December 10, 1999 will be examined. Madeleine Albright’s televised interview with Oprah Winfrey on January 23, 2001 will serve as a capstone where she discussed the importance of a focus on international human rights.
The first way that Secretary Albright uses feminine voice to put a face to human rights violations and advance the ethic of care is through her use of concrete examples and an inductive reasoning structure. Instead of adopting the traditional foreign policy position of discussing countries and groups of people as faceless masses, Madeleine Albright uses her personal experiences to spotlight the atrocities being committed worldwide. In her interview with Oprah Winfrey, Secretary Albright explains the human rights violations she has seen in Sierre Leone.
When I was in Sierra Leone, I went to a clinic where there were a group of people who didn’t have any legs because they had been chopped off. And then there were a group of people that you reach out to shake hands with them and they have no hands. And this was because the Revolutionary Front there just chopped people’s hands off or arms. I held a child that was three years old who just had her arm cut off for no visible reason. So the crimes against humanity are stunning. (Albright, 2001a, 80)

In this example, Albright uses what she has seen firsthand in Sierra Leone to illustrate the “crimes against humanity” she has witnessed worldwide. In her interview with Oprah Winfrey, this anecdote is used as an example of all of the horrible things Albright has seen in her travels as Secretary of State. By using concrete examples of what she has personally witnessed, Albright changes the faceless, nameless masses affected by human rights violations into real people, deserving of care.
Another way that Albright uses concrete examples to emphasize the ethic of care in relation to human rights violations is by making unfamiliar regions of the world familiar to her audience. In so doing, she changes the landscape of the human rights violations so that it has a more personal impact on those she is addressing. Secretary Albright uses this strategy to describe the crimes committed in Kosovo in her Commencement address at Georgetown University.
We have reports of 500 villages burned or largely destroyed; 60 villages where executions have occurred and women and girls being systematically raped; of men being taken from their families and never seen again; of mass grave sites in, among other places, Pusto Selo and Izbica, Malisco, and Drenica. These names may sound strange to our ears, but they represent real communities where people came together to conduct business, educate their children, and worship God. Perhaps we should substitute for Pusto Selo and Izbica, more familiar names such as Rosslyn and Georgetown and Adams Morgan and Cleveland Park, and imagine them torched and plundered and our neighbors and family members murdered, abused, and expelled. Perhaps we should imagine that the hand outstretched, asking for help, is that of the person sitting next to us right now. (Albright, 1999b, 32-35)

This example shows Albright’s strategy of making the international human rights violations take on a real life importance, even when she doesn’t have personal experience to back it up. In this situation, Albright had not yet witnessed the atrocities she was describing, but from the reports she had been given she was able to construct concrete examples (even if hypothetical) which proved her point and brought the reality of the situation in Kosovo home to her audience. By using names of areas around Georgetown University, Albright made sure that her audience cared about what was happening in Kosovo and empathized with those suffering overseas.
Madeleine Albright also attempts to show that no one is immune from the injustices of human rights violations. In order to overcome the “them” versus “us” mentality, Albright uses feminine voice to build an understanding of human rights that is universal in nature.
We have learned that while there is no single model for democracy, basic human rights are universal. What a country does to people within its own borders is not solely its own business. Everyone, whether they are Baha’i, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or of another faith, suffer equally when they are made to disappear, killed, or locked away for their beliefs. (Albright, 1999e, 3-4)

These “universal” human rights are able to challenge the sovereignty of states and overcome any religious or political objections. By framing human rights in this way, Secretary Albright brings her ethic of care to the forefront and shows that it is one of the most important foreign policy issues.
Secretary Albright’s human rights rhetoric also adopts the inductive structure of feminine voice. As noted in the previous two examples, Albright provides examples that then lead her audience, with her, to draw conclusions about the atrocities being described. In her speech at Emory University, Secretary Albright uses this strategy to build support for democratization efforts by the United States. First, she lists a number of countries where human rights violations have occurred, such as China, the former Soviet Union, and Nigeria. Then, she uses these examples to build support for her thesis of the necessity of democracy.
Although the specifics of our approach to promoting democracy will vary from country to country, the fundamental goals are the same. We seek to encourage where we can the development of free institutions and practices. Some fault these efforts as unrealistic for presuming that democracy is possible in less developed nations. Others suggest we are being hegemonic by trying to impose democratic values. In truth, we understand well that democracy must emerge from the desire of individuals to participate in the decisions that shape their lives. But we see this desire in all countries. And there is no better way for us to show respect for others than to support their right to shape their own futures and select their own leaders. Unlike dictatorship, democracy is never an imposition; it is, by definition, always a choice. (Albright, 1998b, 38-39)

Albright’s use of an inductive structure in this case serves to silence anyone who would disagree with her position on democracy. By listing examples of countries where atrocities against human rights are being committed, and then bringing the audience along to a conclusion that democracy will stop those atrocities from occurring, Albright discounts anyone who might believe that her conception of democracy is “hegemonic”. This shows that, not only does she use the ethic of care to illuminate the real people being affected by human rights violations, she also uses the ethic of care to advocate her foreign policy agenda.
In addition to a reliance on concrete examples and inductive reasoning, Secretary Albright also references her own personal experiences as a Holocaust survivor in her human rights violations rhetoric. As a victim of human rights violations, she is able to use her own personal story to put a face to those who are suffering. In her address to the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, Albright recounts her own story of surviving the Holocaust to prove the need for returning that property stolen from victims of the Holocaust by the Nazis.
I cannot conclude this statement without addressing briefly a subject for which I have not yet found – and will never find – exactly the right words; and that concerns my grandparents, whom I learned recently were Jewish and died along with aunts, uncles, and cousins in the Holocaust. When I was young, I didn’t often think about grandparents; I just knew I didn’t have any. I was an infant when I was separated from them. Now I, too, have become a grandparent, and I look at my children’s children, and the love and pride literally overflows. I am sure now that I was once the object of such affection not only from my parents but from those who gave them life. I think also of my grandparents’ lives in those final years, months, and days. I think of the faces at the Holocaust Museum and Yad Vashem and the long list of names on the wall of the Pynkas Synagogue in Prague – among them those of my grandparents, Olga and Arnost Korbel and Ruzene Spieglova. I think of the blood that is in my family’s veins. Does it matter what kind of blood it is? It shouldn’t; it is just blood that does its job. But it mattered to Hitler, and that matters to us all – because that is why six million Jews died. (Albright, 1998a, 17-19)

