Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2191216
Steph Ceraso, Pamela VanHaitsma
ABSTRACT This essay initiates a critical conversation about (in)fertility in academia. We argue that four patterns of discourse exacerbate the challenges for women and trans* academics struggling to conceive while navigating so-called “biological clocks” and “tenure clocks” simultaneously: conflicting rhetorics regarding egg quantity and quality in relation to the typical age one starts a tenure-track job; sexist and transphobic rhetorics of fear-mongering in medical and academic settings; rhetorics of silence surrounding the impact of miscarriage, which often accompanies infertility; and cisheterosexist institutional discrimination in the face of exorbitant treatment costs. We use feminist “strategic contemplation” to reflect critically on these patterns of discourse in relation to our lived experiences of (in)fertility. In doing so, we validate those struggling, educate those who are not, and seek a more just reproductive landscape for academic women and trans* people whose clocks are ticking.
{"title":"Ticking Clocks: Rhetorics of Tenure and (In)Fertility","authors":"Steph Ceraso, Pamela VanHaitsma","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2191216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2191216","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay initiates a critical conversation about (in)fertility in academia. We argue that four patterns of discourse exacerbate the challenges for women and trans* academics struggling to conceive while navigating so-called “biological clocks” and “tenure clocks” simultaneously: conflicting rhetorics regarding egg quantity and quality in relation to the typical age one starts a tenure-track job; sexist and transphobic rhetorics of fear-mongering in medical and academic settings; rhetorics of silence surrounding the impact of miscarriage, which often accompanies infertility; and cisheterosexist institutional discrimination in the face of exorbitant treatment costs. We use feminist “strategic contemplation” to reflect critically on these patterns of discourse in relation to our lived experiences of (in)fertility. In doing so, we validate those struggling, educate those who are not, and seek a more just reproductive landscape for academic women and trans* people whose clocks are ticking.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46782213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-27DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2204783
E. Hartelius
The first years of the 2020s have provided reasonable doubt as to what “common” means. What is common place when accessible locations become scenes of oppressive violence, and physical and digital sites are privatized and surveilled? What is common sense when the dread and fear of so many are eclipsed by the postpandemic rhetoric of “resilience” and commercialism’s bubblegum optimism? What is common good when legal and civil rights are stripped, and the institutions originally established to serve the public are dismantled? In Richard Rorty’s assessment of the public (and privately self-created) potential for solidarity, common sense is the opposite of irony (74), and the ironist “someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance” (xv). The “final vocabulary” against which “alternative” beliefs, actions, and lives are judged habituates its speakers to what may be taken for granted (although speaker is not Rorty’s word). He writes, “When common sense is challenged, its adherents respond at first by generalizing and making explicit the rules of the language game they are accustomed to play” (74). The issue at hand (in this [special] issue at hand) concerns language games, habituation, the common, and the commons. Assessing the ethical viability of “political interlocution,” Jacques Rancière writes, “The problem is knowing whether the subjects who count in the interlocution ‘are’ or ‘are not,’ whether they are speaking or just making a noise. It is knowing whether there is a case for seeing the object they designate as the visible object of the conflict. It is knowing whether the common language in which they are exposing a wrong is indeed a common language” (50). For Rancière, a prior “logos that orders and bestows the right to order” (16) constitutes subjects as such in relation to other subjects. And this inaugurates legitimate and disruptive dispute, distinguishable from the “sundry varieties of bad regimes” (63–64) of which examples globally abound. Interlocution, including dispute, presumes the constitution of commonality, which means that it is a political matter. Rancière’s understanding of speech as political order raises questions of particularity and commonality, or the possibility of the commons, common ground, commonsense, and so on. With reference to the problem he identifies, the questions may be opened, angled, and thusly expressed: If subjects “are not,” as in the problem statement above, what exactly are they, and to whom are they that? If not one common language, then how many common languages are there, and where are they spoken? To whom are they audible and intelligible? What if the commoners’ bodies and living artifacts are themselves the objects of conflict? And, what are the rhetorics of noise? Mainstream academic accounts of what “the commons” are often begin Anglocentrically with the story of seventeen
