Abstract In The Politics of Life Itself, Nikolas Rose argues that contemporary genetic medicine has given rise to the "genetically at-risk subject," which is distinguished from other forms of genetic selfhood by the shift from a paradigm of genetic determinism to one of genetic opportunity. This article analyzes the discourse of the genetically at-risk subject in one particular biosocial community (the "previvors" of FORCE) to demonstrate that despite—and in many cases because of—the shift to a paradigm of genetic opportunity, discourses of genetic determinism have not disappeared but instead have mutated in response to new exigences for new audiences. Based on both this analysis and other rhetorical readings of genetic discourse, this article argues that to distinguish among the many types of subjectivity at work within the contemporary era of genetic medicine, we have to understand not only how scientific and biopolitical changes have made those subjectivities possible, but also how the ethical practices associated with specific diseases work rhetorically in communities of those at genetic risk.

Research Article| June 01 2011 On Delimiting Rhetorical Invention in Biopoutics: A Rejoinder to Lynch Zoltan P. Majdik Zoltan P. Majdik Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2011) 14 (2): 379–389. https://doi.org/10.2307/41940544 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Zoltan P. Majdik; On Delimiting Rhetorical Invention in Biopoutics: A Rejoinder to Lynch. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 June 2011; 14 (2): 379–389. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41940544 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2011 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract Progressive reformers frequently spoke a moral language, bringing abstract moral laws to bear on the social, economic, and political turmoil of the early twentieth century. However, this form of moral discourse often proved ineffective for grasping the complexities of the time. In this essay I turn to Louis Brandeiss progressive advocacy to uncover an alternative form of moral speech, one that was better attuned to the changing nature of society. As I argue, Brandeis articulated what one might call "transactional morality," crafting a rhetoric that hinged upon the interconnection of morality, economics, and democratic citizenship. By infusing his moral speech with economic terminology and an abiding concern for civic participation, Brandeis directed the nations attention to the moral costs and benefits of an emerging industrial democracy. The result was a form of moral engagement that not only avoided the problems other progressives encountered but also reconfigured morality in response to radical social change.