The recounting of her personal story about her grandparents who died in the Holocaust makes the situation personal, and not academic. Talking about the death of people in concentration camps is one way to relate the horrors of the Holocaust. Talking in such personal terms about her own grandparents, however, brings the reality of the situation to bear.
Madeleine Albright explains the importance of this family history on her foreign policy positions in her interview on the Oprah television show.
You know, I know people have asked you [Oprah], “Are you affected by your biography?” Of course you are. And I am. So I know that when the US didn’t do something, that is, stop Hitler, terrible things happened. When the US got involved and liberated those countries, great things happened. And so I figure it’s my job now to pay back and to do everything I can to represent the US. I will never, ever, be able to repay the American people for giving me that honor. (Albright, 2001a, 93)

This statement explains the fact that, to Madeleine Albright, foreign policy concerns are never academic. Because she survived the Holocaust, and perhaps more importantly because her grandparents did not, Secretary Albright treats human rights violations as real events involving real people instead of academic abstractions. She continues to explain the very personal nature of foreign policy in her interview with Oprah Winfrey:
For those people who don’t understand foreign policy and you think foreign policy is foreign and has nothing to do with their lives, you have to say okay, so that HIV/AIDS person may come in contact with an American and it comes home here to America. Or drugs. Some people say why do we care about drugs in Colombia? Because those drugs come to the United States. That is a foreign policy issue. Foreign policy is not foreign to the American people. It can’t be.
(Albright, 2001a, 82)

This interview shows that all foreign policy issues are issues of care for Madeleine Albright. She does not treat foreign policy concerns as abstract, rather she treats foreign policy (and human rights violations in particular) as personal concerns.
The area of human rights rhetoric is one area that did not require Secretary Albright to deviate from her feminine voice. The demands of human rights rhetoric lent themselves to advocating an ethic of care. Unlike the other topics dealt with by Madeleine Albright, human rights violations did not require a balance of masculine and feminine characteristics. In this area, she was able to utilize a purely feminine voice and draw attention to the individual nature of human rights violations rather than only focusing on the international ramifications.
Military Intervention
The last context under consideration is military intervention. One of the key roles of the Secretary of State is to set foreign policy with regards to the use of military force. Unlike other roles of the Secretary of State, military intervention is a very aggressive topic. By definition, military intervention occurs when diplomacy can not solve the problem and force (or the coercive threat of force) is required (Ivie, 1974). It becomes evident, then, that the role of Secretary of State in matters of military intervention requires a direct, aggressive, impersonal approach. “This attitude [toward military intervention] has regularly led Americans to emphasize the quantity of forces and other objective military factors and to discount emotions and other intangible factors during crises with other countries” (Rourke, Carter, & Boyer, 1994). This would seem to imply an exclusion of the use of feminine voice and any application of the ethic of care. Although it is true that the domestic demands of military intervention rhetoric have shifted in the post-Vietnam era, this impersonal and unemotional strategy still exists. The focus has shifted somewhat toward an ethic of care regarding people of other nations with whom we are fighting, but the rhetoric still focuses on impersonal, abstract beliefs rather than the suffering of individuals. When it comes to military intervention, Americans are more willing to fight and die for principles than they are for people. It is hard to justify dropping bombs on a nation in order to help someone suffering in that nation. The fact is that the very bombs intended to liberate the oppressed may end up killing them. The argument, then, becomes focused on using bombs to change the leadership or ideology of a nation so that “democratic principles” may win out. In the post-Vietnam era, it is necessary to build support on this ideological base so that the American public will support the military initiative in question.
Philip Wander, in his essay “The Rhetoric of American Foreign Policy”, discusses the fact that issues of military intervention do not allow for an application of the ethic of care. By removing themselves from the real-world implications of their foreign policy actions, foreign policy makers are able to directly avoid the constraints of caring for the people in question.
Dr. Fred Charles Ikle, an official in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations and an authority on nuclear disarmament, claims that arms experts and military planners “insulate themselves from the potential implications of their labors by layers of dehumanizing abstractions and bland metaphors.” (Wander, 1984,
p. 355)

The rhetoric of military intervention, it would seem, does not allow for feminine voice. Instead of opening up a space where discussion can go forward and an interpersonal context can help both sides to work together, military intervention rhetoric is traditionally structured in such a way that it shuts down dialogue and frames situations so that America and its allies are the only rational parties to the conflict.
War is defined in purpose terms, with territorial invasion and commercial injuries interpreted as attacks against America’s rights. The enemy’s use of devil-agencies such as ‘lawless force,’ ‘autocracy,’ ‘tyranny,’ ‘aggression’ – is translated as an infallible sign of his hostility toward America’s ideals. . . . The reductionist tendency toward a moralistic and idealistic definition of war situations directs attention away from a more objective determination of causes, crises, and solutions and severely delimits America’s potential for identification with other nations. . . . The possibility of peace, it would seem, could only be enhanced by a more sophisticated ‘grammar of motives’ in our vocabulary of motives for war. (Ivie, 1974, p. 343-345, emphasis in original)

