In 2013, a fellow classmate, my professor, and I visited the National Mall. Taking a brief respite from the National Communication Association's annual conference, we traveled extensively through its miles of sidewalks and paths to enjoy the sights and learn more about national history. We walked up the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gazed at the Washington Monument at the other side of the Reflecting Pool. We noticed the grandeur of the World War II Memorial and, in contrast, the obligatory somberness of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The National Mall's narrative compels its visitors, like us, to privilege these particular commemorations over others. However, as is usually the case, the most popular, aggrandized, or extravagant snippets of memory found in these locations did not tell us the whole story.Most narratives conjured by the National Mall and its sites of memory conform to a unitary retelling of the nation's storied past. As Roger C. Aden explains in Rhetorics Haunting the National Mall, despite its relatively young age—having “only taken shape in the last 100 years or so”—the Mall's “classical architecture and historical subject matter” insinuates “a timeless landscape” with a stable central narrative about who, and what, the nation is (3–4). Monuments, like those on the Mall, highlight core national values by memorializing the revolutionary legacies of presidents championing liberal democracy, egalitarianism, and valor, as well as the sacrifice of untold numbers of servicemembers who fought to uphold those ideals. As Aden also notes, through its focus on the enum (the “stories of a collective people” that are brought together “to unify a nation”), the National Mall is designed to be read in a particular way (7). The Mall's importance as a seemingly immutable repository of national memory cannot be understated: its commemorative beauty attracts millions of visitors each year.Nevertheless, there exist other, ephemeral narratives haunting the National Mall not noticeable in the course of a casual walk. This text's important contribution comes from uncovering hidden memories present in the National Mall to explain how they reshape a reading of its narrative. Aden describes these pervasive, hidden memories that function within the Mall as “individual experiences of those affected” by events within or around the Mall (or “the pluribus”). Individual memories, Aden continues, “work to make tangible that which is seemingly absent yet still present” (7). When considering when and how individuals create memory, the Mall loses some of its narrative stability; it becomes less a site of unification and more one of “protestation and consternation” (35). Aden uncovers those hidden, ephemeral memories that produce discontinuous, disorderly, or disconcerting stories about the nation's past in order to explain how they reshape a reading of the National Mall's narrative. Thus, Aden's edited volume focuses on memories that “haunt” the National Mall (7).The book is divided into four sections. The first section, by Aden, sets the stage for investigating the various “hauntings” present on the National Mall. The second describes an “affective” and persistent memory inhabiting “in individuals, discourses, or movements” (8). Containing chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, this section explores the Mall's use as a site of countering dominant commemorations. In chapter 2, Aaron Hess, Carlos Flores, and A. Charee Carlson undertake a “rhetorical séance, a gathering of memories present as they call upon memories past” (17). In so doing, they examine their corresponding experiences with the Mall during three important movements: the AIDS Quilt in 1996, the Rally to Restore Sanity in 2010, and the Women's March in 2017. Chapter 3, by Sean Luechtefeld, investigates the Mall as a site of remonstration in 1894 and argues that memories associated with protest were not merely forgotten but “obliterate[d]” (36). Kenneth Foote and Aden then enlighten the reader about the Bonus Expeditionary Force's use of the Mall in 1932 as a site for protest in chapter 4. However, visitors will find “no evidence of these sites of violence and tragedy” because they too have been “largely obliterated” from the Mall's commemorative topography (54). In chapter 5, Ethan Bottone, Derek Alderman, and Joshua Inwood observe how another group, Resurrection City, used the Mall as a protest encampment. They argue that Resurrection City became “a site of radical place-making,” which demonstrates how “memory politics” privilege certain narratives over others (72).The third section considers displacement, or how the “ghosts of memory haunt us through faint traces of their presence deflected away from the prominent places of public memory installed throughout the Mall” (8). Containing chapters 6–11, this section explains how memories that do not fit within the central narrative of the Mall still affect any reading of it. In chapter 6, Michael Vicaro explains how placement can (de)emphasize aspects of memory using a plaque on the Lincoln Memorial commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Elizabethada Wright, in chapter 7, describes how “slave-pens’ histories were framed to be forgotten” while also illustrating the inadequacy of these frames to actually accomplish this task. The slave-pens still “haunted the other memorial rhetorical places of the Mall and continue to do so despite recent efforts at remembering” (116). Chapter 8, by Teresa Bergman, considers how the Portrait Monument provoked a logic of dissensus “within the women's movement and within the Congress” (136). Marouf Hasian, Jr. and Stephanie Marek Muller show, in chapter 9, how the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum uses “master-narratives” to include some voices while precluding others (157). In chapter 10, Theodore Sheckels examines the numerous sites commemorating James Garfield to uncover narratives of “communal shame and guilt” that explain his peculiar popularity in the nation's capital (176). Carl T. Hyden, in chapter 11, argues that the National Gallery of Art “‘contains’ histories and ideas as well as collections of art” that show discontinuous narratives about the nation and its “less-than-ideal practices” (194). In chapter 12, as part of the final section, Aden succinctly provides a number of important implications for uncovering these discontinuous narratives.Overall, this edited volume makes a welcome and robust addition to memory studies literature. Much in the same way as Kirk Savage's Monument Wars and Dell Upton's What Can and Cannot be Said, the studies in this text richly describe the commemorative landscape created through monuments. In so doing, this text highlights histories that may be hidden to control the narrative of who or what the nation may be. Furthermore, when read in tandem with Aden's other edited volume, U.S. Public Memory, Rhetoric, and the National Mall, the reader will enjoy a comprehensive retelling of national memories from mainstream and moral to ephemeral and forgotten (or “obliterated”) perspectives. Due to its substantial contributions to the literature, I welcome this text.