{"title":"Rhetoric and/of the Common(s)","authors":"E. Hartelius","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2204783","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2204783","url":null,"abstract":"The first years of the 2020s have provided reasonable doubt as to what “common” means. What is common place when accessible locations become scenes of oppressive violence, and physical and digital sites are privatized and surveilled? What is common sense when the dread and fear of so many are eclipsed by the postpandemic rhetoric of “resilience” and commercialism’s bubblegum optimism? What is common good when legal and civil rights are stripped, and the institutions originally established to serve the public are dismantled? In Richard Rorty’s assessment of the public (and privately self-created) potential for solidarity, common sense is the opposite of irony (74), and the ironist “someone sufficiently historicist and nominalist to have abandoned the idea that those central beliefs and desires refer back to something beyond the reach of time and chance” (xv). The “final vocabulary” against which “alternative” beliefs, actions, and lives are judged habituates its speakers to what may be taken for granted (although speaker is not Rorty’s word). He writes, “When common sense is challenged, its adherents respond at first by generalizing and making explicit the rules of the language game they are accustomed to play” (74). The issue at hand (in this [special] issue at hand) concerns language games, habituation, the common, and the commons. Assessing the ethical viability of “political interlocution,” Jacques Rancière writes, “The problem is knowing whether the subjects who count in the interlocution ‘are’ or ‘are not,’ whether they are speaking or just making a noise. It is knowing whether there is a case for seeing the object they designate as the visible object of the conflict. It is knowing whether the common language in which they are exposing a wrong is indeed a common language” (50). For Rancière, a prior “logos that orders and bestows the right to order” (16) constitutes subjects as such in relation to other subjects. And this inaugurates legitimate and disruptive dispute, distinguishable from the “sundry varieties of bad regimes” (63–64) of which examples globally abound. Interlocution, including dispute, presumes the constitution of commonality, which means that it is a political matter. Rancière’s understanding of speech as political order raises questions of particularity and commonality, or the possibility of the commons, common ground, commonsense, and so on. With reference to the problem he identifies, the questions may be opened, angled, and thusly expressed: If subjects “are not,” as in the problem statement above, what exactly are they, and to whom are they that? If not one common language, then how many common languages are there, and where are they spoken? To whom are they audible and intelligible? What if the commoners’ bodies and living artifacts are themselves the objects of conflict? And, what are the rhetorics of noise? Mainstream academic accounts of what “the commons” are often begin Anglocentrically with the story of seventeen","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"293 - 300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45366812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-27DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2200703
D. Keeling, Ariel E. Seay-Howard, B. O'Shea
ABSTRACT This research demonstrates how public memorializing can enable practices of the undercommons. Using the Equal Justice Initiative’s Soil Collection Community Remembrance Project as our case study, we demonstrate how coalition-building shapes memory in the creation, rather than viewing, of memorial artifacts. We argue that the Soil Collection CRP enables two practices of the undercommons, Black study and unsettling grounds, and we contribute to conversations in rhetoric, ecology, and memory by offering a geologic approach that emphasizes the erosive quality of time.
{"title":"Memorializing with and for the Undercommons: Black Study and Unsettling Grounds","authors":"D. Keeling, Ariel E. Seay-Howard, B. O'Shea","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2200703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2200703","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This research demonstrates how public memorializing can enable practices of the undercommons. Using the Equal Justice Initiative’s Soil Collection Community Remembrance Project as our case study, we demonstrate how coalition-building shapes memory in the creation, rather than viewing, of memorial artifacts. We argue that the Soil Collection CRP enables two practices of the undercommons, Black study and unsettling grounds, and we contribute to conversations in rhetoric, ecology, and memory by offering a geologic approach that emphasizes the erosive quality of time.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"341 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46938346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-27DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2200706
Allison L. Rowland
ABSTRACT Exhortations to tend to the flourishing of one’s gut microbes have increased in past years and can be recited by rote: consume pre- and probiotics, diverse plants, and fermented foods; avoid unnecessary medicinal antibiotics and antimicrobial products. Recognizing that all frontiers of enclosure require corollary rhetorical enclosures, this essay locates the human microbiome as an imminent frontier of simultaneous capitalist and rhetorical enclosure. Human microbiome rhetoric encodes microbial life as a contained asset and narrowly frames human-microbe relations as the concern of responsible neoliberal consumers. Individual health as the ambit of concern should give way to the understanding of human-microbial relations as a shared multispecies concern—a visceral commons. Foregrounding the rhetorical dimensions of the practices that manage a crucial relational resource, a visceral commons coheres by means of intense feeling regarding the ways in which an always already distributed yet crucial resource irrevocably entangles us. This essay borrows concepts from commoners to close with four gestures resistant to the rhetorical enclosure of the human microbiome.