However, instead of following this traditional approach to military intervention rhetoric, Albright uses some elements of feminine voice in her discussions of military intervention. She tailors this style, however, to the constraints of the context of military intervention and very carefully crafts a rhetoric that utilizes feminine voice without completely abandoning past foreign policy discourse on military intervention.
To achieve an analysis of this role, five speeches have been selected which cover different aspects of military intervention. The first text selected, Albright’s May 22, 1997 remarks at the Annual Fleet Week Gala in New York City, is delivered in the beginning of military intervention in Bosnia and is addressed to military enthusiasts in New York City. Albright’s June 1, 1997 speech at Brcko Bridge in Bosnia-Herzegovina addresses the use of military forces as peacekeepers and is delivered to the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Albright spoke about the Kosovo conflict during the military intervention in her February 4, 1999 remarks at the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington, DC. She dealt with the topic of Kosovo again in her June 28, 1999 remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, after the military conflict had occurred. Secretary Albright’s farewell remarks on January 19, 2001 at the U.S. Department of State are also included, and they offer a capstone of Albright’s rhetoric regarding military intervention.
One of the ways Albright was able to adapt feminine voice to the demands of military intervention rhetoric was by utilizing her inductive structure, but also moving away from the use of concrete examples in favor of more abstract language. The use of an inductive structure in military intervention rhetoric is not uncommon. “Rather than being laid out explicitly and deductively, proof ordinarily emerges in a two-step process that… links argumentation to exhortation” (Campbell & Jamieson, 1990, p. 107). Albright was able to combine an inductive structure (a feminine style characteristic) with a reliance on abstraction (a masculine style characteristic) to achieve justification for American military intervention.
In her address at the Annual Fleet Week Gala in New York City on May 22, 1997, Secretary Albright discussed the importance of the military intervention in Bosnia. In this speech, Albright used inductive reasoning to prove her argument justifying the United States military presence in Bosnia. However, this inductive reasoning differed from her previous uses of the inductive structure. This time, instead of using concrete examples of real world applications and drawing her thesis from those examples, Albright uses a number of abstract concepts and, from them, draws the conclusion about the necessity of American military force in Bosnia. Instead of focusing on her concrete examples of people being affected by the situation in Kosovo, she relies on the abstractions of the “rule of law” and “free press” which she discusses throughout the speech. “Just as a free press is a necessary component of democracy, so is the rule of law. And establishment of the rule of law is vital to Bosnia’s integration as a peaceful and productive society” (Albright, 1997c, 64). She does not make an effort to explain why a free press is important to people who might be affected or why the rule of law would be beneficial to those suffering in Bosnia. Instead, Albright follows this with a discussion of the challenges inherent in establishing police and judicial systems and with prosecuting war criminals. The entire discussion, however, focuses on the importance of becoming a “productive society” rather than on the individuals involved, thereby completely disregarding the ethic of care in her justification of American military efforts.
Secretary Albright’s remarks at Brcko Bridge in Bosnia-Herzegovina on June 1, 1997 are a very different perspective from the Fleet Week address. In this speech, Albright directly addresses the people of Bosnia at a time when peacekeeping forces have been put in place. Although this is still a military action, it is a military action of a different sort than that discussed in the Fleet Week address. Instead of bombing and armed aggression, this speech is concerned with the establishment of “peacekeepers”, which is, tacitly at least, a less aggressive and invasive military intervention. This speech is delivered at Brcko (one of the subjects of the Fleet Week speech) and is delivered at the ceremonial re-opening of a bridge that had been shut down because of the violence in Bosnia. Since it addresses the subjects of the speech directly, and because it focuses on peacekeeping instead of other military intervention, this speech shows a return to a more typical feminine style. In this speech, Albright again relies heavily on abstraction and the inductive structure, but she also balances this abstraction with a definite focus on the ethic of care. The reason Albright was able to employ the ethic of care so obviously in this speech is because the speech is being delivered to the people of Bosnia who have just survived the military attacks. She is able to use the ethic of care to build favor with these people who have been in the middle of the conflict. This ethic of care, however, is framed in abstract terms instead of concrete examples.
Albright discusses the importance of the Brcko Bridge to the people of Bosnia, both symbolically and functionally. As Albright re-opened the bridge, she focused on the impact of the action to the people of Bosnia.
Of course, for as long as can be remembered, Brcko has meant something else to the people of Bosnia. It has been an open gate to the markets of Europe, a river port where currents of culture, commerce, and communication converge. But when the war began, Bosnian Serb forces blew up the railroad bridge just down the river. This road bridge was closed on the Croatian side. Bosnia’s lifeline was cut off, its people were isolated and trapped. We are here to change that. We are here to open this bridge. . . . What is going on here means that the families on both sides of the frontier will be able to lead normal lives. . . . But there is something more fundamental. For the Bosnian people, this road is both literally and symbolically a road to Europe. And this bridge, to paraphrase President Clinton’s favorite metaphor, is a bridge out of the twentieth century. In this region, it leads away from the horrors and hatreds that have made so much of this century sot tragic to the people of this country. If you travel in that direction, you will eventually reach a Europe where borders unite, rather than divide; a Europe where reason has triumphed over revenge; a Europe where new democracies have traded pettiness for prosperity. (Albright, 1997d, 4-5, 8-9)

As opposed to the Fleet Week speech, which dealt with these same issues, the Brcko Bridge speech focuses on the lives of the people of Bosnia. This focus on caring about the people of Bosnia is a very different tone than that used in the Fleet Week address, where the emphasis was on the international and economic implications of Brcko, although both speeches rely on an inductive structure combined with a reliance on abstraction.
In her speech at the U.S. Institute for Peace on February 4, 1999, at the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, Albright uses this same strategy to discuss her abstract concerns. Again, by using abstraction combined with aspects of the ethic of care, she focuses on the importance of freedom in the lives of the people of Kosovo instead of merely focusing on the international implications of being a democratic society. However, this abstraction allows for an ethic of care that doesn’t deal with specific individuals, but rather with ethnic groups and cultural identities.
All the ethnic groups of Kosovo, of which there are several in addition to Albanians and Serbs, must be treated fairly. They must be able to control, without government interference, their identities and cultural life. And the rights of individuals of all ethnicities must be fully protected. The right to nourish and promote culture and identity is at the heart of many of the problems in the Balkans. (Albright, 1999a, 31)