AbstractThis essay investigates how Allied postwar planners sought to overcome a set of legal, political, and pragmatic problems in the punishment of Nazi perpetrators by turning to conspiracy law. In doing so, they sought to glean the rhetorical benefits of conspiracy discourse and argument but were largely thwarted due to the specialized burdens of proof required by law. Here, I suggest that while everyday uses of conspiracy discourse can overcome the problem of assigning individual guilt in the midst of dispersed and collective criminality due to its low burdens of proof, the heart of the Western legal tradition—the fault principle—stymies the effectiveness of conspiracy law as a charge. Despite its relative inefficacy, conspiracy law has had a significant legacy in shaping postwar understandings of World War II and in providing a precedent to hold perpetrators accountable in recent postconflict trials. The continued usage of conspiracy law, despite its shortcomings, points to the limits of legal solutions in the wake of mass atrocities and the need for creative mechanisms for dealing with perceptions of individual and collective guilt.

AbstractIn 2009, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico that Mexico and the state of Chihuahua were responsible for cultivating conditions of feminicidio and pervasive structural violence against women. Drawing on theories of justice, agency, and responsibility, this essay examines the court’s legal decision to understand the power of rhetoric in creating the conditions for justice in the face of state-complicit structural violence. The court crafted a series of definitional, commemorative, and deliberative stipulations that Mexico had to recognize and implement to do justice to past and future victims of feminicidio. The Inter-American Court does important definitional work toward naming gender violence as structural violence, yet the court limits possibilities for justice in two important ways. The court figures Mexico as responsible and uses that frame to suggest that the state is the primary agent responsible for ensuring justice. While this is a common equation of agency and responsibility in legal cases, in matter of state-complicit structural violence, such configurations end up foreclosing the possibility of justice and augmenting the powers of the state.

AbstractTo commemorate its declaration of a global khilafah in 2014, the Islamic State (IS) began publishing an online magazine, Dabiq, which became one of its primary recruiting tools during its rise to infamy. By using rhetoric that recalls U.S. presidential war rhetoric, specifically, tropes of “justice” and “time,” the English-language version of Dabiq fulfilled both subversive and hegemonic functions. It disrupted the reductive discourse that equates Islamic terrorists only with barbaric aggression and rendered IS as a rational global actor. Through this subversive move, IS aligned its anti-imperial interests with potential recruits in English-speaking Western countries with similar proclivities. At the same time, through its use of dominant Western war tropes, IS made a hegemonic attempt to facilitate recruits’ cultural identification so they assume a congruence of interests with IS, leading to an alignment of motives. Dabiq thus fulfilled an imperial trajectory through (neo)imperial rhetorics of identification and control. IS’s strategic use of (neo)imperial tropes in English—language of the empire—in Dabiq hence complicates monolithic (and Oriental) perceptions of the relationship between empire, imperialism, and Islamic terrorism in contemporary global political discourse. In addition, the significance of (neo) imperial tropes expands the heuristic scope of the rhetoric of terrorism by highlighting the implications of imperial ambitions and use of (neo)imperial rhetoric for the rise of global Islamic terrorism.

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.