{"title":"The Human Microbiome as Visceral Commons: Resisting Rhetorical Enclosure","authors":"Allison L. Rowland","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2200706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2200706","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Exhortations to tend to the flourishing of one’s gut microbes have increased in past years and can be recited by rote: consume pre- and probiotics, diverse plants, and fermented foods; avoid unnecessary medicinal antibiotics and antimicrobial products. Recognizing that all frontiers of enclosure require corollary rhetorical enclosures, this essay locates the human microbiome as an imminent frontier of simultaneous capitalist and rhetorical enclosure. Human microbiome rhetoric encodes microbial life as a contained asset and narrowly frames human-microbe relations as the concern of responsible neoliberal consumers. Individual health as the ambit of concern should give way to the understanding of human-microbial relations as a shared multispecies concern—a visceral commons. Foregrounding the rhetorical dimensions of the practices that manage a crucial relational resource, a visceral commons coheres by means of intense feeling regarding the ways in which an always already distributed yet crucial resource irrevocably entangles us. This essay borrows concepts from commoners to close with four gestures resistant to the rhetorical enclosure of the human microbiome.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"379 - 391"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42080205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-27DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2200704
C. Steele, A. Hardy
ABSTRACT The unique experience of Black Americans in the United States produces a physical and cultural space with a long history of misuse, commodification, and theft of the Black imagination and Black culture. These spaces, which also historically complicate notions of privatization and ownership, are replicated online today. In this essay, we propose the corner as a lens through which to interrogate whether Black networks online potentially produce a rhetorical digital commons and, further, whether the theory and practice of “the commons” adequately make space for the particular historical reality of Black America. To do so, we focus on three social media platforms wherein Black digital praxis meets the possibility of the corner: TikTok, Twitter, and Black Planet. These digital corners provide lessons that center the Black experience on- and offline, and point toward possibilities and limitations in our digital future. Ultimately we argue that the corner contradicts hegemonic modes of white supremacy in public spaces while also spotlighting the brutal realities of gentrification, commodification, and theft that fortify the exploitation of Black communities.
{"title":"“I Wish I Could Give You This Feeling”: Black Digital Commons and the Rhetoric of “The Corner”","authors":"C. Steele, A. Hardy","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2200704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2200704","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The unique experience of Black Americans in the United States produces a physical and cultural space with a long history of misuse, commodification, and theft of the Black imagination and Black culture. These spaces, which also historically complicate notions of privatization and ownership, are replicated online today. In this essay, we propose the corner as a lens through which to interrogate whether Black networks online potentially produce a rhetorical digital commons and, further, whether the theory and practice of “the commons” adequately make space for the particular historical reality of Black America. To do so, we focus on three social media platforms wherein Black digital praxis meets the possibility of the corner: TikTok, Twitter, and Black Planet. These digital corners provide lessons that center the Black experience on- and offline, and point toward possibilities and limitations in our digital future. Ultimately we argue that the corner contradicts hegemonic modes of white supremacy in public spaces while also spotlighting the brutal realities of gentrification, commodification, and theft that fortify the exploitation of Black communities.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"316 - 327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48628503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-27DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2200708
Stacey K. Sowards
ABSTRACT This essay examines how the concepts of enclaves, satellites (Squires), and undercommons (Harney and Moten) intersect in ways that create space for fugitivity, anticolonial thinking, and futurity. Enclaves and satellites can function as a place of hiding to protect radical gestures, ideas, and activism, whereas the undercommons work as spaces to upend institutions, organizations, and cultures. Using the “brown” commons (José Esteban Muñoz) as examples, I argue that, in conversation, the brown commons and undercommons work rhetorically through fugitivity and futurity (as inspiration, connection, and hopefulness) to create spaces of refuge, rupture, and precariousness. In this study, various art forms from Colombian and Chilean artists illustrate how refuge, rupture, and precariousness rhetorically function in public spaces as well as enclaves or satellites; provide the kind of in-between cracks of nourishment, growth, and feeling/being alive geared toward futurity; but can also reinforce anti-Blackness through erasure. In the end, I argue that the undercommons as a theoretical framework informing the brown commons might resist some of this anti-Blackness that resides within latinidad across the Américas.