As opposed to the Fleet Week speech, in this case Albright uses the ethic of care to explain the need for military intervention. Like the Brcko Bridge speech, this address was delivered at a time when bombs were not dropping. Instead of occurring during the “peacekeeping” phase of an intervention, however, this speech occurred at the beginning of the military intervention in Kosovo. These examples make it clear that Secretary Albright is able to use a combination of factors, some masculine and some feminine, which uphold a worldview based on the ethic of care when it is appropriate (as in cases of military peacekeeping or when justifying a new military intervention), and a worldview absent of the constraints of caring when it is not (as in cases where armed conflict is underway).
A second aspect of Albright’s style in her military intervention rhetoric that does not directly follow the model of feminine voice is her avoidance of personal experience or a personal tone. Instead of relying on personal experience and using an interpersonal, conversational tone, many of her military intervention speeches are very stoic and impersonal. In her Fleet Week speech, instead of focusing on nurturing and interaction, Albright is impersonal and focuses on the international repercussions of the military intervention in Bosnia. Although Secretary Albright does discuss freedom of the press and human rights in the speech, they are characterized as abstract, impersonal issues. Instead of focusing on these issues as matters of caring for human beings, Albright discusses their implications to the international community (in terms of Bosnia becoming a democratic government).
Obviously, the international community cannot impose cooperation in Bosnia. We cannot make every city, village, and person embrace the concept of a unified Bosnia. But those who reject that concept will not receive our help. Nor will they see their vision of a separatist future fulfilled. There is no alternative to Dayton. Bosnians should either join the effort to make it work or get out of the way. The only aid we will provide or support for Bosnia is aid that helps build a unified country or that helps people who are helping Dayton succeed. (Albright, 1997c,
53)

It is possible to see that, instead of focusing on the ethical and moral aspects of cooperation, Albright focuses on the practical implications of non-compliance. Instead of an ethic of care, this speech utilizes a more pragmatic, impersonal focus in its advocacy of the Dayton Accords.
Albright uses this same strategy in her speech at the U.S. Institute for Peace. She avoids using a personal tone, and instead uses an impersonal and threatening tone to warn of the repercussions of non-compliance with NATO forces. “There should be no doubt on either side that the consequences of failure to reach agreement or to show restraint on the ground will be swift and severe” (Albright, 1999a, p. online). This stringent tone makes clear the severity of the situation and allows Albright to end her speech with a firm commitment to military action. In situations where the military intervention is imminent, Albright is able to move away from her use of a personal tone in order to achieve the desired impact.
The same issues addressed in the Institute for Peace speech are revisited in Secretary Albright’s remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City on June 28, 1999. This speech, however, comes after the main conflict in Kosovo has ended. The United States and NATO had already used military intervention, and this speech is directed at a post-conflict Kosovo. In this speech, Albright is no longer justifying military intervention, because it has already been done. Instead, Albright used this speech to heal some of the wounds from the conflict and begin a post-conflict peace process. Since this speech is no longer advocating military intervention, but is instead reviewing the military intervention that has just occurred, Albright is able to utilize a personal tone and calls upon her personal experiences. Secretary Albright combines her own personal history with her personal experiences in the Kosovo situation.
Not long ago, I visited a refugee camp in Macedonia. And I was never prouder to be an American than when I heard the chant “USA, USA, USA” and saw a little boy’s hand-lettered sign that read, at the top, “I love America,” and at the bottom, “I want to go home.” As someone whose own family was twice forced to flee its home when I was still a little girl, I remember how it feels to be displaced. And now I know how it feels, as Secretary of State, to be able to tell that little boy and his family that with America’s help, they would go home safely and soon. (Albright, 1999c, 44-45)

In this example, Albright is able to identify herself with the refugees and build common ground with those who have been displaced by the fighting in Kosovo. This same strategy would have been inappropriate during the military intervention, but after the conflict, this style is effective in beginning the peace process.
Another aspect of feminine voice utilized by Madeleine Albright in her military intervention rhetoric is audience participation. The Brcko Bridge speech, as a peacekeeping speech, requires that the Bosnian people help to maintain the peace achieved by the military intervention. In addition to assigning partial responsibility to each of the audience members, Albright directly calls for audience action at the end of the speech.
There are many things the international community can do here, but many we cannot. We can transform Bosnia’s physical infrastructure, but not its mental landscape. We can shape a secure environment, but we can’t shape every heart and mind. We have opened this bridge to Europe. Only the Bosnian people can walk across it. Today we can prove the cynics and tyrants wrong. Together we can restore Bosnia to its proper place in our community of free nations. To that end I pledge my best efforts and I ask for yours. (Albright, 1997d, 14)

The Brcko Bridge speech is able to call upon the audience (Bosnia) to work with the peacekeeping forces. Albright’s call to action, however, goes further rhetorically than just cooperation with the peacekeepers. By calling upon the Bosnian people to unite with the “community of free nations”, Albright is working to make sure that the changes brought about by the military intervention are not temporary.
The U.S. Institute for Peace speech, however, comes at the beginning of the conflict in Kosovo, and therefore is framed much differently in terms of audience participation. Unlike diplomacy speeches, where the audience must cooperate in order to achieve a common understanding, this speech signals the beginning of military intervention in Kosovo. Diplomacy has reached a breaking point, so the Kosovar audience is no longer called upon to meet the Americans in compromise. Instead, the audience participation is merely a warning that Kosovo has seven days to achieve the timeline established by the US before bombing begins. As opposed to the Brcko Bridge speech where Albright calls on the audience to help maintain the peace, this speech is made to an audience who are treated as the recipients of military force. Albright clearly identifies the expectations of the State Department and NATO and lays out a timeline and the grave ramifications if that timeline is not met.
We expect the parties to finish the talks within seven days or satisfy the Contact Group that significant progress is being made to warrant an extension. At the end of that time, three outcomes are possible. If President Milosevic refuses to accept the Contact Group proposals or has allowed repression in Kosovo to continue, he can expect NATO air strikes. If the Kosovo Albanians obstruct progress at Rambouillet or on the ground, they cannot expect NATO and the international community to bail them out. Decisions on air strikes and international support will be affected, and we will find additional ways of bringing pressure to bear. If the two sides do reach agreement, we will need to concentrate our efforts on making sure that it is successfully implemented. (Albright, 1999a, 34)