AbstractIn 1925, Herbert Wichelns published The Literary Criticism of Oratory. By many accounts, the essay would become the founding document of the academic study of rhetoric and public address. However, in that same year, historian Carter G. Woodson published Negro Orators and Their Orations, which focused on the study of the African American oratorical tradition. In this essay, by way of speculative history and using my sanctified imagination, I wonder what an alternative or speculative history would look like if we can conceive Woodson as challenging the dominant (exclusively white) notions of public address and rhetorical praxis. By paying particular attention to Woodson’s introduction in Negro Orators and Their Orations, I submit that not only would we have been introduced to the richness and power of the African American public address tradition earlier but, more importantly, who we start to see as scholars and what we call scholarship would be different as well.I examine this by first, offering an examination of Woodson’s text, paying close attention to the introduction, where Woodson develops his theory of oratory. Second, I examine the African American rhetoric and public address scholarship between 1925 and 1960. Finally, I offer a speculative history of what could have been and what we can still do if we would include some of these voices and their scholarship in the public address canon.

AbstractTransnational rhetorical scholarship has yet to enact meaningful solidarity with the subaltern. “Inclusionary” efforts have actively excluded what I term the “radical subject,” the subject revolting against repressive hegemonic forces to achieve liberatory change in society. Without privileging the radical subject and a critique of freedom over a critique of domination, hegemonic narratives continue uninterrupted. This paper turns toward the Syrian revolution to illustrate how critical rhetoric does not stretch far enough for the radical subject. I propose a radical rhetorical paradigm that centers the radical subject’s lived knowledge as determining meaning. This approach realizes the wisdom in relinquishing skepticism during the critical reasoning process by placing the radical subject as the starting point in inquiry in contested spaces where negotiation over meaning is ongoing. It acknowledges the radical subject’s testimony as born of the epistemic relevance of social location and the boundedness of knowledge. The radical rhetorical approach consecrates the epistemologies of the radical subject as inculcating the imperative for action on behalf of the oppressed.

Abstract We discuss the role of critics in rhetorical studies. Working from different, yet often synchronous, perspectives, we try to thrash out the relationships of critics to texts, the responsibilities of critics in their current context, the ways that critics craft authority, and more.

AbstractAuthors define their approach to academic labor scholarship and activism. They note challenges to engaging with labor in scholarship and practice and call for normalizing discourse about class and labor in relation to the university. The authors suggest directions for future scholarship and activism in local institutions and professional associations.

AbstractWe argue that decolonization must be a future direction for the study of rhetoric and public address. Settler rhetoricians must not only recognize that the field is founded on settler colonialism but also commit to an ongoing process of unsettling the field and making both mundane and extraordinary tangible engagements with decolonization. What the field needs is to begin charting a path for all rhetoricians to participate with decolonization struggles, particularly settler scholars. Drawing from research from Indigenous scholars and Native American and Indigenous studies, we focus on tactics for settler scholars to engage with this important research trajectory. This essay teases out the distinctions between theories of postcoloniality, decoloniality, and decolonization; highlights the active role rhetoric plays in settler colonialism; and lays out tactics for settler rhetorical scholars to enact forms of accountability and responsibility in their research, at their universities, and in the field of rhetoric.

AbstractRhetorical studies as a discipline relies on a set of theories and a geography of case studies that circularly reinforce one another to authorize white-Euro-American traditions of knowledge beholden to colonial ways of knowing the world. Calls to “internationalize” the cases and topics of rhetorical studies are easily subsumed by the self-authorizing racist epistemology of the discipline, since additive models of “diverse” cases repurpose diversity to reinforce the authority of the discipline as it already exists. How should the globalization of rhetorical studies address the disciplinary logic of white, colonial, U.S. normativity? Studying non-U.S., non-Western rhetorical practice must be an anticolonial political intervention to fundamentally reimagine the discipline or it will risk reproducing a racist disciplinary structure.This essay maps three ways that scholars studying “international” cases have led a restructuring of the discipline by challenging the presumptions of universality that creep into scholarship. Anticolonial rhetorical scholars challenge processes of universalization as method, as rhetorical practice, and as ontology. When these processes of universalization become the object of study for rhetorical scholars, there is a possibility that rhetorical studies can develop the reflexivity to challenge its own circularly reinforcing, exclusionary disciplinary logic of white-U.S. normativity.

Abstract In this conversation series, we discuss some of the enduring and evolving interests that the subfield of visual rhetoric provokes for us. We begin with how we found visual rhetoric; questions of disciplinarity and methodology; issues of archive and field; concerns about the objects and scenes for visual rhetoric; and conclude with a focus on the future, core and evolving concepts, and pedagogy.