{"title":"The (Under)Commons across the Américas: Connecting Spaces for Fugitivity and Futurity","authors":"Stacey K. Sowards","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2200708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2200708","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay examines how the concepts of enclaves, satellites (Squires), and undercommons (Harney and Moten) intersect in ways that create space for fugitivity, anticolonial thinking, and futurity. Enclaves and satellites can function as a place of hiding to protect radical gestures, ideas, and activism, whereas the undercommons work as spaces to upend institutions, organizations, and cultures. Using the “brown” commons (José Esteban Muñoz) as examples, I argue that, in conversation, the brown commons and undercommons work rhetorically through fugitivity and futurity (as inspiration, connection, and hopefulness) to create spaces of refuge, rupture, and precariousness. In this study, various art forms from Colombian and Chilean artists illustrate how refuge, rupture, and precariousness rhetorically function in public spaces as well as enclaves or satellites; provide the kind of in-between cracks of nourishment, growth, and feeling/being alive geared toward futurity; but can also reinforce anti-Blackness through erasure. In the end, I argue that the undercommons as a theoretical framework informing the brown commons might resist some of this anti-Blackness that resides within latinidad across the Américas.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"301 - 315"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43649907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-26DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2175024
J. Daniel
ABSTRACT Recently, a private space race has emerged, helmed by some of the world’s wealthiest figures. These space entrepreneurs, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk most prominently, have framed the new space race as preparation for the permanent emancipation of humans from Earth. Brad Tabas terms this project the “post-planetary.” In this essay, I analyze postplanetary rhetoric through Todd McGowan’s theorization of fantasy, arguing that the discourse gains assent through operationalizing fantasies of abundance and relegating Earth to a lost cause. In charting the structure of this discourse, I seek to promote further disciplinary attention to fantasy for its capacity to illuminate how contemporary discourses of entrepreneurship and innovation perpetuate capitalism’s hegemony by cultivating consumers’ desires for plenty. I also seek to showcase how a rhetorical approach to fantasy both attends to capitalism’s abortive repression of its contradictions and reveals how the repressed Real of capitalist violence haunts the entrepreneurial scene.
{"title":"“It’s Like a Fairytale, Really”: Capitalist Fantasy, Postplanetary Rhetoric, and the New Space Race","authors":"J. Daniel","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2175024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2175024","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recently, a private space race has emerged, helmed by some of the world’s wealthiest figures. These space entrepreneurs, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk most prominently, have framed the new space race as preparation for the permanent emancipation of humans from Earth. Brad Tabas terms this project the “post-planetary.” In this essay, I analyze postplanetary rhetoric through Todd McGowan’s theorization of fantasy, arguing that the discourse gains assent through operationalizing fantasies of abundance and relegating Earth to a lost cause. In charting the structure of this discourse, I seek to promote further disciplinary attention to fantasy for its capacity to illuminate how contemporary discourses of entrepreneurship and innovation perpetuate capitalism’s hegemony by cultivating consumers’ desires for plenty. I also seek to showcase how a rhetorical approach to fantasy both attends to capitalism’s abortive repression of its contradictions and reveals how the repressed Real of capitalist violence haunts the entrepreneurial scene.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"522 - 537"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42443517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-24DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2175025
J. Izaguirre
ABSTRACT This essay traces the Chicana feminist rhetoric of prominent activist Enriqueta Longeaux y Vasquez in the late 1960s. I argue that Longeaux y Vasquez’s Chicana movida(s), the enactment of feminist sensibilities amid gendered repression, erupted the exclusive boundaries of Chican@ nationalism birthed during the 1969 Denver Youth Liberation Conference. Her rhetoric generated an expansive inclusivity that resonated, although it did not necessarily align, with Chicana movidas emerging in the 1970s and 1980s. An analysis of the aesthetics of her feminist rhetoric in the Chican@ movement newspaper El Grito del Norte highlights at once the rhetorical inventiveness of a Chicana activist grappling with the inclusion of Mexican American women in Chican@ movement(s) and variations in Chicana movidas constituting Chicana rhetorical history. In Longeaux y Vasquez’s feminist rhetoric, we witness a Chicana movida that invented inclusion from the premises of exclusion marking Chican@ nationalism.