At this point, the audience participation is national, not individual. Instead of building a common ground with the people of Kosovo, Albright uses this speech to establish the deadlines for air strikes to begin.
The final feminine voice characteristic utilized in Albright’s military intervention rhetoric is the ethic of care. In her post-conflict speech on Kosovo to the Council on Foreign Relations, Albright reinforces the importance of understanding the personal nature of conflict that has just occurred. Instead of only focusing on the international policy implications of the conflict, Albright is able to focus on the people affected by the conflict. Albright tells the anecdote about the little boy with the hand lettered sign and continues:
There are some who say that Americans need not care what happens to that child or to those like him. Others suggest that until we can help all the victims of ethnic violence, we should be consistent and not help any. Still others believe that by trying to bring stability to the Balkans, we’re taking on a job that is simply too hard. Finally, there are some – overseas and even here at home – who see NATO’s actions as part of a master plan to impose our values on the world. Such criticisms are not original. They echo voices heard half a century ago when America led in rebuilding war-torn societies across two oceans, helped to reconcile historic enemies, elevated the world’s conception of human rights, and attempted and achieved the impossible by supplying more than two million people in Berlin entirely by air for more than nine months. (Albright, 1999c,
46-47)

Secretary Albright galvanizes support for her ethic of care by not only relating the plight of the current victims of violence in Kosovo, but by also calling upon memories of the Second World War. By referencing the American intervention in the Second World War, which is widely supported, Albright is able to draw a parallel to the current situation and call upon the audience to care for the victims of the violence in Kosovo.
Another speech that explicitly uses the ethic of care is Secretary Albright’s farewell address on January 19, 2001. The address was delivered in a lobby of the Department of State to members of the press and employees of the State Department. This speech primarily focuses on the use of military intervention in Kosovo, although Albright does discuss a number of other foreign policy issues. In her farewell address, Albright recounts the story told in her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations about the little boy who had been displaced because of fighting in Kosovo.
Of course there were truly uplifting moments as well, brought about by your hard work. . . . Hearing refugees from Kosovo chant, ‘USA, USA,’ knowing that because we had acted they would soon be able to return to their villages. . . . And watching the Yugoslav people toss Milosevic out on his ear. (Albright, 2001b,
7, 10, 12)

In addition to this story, Albright recounts other inspirational memories of her time in office to offer her personal experiences as evidence for the importance of American military intervention abroad. Her personal experiences allow for the audience to understand the importance of American military involvement in international situations. One of the issues which she explains she has difficulty facing is the role of American foreign policy (military intervention policy particularly) in the case of terrorism. Albright describes her feelings regarding the bombing of the American embassies in Africa in 1998:
I have been called the most powerful woman in the world, but I have on occasion lacked even the power of speech, because although we have crossed the threshold into a new century, there are still too many questions for which we have no answers. . . . During the past four years, the good days far outnumbered the bad, but the worst was August 7, 1998. It was more than two years ago, yet still we mourn. Still we are conscious of the risks involved in defending our interests around the world. And still we understand that there could be no greater responsibility or honor. (Albright, 2001b, 14, 27)

By using this example, Secretary Albright is able to address the importance of military intervention while also noting the difficulty in using military intervention to solve the problem of terrorism. The “questions for which we have no answers” cannot be merely forgotten, so Madeleine Albright calls attention to them through a use of the ethic of care.
In her military intervention rhetoric, Madeleine Albright balances the characteristics of feminine voice with other, more traditional, stylistic choices. By modifying her feminine voice to fit the demands of the context of military intervention (and by extension, to meet the varying situational demands within the context of military intervention) Secretary Albright is able to build toward and ethic of care and build alliances with audiences when it is appropriate, but also not be constrained by this focus on care. Instead of being immobilized by her use of feminine voice, though, Albright is also able to adapt her ethic of care when the situation demands a less personal approach.