Abstract We have been asked to engage in a conversation about the current role of ideology—as critique, as rhetoric, as a framework within which academics operate. Our approach will not seek to write the history of rhetorical critique from an ideological perspective, nor work from extant literature as one might in a traditional research essay. Still, we reference ideas emanating from that literature; instead of the normal “source citation in text,” we will list references at the end. Our ideas do not exist in a vacuum—they are stimulated by our own reading/writing in the area of ideology critique— from the original “ideological turn” to the present day. Hence it seems appropriate to acknowledge where ideas, especially about missing elements or future trajectories in research, come from. This conversation touches on the Cold War afterlife of the public as an ideological force, whiteness’s role in gatekeeping the field, and how political liberalism and those interpellated by it constrain the field’s future(s).

Abstract We argue that part of Rhetoric & Public Affairs’ future should center public-facing scholarship in rhetorical studies. We begin by chronicling some of the work colleagues are doing to bridge expert and lay publics: podcasts, popular and trade press interviews, social media content development and management, and activist engagements. Centering public-facing scholarship creates several notable shifts: (1) it changes the “so what?” for traditional scholarship by inviting scholars to think about audiences outside of journal readership; (2) it opens space for different stylistic conventions in scholarly writing; and (3) it indicates that nonexpert audiences are valuable as readers. We note the considerable barriers to entry to public scholarship including gatekeeping, framing public scholarship for tenure, and training. We contend that Rhetoric & Public Affairs could lead other journals through an updated definition of impact that takes into account contemporary modes of circulation and sharing, should accept pieces written for nonexpert readers in rhetoric, and should consider, if possible, making available for public reading one scholarly article every month or every quarter.

AbstractUsing the murder of Magdiel Sanchez as a case study, we argue that rhetoric’s future must embrace practices of situated listening. While much of the field’s work has focused on speakers and practices of invention, we argue that a more just study of public deliberation must position this approach in conversation with an acknowledgment of situated reception. We follow scholars of color, feminist theorists, and disability advocates who have long argued for the practices of ethical listening, adding that the imperative to listen extends beyond the listening ear, accounting for the totality of the body and its environmental and contextual positions. By reaching beyond the demands of race to consider the intersecting axis of (dis)ability, we push the fields of rhetoric, sound studies, and critical/cultural communication studies to consider embodiment as a whole condition of rhetorical reception.

AbstractWhile many have critiqued the racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudiced nature of comedic rhetorics, few have considered how identity-based comedy, particularly racial comedy, functions productively, rather than merely oppressively. Studies of comedic rhetorics have primarily focused on Black and white comedians, but the increasing number and variety of popular comedians of color demands investigation into how comedians from different racial backgrounds use humor to rhetorically articulate the boundaries of their racial(ized) identities. This essay theorizes comedic rhetoric, particularly stereotypes in comedy, as a constitutive form of rhetoric that can articulate generative racial identities as they exist within the ambivalent spaces of in-group stereotypes. By pairing polysemy, Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of polyphony, and Tina Chen’s theory of impersonation to analyze the standup performances of Asian American comedian Ali Wong, this essay ultimately represents a necessary intervention into understanding racial comedy and stereotypes as potentially productive sites for examining racial identity.

Abstract The case of Southern regionalism shows both the problems with current treatments of regionalism—illustrative of the problem of colonialist perspectives more generally—and the path forward. That path forward involves rethinking whose ancestors count as members of a place, the issue of whose voices are centered, memory and trauma, and counterpublics. The authors advise (1) embracing the field’s interest in local identities and identity movements—therefore, interrogating rhetoric as symbol systems carried in intergenerational, relational identity; (2) pushing further against colonialism, as the world is more layered by global systems of trauma and memory; and (3) admitting that nation-building rhetoric is an imperfect paradigm compared to resistive counterpublic discourse.

Abstract This introduction provides a brief context for the rebooting of the journal, including a history of the journal and the controversy that led to its reimagining, and offers brief synopses of the individual essays included within.

AbstractDecolonial smuggling is a practice that falls at the intersections of fugitivity (Moten) and delinking (Mignolo, Wanzer-Serrano). It is geared toward disrupting rhetorical studies’ zero-point epistemology to open space to marshal alternative epistemologies—of Black being, Indigeneities, and their relational formations—against the canon to enable more radical, decolonial disciplinary futures. Building on the work of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) scholars, this essay details the forms of whiteness and knowledge production that reproduce epistemic violence, performs metaphoric (meta)criticism across various strands of race scholarship, and comments on white scholars’ role in these conversations. This essay seeks to add clarity to what decolonization looks like for rhetoricians with respect to the epistemologies and ontologies embedded within the metaphors that, for many, are matters of life and death.

