Our model endorses rev v. rev debate which reconceptualizes the notion of change and action because it approaches issues of racism, language, and ontology

In addition to engaging with the heart of the resolution, rev v. rev debate and critical debate more broadly might be thought of as an engagement not with any particular social movement or revolution, but rather with the question of what moves the social. In McGee’s (1980) essay on the rhetoric of social movements, he draws a distinction between perspectives that approach social movement as “phenomenon” and social movement as “meaning.” The essence of this distinction is that while prior scholars have often treated social movements as discrete, self-contained entities that in reality scholars of communication ought to address social movements not as a noun but as a verb. He contends that social movements are not clearly delineated phenomena but instead are processes that develop as collective and impact the world through rhetoric. Thus, the question for him is not what a social movement is, but instead what moves the social. Similarly, instead of examining a single self-contained policy action, or considering a hypothetical activist action, much of critical debate considers questions of ontology, language, orientation, and representation. Contrary to the idea that these debates do not think about material action (Solt, 2004), we suggest they shift the paradigm of debate from a particular policy phenomenon to think critically about what moves the social. As Happe (2013) suggests, racism continues not simply as an overt idea or discriminatory action, but through the ritualistic performance of material-discursive practices in media, legal, academic, and everyday settings. Thus, in considering the ways in which language practices, political orientations, and performative expressions impact race relations in debate, critical debate confronts the material terrain on which race and domination are enacted and reenacted. Taking rev v. rev and critical debate seriously thus requires reconceptualizing how we approach social change, and this viewpoint is supported in social movements literature.