CHAPTER FOUR
Conclusions
In each of the foreign policy contexts facing Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she used feminine voice to achieve her foreign policy goals and put forth an ethic of care. Her use of feminine voice had to be modified to meet the differing contextual requirements of her position, however. Secretary Albright managed her use of feminine voice differently depending on the context involved in the speech. At times, such as in the midst of a military engagement, a personal tone and building a common understanding with the audience would not be appropriate, so she modified her rhetorical style to meet those constraints. In the same way, some contexts, such as human rights rhetoric, lent themselves to her use of the full array of feminine voice characteristics. In these situations, Albright took advantage of all of the feminine style strategies at her command. To some extent, all effective rhetors attempt to utilize the most appropriate rhetorical strategies. It should not be surprising, then, that Madeleine Albright used feminine voice to incorporate her extensive private knowledge and interpersonal skill in those contexts where it would be effective. It should not be surprising, as well, that she uses masculine voice to deal with foreign policy concerns which are more suited to that style. Perhaps this is because her private life has been so focused on public policy from an early age, or perhaps this can be attributed to her rhetorical skill. Whatever her reasons, Albright effectively manages both feminine and masculine style in her rhetoric, depending on context.
The context of human rights violations very clearly connected with the idea of an ethic of care and allowed Secretary Albright to utilize a feminine voice exclusively. Diplomacy, however, is a more complex issue and requires a complex rhetorical strategy. The surface issues of diplomacy, which call for building of coalitions and negotiation, allow for a use of some of the characteristics of feminine voice. With a further investigation of diplomacy, however, it becomes evident that the threat of military involvement is never far from the surface in international diplomacy. This threat requires a more traditional, masculine rhetorical style. Military intervention, similarly, allows for some use of feminine voice to build domestic and international support for initiatives. The focus, however, in military intervention rhetoric is not on an individual ethic of care as outlined in the feminine voice model, but rather is an impersonal, ideological model. The use of a masculine rhetorical style to build an abstract support for military intervention makes the cause appear nobler. Instead of just talking about the suffering of one group, the masculine style allows for intervention to justified in abstract moral and ethical terms.
It would be easy to assume that Albright’s modifications of her feminine style fall into the “accommodating” category established by Sullivan and Turner (1996). However, since Albright always uses some of the characteristics of feminine voice and modifies parts of her feminine style to adapt to her situation, that categorization would be ill advised. Sullivan and Turner’s (1996) conception of accommodation refers to a complete abandonment of the feminine style for fear of being rejected in the public arena. Secretary Albright, however, always exhibits some of the traits of feminine style and adapts those to the particular context of her foreign policy rhetoric.
Part of the difficulty with using a paradigm such as feminine voice is that it does have a tendency to essentialize rhetors. As Bonnie Dow (1995) explained, reliance on the feminine voice model may serve to isolate rhetors and reduce them to the essentialized properties of feminine voice. Indeed, the feminine voice paradigm is a very rigid category. Perhaps it is too rigid. Feminine voice makes it difficult to account for women (and men) who shift between masculine and feminine styles in their communication. As Secretary Albright shows us, there is a place for traditional masculine style, particularly in the arena of foreign policy. Using a feminine, nurturing style would be completely inappropriate as a vehicle for telling a country that America was about to begin dropping bombs. A synthesis of styles, as seen in the example of Secretary Albright, may serve as the most effective means of communication.
This is not to say that the feminine voice concept has no value. Indeed, if it were not for the efforts in the area of feminine voice, many female rhetors might remain unappreciated. The fact that Secretary Albright consistently uses at least some characteristics of feminine style across her different duties as Secretary of State shows that, in the absence of an appreciation of feminine voice, her rhetoric would be judged as ineffective and inappropriate. Feminine voice has allowed for a re-visioning of our moral boundaries and a reevaluation of the foundational assumptions of our political system. Secretary Albright was able to color her rhetoric with the ethic of care, a task that was expedited through her use of feminine style. As more women and men continue to use feminine voice in the public arena, it is necessary for us to build an understanding of this style into our conception of the field of rhetoric. The dangers of essentialism must be balanced with the wisdom of inclusion that comes from an understanding of feminine voice.
To achieve this end, perhaps we should reconsider the ways in which we talk about feminine and masculine voice. The majority of scholars reject the biological difference model. Instead of claiming that feminine style comes from some innate difference between men and women, the argument put forth is that feminine style emanates from the different socialization processes of women and men. As society continues to change, however, and women continue to gain more influence in the public arena and men begin to appreciate the contributions of the private arena, these labels begin to lose any substantial meaning. After all, in most circles the assumption that all women stay home to care for their husbands and children has long been forgotten. In the same way, it is no longer assumed that all men are going to be involved in the public arena. Therefore, the socialization model of feminine voice has begun to lose the meaning that it once held. It is true that differences in socialization still exist, but it is also true that the gap created by those differences is shrinking day by day. The fact that more women use a feminine style and more men use a masculine style when dealing in the public arena may still be true, but as time passes, the labels of masculine and feminine rhetorical style will begin to blur. If, indeed, we are attempting to merely categorize two different perspectives on the rhetorical act, then perhaps a more appropriate taxonomy can be developed. It is also necessary for this taxonomy to take into account the fact that feminine and masculine rhetorical styles are not mutually exclusive. This study of Madeleine Albright indicates that there is room for the two styles to coexist.
A reassessment of the feminine voice taxonomy may help to overcome some of the problems inherent in studying feminine voice. Consider the implications of studies (such as Sullivan and Turner’s 1996 work) that label a rhetor like Janet Reno as not using a “feminine style.” Although Sullivan and Turner (1996) are careful to explain that this doesn’t mean that Reno isn’t feminine, tying her rhetorical choices to her gender has the potential to create misunderstanding. In the same way, Perkins (1989) labeled The Feminine Mystique as androgynous. Does this mean that Betty Friedan appreciated the demands of her context and adapted by using both a masculine and feminine style where appropriate? Or is the implication that, somehow, Friedan is “not feminine” in her rhetorical style? Of course, scholars would be quick to explain that this is probably not their intention, but the fact that feminine style has linked a set of rhetorical strategies to gender gives rise to these unfortunate questions.
In the case of the foreign policy rhetoric of Madeleine Albright, she does indeed shift between feminine style, which is predominant in her speeches, and masculine style. These shifts, however, are based on the context with which she is faced. This does not mean that she should be classified as exhibiting an androgynous tone, however. Her rhetoric becomes difficult to categorize, not because of her “accommodation” and abandonment of feminine style (Sullivan and Turner, 1996) or because her rhetoric is “androgynous” (Perkins, 1989). The difficulty in classifying the rhetoric of Madeleine Albright comes from the inflexibility inherent in the feminine voice paradigm. If the paradigm is going to retain any useful application, it must evolve so that it takes into account the different constraints brought about by the contexts in which rhetors find themselves. This understanding will help to validate the work of men and women who attempt to synthesize the masculine and feminine styles in order to most effectively achieve their rhetorical goals.
The implications of this study on the future of communication research, and feminine voice research, are multiple. First, it is evident that feminine voice is not innately connected to gender. Further research could be done which would expand the discussion of the significance of context to feminine voice. The use of the word feminine to describe feminine voice is more problematic than it is useful. In order to overcome the problem of essentialization, feminine voice should be re-visioned so that its positive contributions are not overshadowed by the problems with the feminine/masculine labels. A more apt conception of feminine voice, which precludes the risk of biological essentialism while retaining focus on socialization, may come from the interpersonal communication literature. The use of “affiliative” or “dominant” styles, for example would allow for differentiation without the inherent connection to gender. “Public orientation” versus “private orientation” would also distinguish the rhetorical styles according to socialization.
From a political science perspective, with a growing emphasis on diplomacy and the new world order, a study of the efficacy of feminine voice in foreign policy contexts could indicate more rhetorical options for future politicians. Interesting research questions may arise from a discussion of the coordination of action and belief in the use of feminine style. Future study could investigate whether there is a correlation between an expression of the ethic of care and policy actions, or whether the two do not necessarily correspond.
The study of Secretary Albright shows us that, indeed, context is an important defining factor in her use of feminine voice. Research into the rhetorical styles of male Secretaries of State would allow for a further application of the questions of context. A discussion of former Secretaries of State would illustrate whether the stylistic choices made by Madeleine Albright are impacted by her gender and personal history, or if the position of Secretary of State demands a balanced rhetorical style. A second way to achieve this same goal would be to analyze other women in major political office. The work by Sullivan and Turner (1996) begins this discussion, but a focus on the impact of context on the rhetorical styles of women such as Condoleezza Rice and Christie Todd Whitman could illustrate whether or not this balanced rhetorical strategy is applicable to other positions aside from Secretary of State.