摘要本文追溯了20世纪60年代末著名活动家Enriqueta Longeaux y Vasquez在智利的女权主义言论。我认为，Longeaux y Vasquez的Chicana movida（s），在性别压迫中展现了女权主义情感，爆发了1969年丹佛青年解放会议期间诞生的Chican@民族主义的专属边界。她的言论产生了广泛的包容性，与20世纪70年代和80年代出现的Chicana电影产生了共鸣，尽管这并不一定一致。Chican@运动报纸El Grito del Norte对她的女权主义修辞美学进行了分析，同时强调了一位Chicana活动家的修辞创造性，她努力将墨西哥裔美国女性纳入Chican@的运动，以及构成Chicana修辞史的Chicana电影的变体。在Longeaux y Vasquez的女权主义修辞中，我们看到了一部Chicana movida，它在排斥的前提下创造了包容，标志着Chican@民族主义。
{"title":"Movidas after Nationalism: Enriqueta Longeaux y Vasquez and Chicana Aesthetics","authors":"J. Izaguirre","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2175025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2175025","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay traces the Chicana feminist rhetoric of prominent activist Enriqueta Longeaux y Vasquez in the late 1960s. I argue that Longeaux y Vasquez’s Chicana movida(s), the enactment of feminist sensibilities amid gendered repression, erupted the exclusive boundaries of Chican@ nationalism birthed during the 1969 Denver Youth Liberation Conference. Her rhetoric generated an expansive inclusivity that resonated, although it did not necessarily align, with Chicana movidas emerging in the 1970s and 1980s. An analysis of the aesthetics of her feminist rhetoric in the Chican@ movement newspaper El Grito del Norte highlights at once the rhetorical inventiveness of a Chicana activist grappling with the inclusion of Mexican American women in Chican@ movement(s) and variations in Chicana movidas constituting Chicana rhetorical history. In Longeaux y Vasquez’s feminist rhetoric, we witness a Chicana movida that invented inclusion from the premises of exclusion marking Chican@ nationalism.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"538 - 552"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48017048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-24DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2200700
Ekaterina V. Haskins
ABSTRACT Using the example of Memorial, Russia’s oldest nongovernmental organization, this essay develops the concept of “precarious commons” to describe the continuous and uncertain process of creating an open-access digital resource and maintaining a community around it. In 2022, Memorial became one of the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize for its decades-long efforts to open official archives, to collect and solicit testimony from survivors and families of victims of Soviet terror, and to promote democratic values and human rights in public life. These activities illustrate precarious cultural commoning: ever threatened by bureaucratic enclosure, political and cultural amnesia, and outright persecution. The organization’s extragovernmental, mostly volunteer-driven work has established an open digital archive of state repressions as well as a vital space for educating a new generation of memory activists and imagining a different collective future.
{"title":"Precarious Commons: Archiving Soviet Terror in Contemporary Russia","authors":"Ekaterina V. Haskins","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2200700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2200700","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Using the example of Memorial, Russia’s oldest nongovernmental organization, this essay develops the concept of “precarious commons” to describe the continuous and uncertain process of creating an open-access digital resource and maintaining a community around it. In 2022, Memorial became one of the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize for its decades-long efforts to open official archives, to collect and solicit testimony from survivors and families of victims of Soviet terror, and to promote democratic values and human rights in public life. These activities illustrate precarious cultural commoning: ever threatened by bureaucratic enclosure, political and cultural amnesia, and outright persecution. The organization’s extragovernmental, mostly volunteer-driven work has established an open digital archive of state repressions as well as a vital space for educating a new generation of memory activists and imagining a different collective future.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"328 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41689437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-24DOI: 10.1080/02773945.2023.2200697
Matthew W. Bost, Joshua S. Hanan
ABSTRACT This essay places rhetorical theories of publicity and the common in conversation around the concept of intimacy. Defined as a felt sense of proximity or closeness, intimacy is a form of affective relation that underlies both private and public worldmaking practices, and that produces investments in certain forms of life and community. Considering the relationship between publicity and the common in terms of intimacy makes clear that dominant forms of contemporary publicity are predicated on racialized and gendered enclosures of intimacy that have dispossessed noncapitalist relationships to land and community and instead fostered intimacies conducive to capital accumulation. Our argument suggests that critical scholars who are concerned with contemporary capitalism’s subjection of life to the market have a common interest in attending to the ways these histories of enclosure shape the horizons of modern publicity. Our argument also suggests further attention be directed to forms of counterintimacy aimed at producing anticapitalist coalition.
{"title":"Intimacies of the Common: Enclosure, Solidarity, and the Possibilities of Critical Publicity under Capitalism","authors":"Matthew W. Bost, Joshua S. Hanan","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2200697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2200697","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay places rhetorical theories of publicity and the common in conversation around the concept of intimacy. Defined as a felt sense of proximity or closeness, intimacy is a form of affective relation that underlies both private and public worldmaking practices, and that produces investments in certain forms of life and community. Considering the relationship between publicity and the common in terms of intimacy makes clear that dominant forms of contemporary publicity are predicated on racialized and gendered enclosures of intimacy that have dispossessed noncapitalist relationships to land and community and instead fostered intimacies conducive to capital accumulation. Our argument suggests that critical scholars who are concerned with contemporary capitalism’s subjection of life to the market have a common interest in attending to the ways these histories of enclosure shape the horizons of modern publicity. Our argument also suggests further attention be directed to forms of counterintimacy aimed at producing anticapitalist coalition.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":"53 1","pages":"392 - 404"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46314385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：