Abstract What obligations do scholars of rhetoric and public address have to understand, address, and sustain the conditions of earthly coexistence? Only if the field of rhetoric embraces a genuinely ecological notion of rhetoric, the author argues, and only if we collectively commit to addressing the ecological dimensions of our various objects of study, can we truly give back to the earth in ways that honor all that it has given, and continues to give, to us. Toward that end, this essay outlines several dimensions of an “ecocentric rhetoric.“

Abstract Annie Hill and Carol A. Stabile discuss U.S. cultural and political shifts in relation to sexual violence and what that means for rhetoric, public affairs, and the academic landscape.

AbstractThe pandemic and economic catastrophes of 2020 and the forms of resistance that surged against racist systemic and physical violence indicate, we contend, that studying public address in the present moment requires attention to the mutual contingency of rhetoric and digitality. Relying on interdisciplinary literatures and a global perspective, we direct such attention along three vectors: platforms, commons, and methods. We indicate how theorizing rhetoric and digitality transforms critical and historical traditions. In expanding the purview of the public address tradition while retaining the tradition’s hermeneutic potential, we emphasize the need to challenge disciplinary terms and the desirability of expanded analytical methods. We submit that by not attending sufficiently to the advent and diffusion of digital media technologies, public address scholarship misses opportunities to shape ongoing conversations about how rhetoric mediates public affairs; and that insofar as struggles for racial justice are bound up with, not just mediated by, digitality, the prospects of diversifying rhetoric’s professoriate increase when research on this topic is central rather than peripheral.

AbstractAs a subfield of rhetorical studies, public address has been conservative and defensive from the start in its method, theory, politics, and even subject. Even as there has been an expansion of the subject (i.e., the “text” to be studied), the field has, on the whole, remained skeptical of new methods, all critical theories, and alternative political motives. Because of this, the subfield of public address has remained incredibly white and largely male. If the subfield is to continue to exist and, perhaps, thrive, it is time for a clear change in tack. Public address must open its gates widely to the critical methods and theories that can allow for more diverse knowledge production and reorient the field’s political goals. And in a reversal, public address should define itself solely around the study of speeches directed at publics.

Research Article| September 01 2020 The Complicity of Racial and Rhetorical Pessimism: The Coherence and Promise of the Long Civil Rights Movement David A. Frank David A. Frank David A. Frank is Professor of Rhetoric in the Robert D. Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon, Eugene. He thanks Professor John Hatch and Charley Leistner for their help in constructing this manuscript. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2020) 23 (3): 553–586. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0553 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation David A. Frank; The Complicity of Racial and Rhetorical Pessimism: The Coherence and Promise of the Long Civil Rights Movement. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 September 2020; 23 (3): 553–586. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0553 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. © 2020 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| September 01 2020 Racial Reconciliation Revisited John B. Hatch John B. Hatch John B. Hatch is Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2020) 23 (3): 527–528. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0527 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation John B. Hatch; Racial Reconciliation Revisited. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 September 2020; 23 (3): 527–528. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0527 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. © 2020 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

AbstractThe city of New Orleans has long narrated its own demise through reference to “the Big One,” a singular hurricane that would destroy the city for good. The “catastrophe to come” is a more or less permanent spectral presence for many of its residents, evidence of which can be traced as far back as the city’s founding in 1718. When it comes to memorialization of Katrina, the central question of this essay is: how does one analyze public memory of an event so thoroughly anticipated, indeed, whose historical anticipation is fundamental to the later memory of it? Rather than merely acting as the historical context within which public memory comes to be interpreted, this anticipation and the anxiety that marks its form figures directly into the reading of the later memory object itself. In this essay, I argue that the repeated narrativization of the Big One is an anxious rhetoric that prefigures post-Katrina memory objects through a process of melancholic rhetorical incorporation. I first engage the history of New Orleans and this anxiety, extrapolating my usage of anxiety and melancholy as rhetorical concepts along the way. Then, I tender a critical analysis that first reads two narratives of such destruction to describe memory’s prefiguration and then turns symmetrically to two post-Katrina memory objects to demonstrate the work of incorporation in the production of memory objects.

