Abstract This essay uncovers rhetorical processes devoted to rehumanizing the enemy as an antidote to the virulent rhetoric of war. With an eye toward disrupting a problematic process of national identity construction based on otheringand dehumanization, this essay examines Jarhead as a case study that challenges current ideologies of soldiers and their enemies. Using Kenneth Burkes concept of consubstantiality and Linda Hutcheons discussion of reflective oscillation, essay examines Jarhead as a case of rhetoric working to rehumanize enemies, thus providing an example of how film can work against war culture.

Book Review| September 01 2010 Moving Bodies: Kenneth Burke at the Edges of Language Moving Bodies: Kenneth Burke at the Edges of Language. Debra Hawhee. Nathaniel Aaron Rivers Nathaniel Aaron Rivers Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2010) 13 (3): 519–522. https://doi.org/10.2307/41936468 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Nathaniel Aaron Rivers; Moving Bodies: Kenneth Burke at the Edges of Language. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 September 2010; 13 (3): 519–522. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41936468 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. © 2010 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract U.S. government agencies are collaborating with outside scholars to untangle disparate threads of knotty technoscientific issues, in part by integrating structured debating exercises into institutional decision-making processes such as intelligence assessment and public policy planning. These initiatives drive up demand for rhetoricians with skill and experience in what Protagoras called dissoi logoi—the practice of airing multiple sides of vexing questions for the purpose of stimulating critical thinking. In the contemporary milieu, dissoi logoi receives concrete expression in the tradition of intercollegiate switch-side debating, a form of structured argumentation categorized by some as a cultural technology with weighty ideological baggage. What exactly is that baggage, and how does it implicate plans to improve institutional decision making by drawing from rhetorical theory and expertise? Exploration of how switch-side debating meets demand-driven rhetoric of science not only sheds light on this question, but also contributes to the burgeoning scholarly literature on deliberative democracy, inform argumentation studies, and suggest new avenues of inquiry in rhetorical theory and practice.