Confronting Rhetorical Disability

Kim Hensley Owens University of Rhode Island

Abstract

Through its analysis of birth plans, documents some women create to guide their birth attendants' actions during hospital births, this article reveals the rhetorical complexity of childbirth and analyzes women's attempts to harness birth plans as tools of resistance and self-education. Asserting that technologies can both silence and give voice, the article examines women's use of technologies of writing to confront technologies of birth. The article draws on data from online childbirth narratives, a childbirth writing survey, and five women's birth plans to argue that women's silencing, or rhetorical disability, during childbirth both prompts and limits the birth plan as an effective communicative tool. The data suggest that the birth plan is not consistently effective in the ways its authors intend. Nonetheless, this analysis also demonstrates that the rhetorical failure of the birth plan can be read as, and thereby transformed into, rhetorical possibility.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2009-07-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088308329217
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (9)

  1. Written Communication
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  4. Technical Communication Quarterly
  5. Technical Communication Quarterly
Show all 9 →
  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. Written Communication
  3. Written Communication
  4. Rhetoric Society Quarterly

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 11 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1002/14651858.CD003519
  2. 10.1515/text.1.1996.16.3.299
  3. The logic of practice (R. Nice
  4. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
  5. Gender and language: Towards a feminist pragmatics
  6. 10.1056/NEJMp068290
  7. 10.1080/00335630701425100
  8. 10.1515/mult.2004.001
  9. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb00856.x
    Acta Paediatrica  
  10. 10.1001/jama.294.3.359
  11. 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
CrossRef global citation count: 22 View in citation network →