Research Article| September 01 2020 “Childish Things“: Tragic Conservatism, White Evangelicalism, and the Challenge of Racial Reconciliation John B. Hatch John B. Hatch John B. Hatch is Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania. He would like to thank Prof. Martin Medhurst for dedicating space in Rhetoric & Public Affairs both to the present and previous forums on racial reconciliation, and thank Mark McPhail and David Frank for modeling consilience, mutual respect across differing views, and dialogic coherence in pursuing racial justice and healing. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2020) 23 (3): 587–616. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0587 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation John B. Hatch; “Childish Things“: Tragic Conservatism, White Evangelicalism, and the Challenge of Racial Reconciliation. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 September 2020; 23 (3): 587–616. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0587 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. © 2020 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract The Memex is an icon in the history of computer technology. It was first presented to the public in a 1945 Life Magazine article as “a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility.” The Memex itself was never built, but the image of what machines like it could do captured the imagination of a generation of computer engineers. The Memex was designed by an engineer and science administrator named Vannevar Bush, but he had actually designed the Memex to address inter-war America: the Memex article was written during the tumult of the late 1930s and largely untouched during World War II. This article examines the Memex within this interwar context, paying particular attention to how Bush used the design of a technological prototype to imagine how machines could help humans navigate the modern world. I argue that this effort was an act of rhetorical invention and show that the design of the Memex was a vehicle for Bush to endorse technocratic authority over American life.

Abstract While scholars have studied Ronald Reagan’s relationship with Israel from a diplomatic, strategic, or political lobbying perspective, few have examined this relationship rhetorically. I argue that despite Reagan’s private disagreements with Israel, his public rhetoric consistently depicted Israel within the mythic terms of the Cold War as a heroic democracy like the United States. Drawing on discourses of American exceptionalism, terrorism, and Holocaust remembrance, Reagan’s rhetoric constrained his diplomatic ability to deal with Israeli aggression and continues to shape American presidential discourse.

Research Article| September 01 2020 (Re)-Signing Reconciliation: Reading Obama’s Charleston Eulogy through a Rhetorical Theory of Adaptive Racism Mark Lawrence McPhail Mark Lawrence McPhail Mark Lawrence McPhail is a Senior Research Fellow in the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Multicultural Affairs at Indiana University. I wish to thank Professor Martin Medhurst for his sustained and ongoing commitment to inclusive excellence, diversity, and equity, Professors Aaron David Gresson, III, John Hatch and David Frank for their courage, commitment, and integrity, and Dr. Evelyn Boise Bottando for showing me the clear connection between white privilege, innocence, and sociopathy. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2020) 23 (3): 529–552. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0529 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Mark Lawrence McPhail; (Re)-Signing Reconciliation: Reading Obama’s Charleston Eulogy through a Rhetorical Theory of Adaptive Racism. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 September 2020; 23 (3): 529–552. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.3.0529 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. © 2020 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

AbstractThe Gates Foundation invokes a third way in education reform debate by appealing not to government regulation or market competition but to philanthropic investment as a catalyst for improving educational equity. While the foundation praises this investment as transcending the conventional polarities of debate, I argue that this praise assigns a familiar form of blame toward public education and educators, for it declares philanthropists the only reformers whose commitments to educational civil rights remain uncompromised by political-economic self-interest. In light of this analysis, I qualify the deliberative potential of praise as a rhetoric of education reform.

Abstract This essay considers civil rights mass meetings as rhetorical events that operated with doubled purpose. Surveying three 1960s civil rights scenes, the study reveals how meetings provided spaces to recharge and regroup at the same time that they functioned as sites for countermovement engagement. Centering attention on this fluid movement among purposes offers insights into strategies activists devised for double-voicing. For the speakers and meetings analyzed here, metonymy, parrhesia, and religious reframing provided rhetors with modes for exploiting outsiders’ presence at these events while continuing to use the meeting for their own ends.

Abstract This essay examines how President Trump’s vacillations between overt and colorblind racism represent the intensification of white racial anxieties in anticipation of an impending demographic shift toward a nonwhite majority. Trump’s contradictory rhetoric on race becomes legible in the context of white ambivalence, a condition that entails that white identity, history, and culture be respected as morally superior but, at the same time, not be characterized as white supremacy. Examining a selection of Trump’s campaign and postelection rallies, I show how white ambivalence constitutes a perverse mixture of overweening and explicit valorizations of people of color and, simultaneously, a forceful disavowal of racial conversations that might otherwise implicate white identity in the legacy of white supremacy.