REFERENCES

Albright, M.K. (1997a, January 8). Prepared statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Confirmation Hearing. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/970108.html.

Albright, M.K. (1997b, February 7). Address at Rice Memorial Center, Rice University. Houston, Texas. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/970207.html.

Albright, M.K. (1997c, May 22). Remarks at Annual Fleet Week Gala, Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum. New York City. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/970522a.html.

Albright, M.K. (1997d, June 1). Remarks at Brcko Bridge. Bosnia-Herzegovina. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/970601.html.

Albright, M.K. (1998a, December 1). Remarks at opening of the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1998/981201.html.

Albright, M.K. (1998b, December 3). Remarks to the Rosalynn Carter Distinguished Guests Lecture Series, Emory University. Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1998/981203.html.

Albright, M.K. (1999a, February 4). Remarks at the U.S. Institute for Peace. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990204.html.

Albright, M.K. (1999b, May 29). Remarks at Commencement Ceremony, Georgetown University. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990529.html.

Albright, M.K. (1999c, June 28). Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations. New York City. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990628.html.

Albright, M.K. (1999d, July 29). Address to the people of Kosovo. Pristina, Kosovo. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990729.html.

Albright, M.K. (1999e, December 10). Statement on U.S. Commemoration of Human Rights Day. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/991210.html.

Albright, M.K. (2000a, August 21). Remarks Upon Receipt of the Dwight David Eisenhower Award, 101st Annual Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/2000/000821.html.

Albright, M.K. (2000b, November 20). Remarks at Women’s Foreign Policy Group Luncheon. Washington, DC. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/2000/001120.html.

Albright, M.K. (2001a, January 17). Interview of Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright by Oprah Winfrey. Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/2001/010117a.html.

Albright, M.K. (2001b, January 19). Farewell Remarks. U.S. Department of State, C Street Diplomatic Lobby. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/2001/010119.html.

Baird, J.E. (1976). Sex differences in group communication: A review of relevant research. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 179-192.

Biography: US Secretary of State Madeleine Korbel Albright. (1997 January). US Department of State Dispatch, 8 (1), 6-7

Bem, S.L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Blankenship, J., & Robson, DC. (1995). A “feminine style” in women’s political discourse: An exploratory essay. Communication Quarterly, 43, 353-366.

Brady, L.P. (1991). The politics of negotiation: America’s dealing with allies, adversaries, and friends. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Brecher, M. & Wilkenfeld, J. (1982). Crises in world politics. World Poitics, 34,
389-417.

Butler, J. (1990). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. In S.E. Case (Ed.). Performing Feminisms: Feminist critical theory and theory (pp. 270-282). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Campbell, K.K. (1973). The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation: An oxymoron. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 74-86.

Campbell, K.K. (1989). Man Cannot Speak for Her: A critical study of early feminist rhetoric, volume 1. New York: Greenwood Press.

Campbell, K.K. (1991). Hearing women’s voices. Communication Education, 40, 33-48.

Campbell, K.K. (1998). Inventing Women: From Amaterasu to Virginia Woolf. Women’s Studies in Communication, 21(2). 111-26.

Campbell, K.K. & Jamieson, K.H. (1990). Deeds Done in Words. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Campbell, K.K. & Jerry, E.C. (1988). Woman and speaker: A conflict in roles. In S. Brehm (Ed.), Seeing Female (pp. 123-133). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Cimbala, S.J. (1969). Foreign policy as an issue area: A roll call analysis. American Political Science Review, 63, 148-159.

Conrad, C. (1981). The transformation of the “old” feminist movement. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67, 284-97.

Connors, R.J. (1992). The exclusion of women from classical rhetoric. In S.P. Witte, N. Nakadate & R.D. Cherry (Eds.). A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 13-22). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Diehl, P.F. (1991). Ghosts of arms control past. Political Science Quarterly, 105,
597-615.

Dindia, K. (1987). The effects of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions. Human Communication Research, 13, 345-371.

Dobbs, M. (1999). Madeleine Albright: A twentieth century odyssey. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Dow, B.J. (1991). The ‘womanhood’ rationale in the woman suffrage rhetoric of Frances E. Willard. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 298-307.

Dow, B.J. (1995). Feminism, Difference(s), and Rhetorical Studies. Communication Studies, 46, 106-117.

Dow, B.J. (1997). Politicizing Voice. Western Journal of Communication, 61(2),
243-251.

Dow, B.J. & Tonn, M.B. (1993). “Feminine Style” and Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79. 286-302.

Eakins, B. & Eakins, G. (1976). Verbal turn-taking and exchanges in faculty dialogue. In B.L. Dubois and I. Crouch (Eds.) Papers in southwest English IV: Proceedings of the languages of American women. San Antonio: Trinity University Press.

Eakins, B. & Eakins, G. (1978). Sex differences in human communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ehrenreich, B. & English, D. (1978). For Her Own Good: 150 years of experts advice to women.

Evans, P.B., Jacobson, H.K., & Putnam, R.D. (Eds.). (1993). Double-edged diplomacy: International bargaining and domestic politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Felski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Fisher, B., & Tronto, J. (1990). Toward a feminist theory of caring. In E.K. Abel & M.K. Nelson (Eds.), Circles of care: Work and identity in women’s lives
(pp. 35-62). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gibbs, N. (1996 Dec 16). Voice of America: the new secretary brings the heart of a teacher, the scars of a refugee and the skills of a talk-show host. Time, 149 (1), 32-34.

