Participation, Diversity, and Legitimation in U.S. Housing: A Rhetorical Analysis of Two HOPE VI Reports

IF 1.5 4区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Technical Communication Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.55177/tc628586
Christopher J. Morris
{"title":"Participation, Diversity, and Legitimation in U.S. Housing: A Rhetorical Analysis of Two HOPE VI Reports","authors":"Christopher J. Morris","doi":"10.55177/tc628586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider: (1) how participatory rhetorics and methodologies can often invoke classed and racialized hierarchies and (2) the rhetorical strategies by which participatory processes in development contexts become co-opted for institutional\n means rather than for transformative outcomes.Method: Blending critical discourse analysis and rhetorical criticism, I read two influential federal U.S. housing reports associated with the HOPE VI housing program to derive legitimation strategies seemingly at work in divesting local\n residents of significant participatory input.Results: As suggested by analysis of the two reports, HOPE VI’s participatory rhetorics consisted of four key legitimation strategies that constrained participation as: participation-as-cultural narrative, participation-as-bio/necropolitics,\n participation-asdiversity, and participation-as-theodicy.Conclusion: The legitimation strategies reveal that participation is not a neutral framework. The methodology’s institutional privilege has the potential to iterate hierarchy and the reproduction of marginalization.\n Even in explicit invocations of diversity, race, and community, participation risks the entrenchment of otherization. These problematic qualities challenge organizational and institutional efforts to achieve a transformative agenda for diversity and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc628586","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider: (1) how participatory rhetorics and methodologies can often invoke classed and racialized hierarchies and (2) the rhetorical strategies by which participatory processes in development contexts become co-opted for institutional means rather than for transformative outcomes.Method: Blending critical discourse analysis and rhetorical criticism, I read two influential federal U.S. housing reports associated with the HOPE VI housing program to derive legitimation strategies seemingly at work in divesting local residents of significant participatory input.Results: As suggested by analysis of the two reports, HOPE VI’s participatory rhetorics consisted of four key legitimation strategies that constrained participation as: participation-as-cultural narrative, participation-as-bio/necropolitics, participation-asdiversity, and participation-as-theodicy.Conclusion: The legitimation strategies reveal that participation is not a neutral framework. The methodology’s institutional privilege has the potential to iterate hierarchy and the reproduction of marginalization. Even in explicit invocations of diversity, race, and community, participation risks the entrenchment of otherization. These problematic qualities challenge organizational and institutional efforts to achieve a transformative agenda for diversity and inclusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国住房中的参与、多样性与合法性:两份 HOPE VI 报告的修辞分析
目的:这篇文章的目的是思考以下问题:(1)参与性修辞和方法如何经常援引阶级和种族等级制度;(2)在发展背景下,参与性进程被制度手段而非变革结果所利用的修辞策略:结合批判性话语分析和修辞批评,我阅读了与 HOPE VI 住房计划相关的两份有影响力的美国联邦住房报告,以推导出在剥夺当地居民的重要参与性投入方面似乎正在发挥作用的合法化策略:通过对这两份报告的分析,HOPE VI 的参与性修辞包括四种关键的合法化策略,这些策略限制了参与:作为文化叙事的参与、作为生物/生态政治的参与、作为多样性的参与以及作为政策的参与:合法化策略揭示了参与不是一个中立的框架。该方法论的制度特权有可能使等级制度和边缘化再现。即使在明确提及多样性、种族和社区时,参与也有可能使他者化根深蒂固。这些有问题的特质对组织和机构为实现多样性和包容性的变革议程所做的努力提出了挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Technical Communication
Technical Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Heuristics for Equitable Technical Communication in Remote & Hybrid Game Development How-To in Short-Form: A Framework for Analyzing Short-Format Instructional Content on TikTok Determining Levels of Prescriptivism in American English Usage Guides From Interpersonal Privacy to HumanTechnological Privacy: Communication Privacy Management Theory Revisited The Technical Communicator as Artist: Rhetoric, Aesthetics, and Form in the Workplace
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1