寻找优秀的人,说得好:沟通的残疾问题

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION Rhetoric & Public Affairs Pub Date : 2021-08-24 DOI:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0291
V. Beasley
{"title":"寻找优秀的人,说得好:沟通的残疾问题","authors":"V. Beasley","doi":"10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Public address scholars trained in U.S. communication departments have tended not to study rhetoric created by people with disabilities as much as they do other social movements. Here I attribute this relative lack to two ableist assumptions associated with communication's emphasis on winning arguments: the presumed disqualification of people with disabilities from public argument itself and the normalization of this disqualification based on biases related to rhetorical performance and capability. Overall, I argue this disqualification is the product of how communication scholars have understood and reconstructed the role of the ideal arguer in public affairs and call for more expansive views.","PeriodicalId":45013,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric & Public Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Search of Good Humans, Speaking Well: Communication's Ableism Problem\",\"authors\":\"V. Beasley\",\"doi\":\"10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Public address scholars trained in U.S. communication departments have tended not to study rhetoric created by people with disabilities as much as they do other social movements. Here I attribute this relative lack to two ableist assumptions associated with communication's emphasis on winning arguments: the presumed disqualification of people with disabilities from public argument itself and the normalization of this disqualification based on biases related to rhetorical performance and capability. Overall, I argue this disqualification is the product of how communication scholars have understood and reconstructed the role of the ideal arguer in public affairs and call for more expansive views.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhetoric & Public Affairs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhetoric & Public Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0291\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetoric & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:美国传播系公共演讲学者对残疾人修辞的研究不如对其他社会运动的研究多。在这里,我将这种相对缺乏归因于两种与沟通强调赢得辩论有关的能力主义假设:假定残疾人不具备公开辩论本身的资格,以及基于与修辞表现和能力有关的偏见的这种不合格的常态化。总的来说,我认为这种不合格是传播学学者如何理解和重建公共事务中理想辩论家的角色并呼吁更广泛的观点的产物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
In Search of Good Humans, Speaking Well: Communication's Ableism Problem
Abstract:Public address scholars trained in U.S. communication departments have tended not to study rhetoric created by people with disabilities as much as they do other social movements. Here I attribute this relative lack to two ableist assumptions associated with communication's emphasis on winning arguments: the presumed disqualification of people with disabilities from public argument itself and the normalization of this disqualification based on biases related to rhetorical performance and capability. Overall, I argue this disqualification is the product of how communication scholars have understood and reconstructed the role of the ideal arguer in public affairs and call for more expansive views.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Rhetoric & Public Affairs
Rhetoric & Public Affairs COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Satire as the Comic Public Sphere: Postmodern "Truthiness" and Civic Engagement by James E. Caron (review) Designing "The People": Constitutive Fractures in Contemporary Collectives Replacing Notorious: Barret, Ginsburg, and Postfeminist Positioning Informing a Nation: The Newspaper Presidency of Thomas Jefferson by Mel Laracey (review) Market Affect and the Rhetoric of Political Economic Debates by Catherine Chaput (review)
×
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