"Remapping" Dark Spaces

I had to read Cheryl Glenn's article for another class as well this week, Archival Research.  So, I have just recently come from a discussion of it from another point of view, the view of an archival researcher.  The problem that we faced with this particular text involved issues of ethos and evidence.  In other words, how do you "remap" a territory that you have only little proof exists.  The same problem occurs when discussing the sophists because we only have a very limited view of their writings.  Therefore, attempting to reclaim classical women like Aspasia or even shadowy male figures like the Sophists is a difficult proposition.  It requires an adjusting of our preconceived notions of rhetoric, allowing us to broaden our definitions and understanding of the areas previously thought to house "monsters" (3).

According to Glenn, "until recently, we could pull a neatly folded history of rhetoric out of our glove compartment, unfold it, and navigate our course through the web of lines that connected the principal centers of rhetoric...we ignored the boarders of our map, the shadowy regions" (3).  However, now there are new territories that exist within the umbrella term of "rhetoric." These new territories have been brought into view by the lack that has become apparent as race, gender, economic status, and even geographical position becomes an issue within the field.  Thus, remapping becomes a transcendent action, encompassing all of the problematic spaces within the field.

For instance, in addition to being able to "regender" rhetoric, we are also able to reconsider the Sophists as Susan Jarratt does in our other reading, "The First Sophists: History and Historiography."  Jarratt discusses the Sophists as "a dark shadow" (1).  Clearly, Glenn pulls a great deal from Jarratt's discussion of rereading the Sophists.