Gibbs, N. (1997 Feb 17). The many lives of Madeleine. Time, 149 (52), 52-61.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus: a practical guide for improving your communication and getting what you want in your relationships. New York: Harper Collins.

Hall, J.A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hayden, S. (1997). Re-claiming bodies of knowledge: An exploration of the relationship between feminist theorizing and feminine style in the rhetoric of the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Western Journal of Communication, 61,
127-163.

Heilbrunn, J. (1994, Aug 22). Albright’s mission: the unquiet American ambassador. The New Republic, 211 (8-9), 19-24.

Held, V. (1993). Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hermann, C.F. (1986). “International crisis as a situational variable.” In John Vasquez (Ed.), Classics of international relations (pp. 171-181). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hewitt, B. (1996 Dec 23). Madam Secretary: yes, she knits sweaters, but Madeleine Albright won’t be a softie at State. People Weekly, 46 (26), 46-49.

Hudson, V.M., Hermann, C.F., & Singer, E. (1989). “The situational imperative: A predictive model of foreign policy behavior.” Cooperation and Conflict, 24, 117-139.

Ivie, R.L. (1974). Presidential motives for war. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60 (3), 337-345.

James, P. & Oneal, J.R. (1991). The influence of domestic and international politics on the president’s use of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35, 307-332.

Jamieson, K.H. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jones, D. (1980). Gossip: Notes on women’s oral culture. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), The voices and words of women and men (pp. 193-98). New York: Pergamon Press.

Kennedy, C.W. & Camden, C.T. (1983). A new look at interruptions. Western Journal of Communication, 47, 45-48.

Kirby, V. (1991). Corporeal habits: Addressing essentialism differently. Hypatia, 6,
4-24.

Lovell, J.P. (1970). Foreign policy in perspective: Strategy, adaptation, decision making. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Lowi, T.J. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715.

Maltz, D.N. & Borker, R.A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female communication. In J.J Gumperz (Ed.); Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). New York: Cambridge.

Manning, R. (1992). Just caring. In E.B. Cole & S. Coultrap-McQuin (Eds.), Explorations in feminist ethic: Theory and practice (pp. 45-54). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McKerrow, R.E. (1995). Corporeality and Cultural Rhetoric: A Site for Rhetoric’s Future. Southern Communication Journal, 3, 315-328.

Moravcsik, A. (1993). Introduction: Integrating international and domestic theories of international bargaining. In P.B. Evans, H.K. Jacobson, & R.D. Putnam (Eds.) Double-edged diplomacy: International bargaining and domestic politics
(pp. 3-42). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mulac, A., Wiemann, J.M., Widenmann, S.J., & Gibson, T.W. (1988). Male/female language differences in same-sex and mixed sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55, 315-335.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nordlinger, J. (1999, June 28). Albright Then, Albright Now. National Review, 51 (12), 41.

Packing Heat: Madeleine Albright’s threat filled diplomacy has had mixed results. Kosovo is a chance to prove it works. (1999 Mar 1). Time, 153 (8), 42-43.

Pearce, W.B. (1989). Communication and the human condition. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.

Pearce, W.B. & Littlejohn, S.W. (1997). Moral Conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Perkins, S.J. (1989). The Rhetoric of Androgyny as Revealed in The Feminine Mystique. Communication Studies, 40 (2), 69-80.

Reis, H.T., Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in the intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1204-1217.

Rosenau, J.N. (1966). Pre-theories and theories of foreign policy. In Barry Farrell (Ed.), Approaches to comparative and international politics (pp. 27-92). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Rourke, J.T., Carter, R.G., & Boyer, M.A. (1994). Making American Foreign Policy. Guilford, Connecticut: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.

Ruddick, S. (1989). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. New York: Ballantine.

Schorr, D. (1997 Aug 11). Albright’s attitude. The New Leader, 80 (13), 4-6.

Smythe, M.J. & Huddleston, B. (1992). Competition and collaboration: Male and female communication patterns during dyadic interactions. In L. Perry, L. Turner, & H. Sterk (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing gender (pp. 251-260). Buffalo: SUNY Press.

Smythe, M.J. & Schlueter, D.W. (1986). Can we talk? A meta-analytic review of the sex differences in language literature. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Washington, DC.

Snyder, R.C., Bruck, H.W., & Sapin, B. (1954). Decision making as an approach to the study of international politics. Princeton, NJ: Organizational Behavior Section.

Solomon, M. (Ed.) (1991). A Voice of Their Own: The woman suffrage press, 1840 – 1910. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.

‘Steel Lady’ in waiting? (1997 Feb 3). Insight on the News, 13 (4), 43-44.

Sullivan, P. & Turner, L. (1996). From the Margins to the Center: Contemporary Women and Political Communication. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Tonn, M.B. (1996). Militant motherhood: Labor’s Mary Harris “Mother” Jones. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82, 1-21.

Treichler, P. & Kramarae, C. (1983) Women’s talk in the ivory tower. Communication Quarterly, 31, 118-132.

Tronto, J.C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routlege.

Tronto, J.C. (1995). Care as a basis for radical political judgments. Hypatia, 10 (2),
141-149.

Waller, D. (1997, June 16). The Albright Touch: By turns charming and tough, the new Secretary of State doesn’t flinch for unquiet diplomacy. Time, 149 (24), 56-57.

Wander, P. (1984). The Rhetoric of American Foreign Policy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70 (4), 339-361.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1985). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 102-117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Wood, J.T. (1992). Gender and moral voice: Moving from woman’s nature to standpoint epistemology. Women’s Studies in Communication, 15 (1), 1-24.

Zurakowski, M.M. (1994). From doctors and lawyers to wives and mothers: Enacting “feminine style” and changing abortion rights arguments. Women’s Studies in Communication, 17 (1), 45-68.