Exhortations to tend to the flourishing of one’s gut microbes have increased in past years and can be recited by rote: consume pre- and probiotics, diverse plants, and fermented foods; avoid unnecessary medicinal antibiotics and antimicrobial products. Recognizing that all frontiers of enclosure require corollary rhetorical enclosures, this essay locates the human microbiome as an imminent frontier of simultaneous capitalist and rhetorical enclosure. Human microbiome rhetoric encodes microbial life as a contained asset and narrowly frames human-microbe relations as the concern of responsible neoliberal consumers. Individual health as the ambit of concern should give way to the understanding of human-microbial relations as a shared multispecies concern—a visceral commons. Foregrounding the rhetorical dimensions of the practices that manage a crucial relational resource, a visceral commons coheres by means of intense feeling regarding the ways in which an always already distributed yet crucial resource irrevocably entangles us. This essay borrows concepts from commoners to close with four gestures resistant to the rhetorical enclosure of the human microbiome.

This essay advances a theory of zoetropes, or rhetorical figures that modulate the social status of living entities. Using fetal memorialization at the National Memorial for the Unborn as a case study, I identify the humanizing zoetropes of naming (antonomasia), en/voicing (apostrophe), and en/facing (prosopopeia). While the malleability of the fetal entity lends itself toward zoetropes, arguably all subjects are made zoetropologically. To be tropologically animated, or given life, means immediate absorption into a biopolitical field of regulation. Humanhood is among the most consequential of biopolitical thresholds through which an entity can be zoetroped. This essay contributes to rhetorical theory by locating the tropological means by which entities gain the public status of humanhood. The biopolitical discourses that work to include entities into humanhood are the obverse side of the coin from the necropolitical discourses that work to exclude entities from humanhood.

Abstract This essay uses the theoretical lens of biolegitimacy to advance rhetorical criticism on contemporary drone warfare. As coined by anthropologist Didier Fassin, biolegitimacy describes the emergent preference for “life itself” under humanitarianism. Recasting biolegitimacy as a rhetorical achievement illuminates the strategies by which the United States accrues biolegitimacy for its drone program. In official White House rhetorics, the remotely piloted aircraft that strike over nonrecognized theaters of war, such as Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, are packaged in the “saving lives” logic of biolegitimacy. After exploring three rhetorical strategies of official drone rhetorics for achieving biolegitimacy, I suggest that drones themselves act as key distributors of biolegitimate social worth in the War on Terror.