Abstract Control of time is critical to the maintenance of settler colonial states. In the United States, which relies on linear conceptions of time, time is treated as moving forward, which implies a specific view of the national past. It also moves backward, which proscribes a particular understanding of future possibilities. In both cases, time is mobilized to produce political stasis, rendering it very difficult to question settler colonialist ideologies and possession of land. Unsettling the U.S. settler colonial state requires a different conception of time and different temporalities.

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.

Other| December 01 2020 From the Interim Editor Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2020) 23 (4): 635. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.4.0635 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mary E. Stuckey; From the Interim Editor. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 December 2020; 23 (4): 635. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.23.4.0635 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.

Book Review| March 01 2018 Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency. By David Greenberg. New York, NY: WW Norton, 2016; pp. xvii + 576. $35.00 cloth; $18.00 paper. Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey Penn State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2018) 21 (1): 175–177. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0175 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mary E. Stuckey; Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American Presidency. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2018; 21 (1): 175–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.21.1.0175 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. © 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| December 01 2017 American Elections and the Rhetoric of Political Change: Hyperbole, Anger, and Hope in U.S. Politics Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey is Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at Penn State University in University Park. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2017) 20 (4): 667–694. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.20.4.0667 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mary E. Stuckey; American Elections and the Rhetoric of Political Change: Hyperbole, Anger, and Hope in U.S. Politics. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 December 2017; 20 (4): 667–694. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.20.4.0667 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. © 2017 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| September 01 2017 Dynasties and Democracy Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey is Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at Penn State University, University Park. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2017) 20 (3): 539–544. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.20.3.0539 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mary E. Stuckey; Dynasties and Democracy. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 September 2017; 20 (3): 539–544. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.20.3.0539 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. © 2017 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| March 01 2016 The Great Silent Majority: Nixon's 1969 Speech on Vietnamization. By Karlyn Kohrs Campbell The Great Silent Majority: Nixon's 1969 Speech on Vietnamization. By Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2014; pp. 144. $35.00 cloth; $19.95 paper. Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey Georgia State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2016) 19 (1): 125–128. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.19.1.0125 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 Mary E. Stuckey; The Great Silent Majority: Nixon's 1969 Speech on Vietnamization. By Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2016; 19 (1): 125–128. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.19.1.0125 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. © 2016 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.2016 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract This essay considers questions about civility raised in the discourse responding to the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Arizona. Focusing on two sites of discord—the debate in the media and President Obama’s address at the memorial service for the victims—our analysis identifies two conceptions of civility and their corresponding assumptions about democracy and community, provides a critique of both conceptions, and offers a conceptual framework for rhetorical critics studying civility.

In carving out space in rhetorical history for people with disabilities, this article interprets “asylum-school” curriculum through rhetorical practices involving the art of becoming, the body, and civic participation. Rhetorical practice is understood as it manifests within imposed constraints. So while for some, work as a seamstress might not qualify as the civic life Cicero thought to be rhetoric's ultimate goal, that work is indeed civically vital. By disrupting the social versus civic opposition, rhetoric includes practices other than just the political and is considered across a spectrum of difference.

Research Article| December 01 2012 On Rhetorical Circulation Mary E. Stuckey Mary E. Stuckey Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2012) 15 (4): 609–612. https://doi.org/10.2307/41940623 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Mary E. Stuckey; On Rhetorical Circulation. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 December 2012; 15 (4): 609–612. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41940623 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. © 2012 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2012 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 So, this phrase has gotten a lot of attention. First during and immediately after the Octalog panel in the Tweetstream, then in f2f and continuing social-media interactions after. Most younger scholars express excitement to hear someone say what they've been thinking all along; many "established" scholars express dismay at my lack of respect. Disciplinarity does do its job, does it not? 2 I will, however, offer my definition of rhetoric. Just for the record, when I use the word rhetoric, I am evoking a shorthand that encompasses thousands of years of intellectual production all over the globe—a set of productions that we have only just begun to understand—and that generally refers to systems of discourse through which meaning was, is, and continues to be made in a given culture. 3 In Signs Taken for Wonders, Homi Bhabha reminds us that "[t]here is a scene in the cultural writings of English colonialism which repeats so insistently" that it "inaugurates a literature of empire." That scene, he tells us, is always "played out in the wild and wordless wastes" of "the colonies" and consists entirely of the "fortuitous discovery of the English book" by colonized peoples; this scene marks the book as an "emblem," one of the colonizers' "signs taken for wonders" (29). 4 See especially Lisa Brooks; Joy Harjo; Thomas King; Nancy Shoemaker (ed.); Linda Tuhiwai Smith; Robert Warrior; and Shawn Wilson. 5 For an examination of "paracolonial," see Vizenor. 6 A totally unsatisfying and provocative opening into my current work that argues for situating specific rhetorical events in the continuum of rhetorical practices (alphabetic and non-alphabetic) that hold particular cultures together over time. 7 I take inspiration from Richard Graff and Michael Leff; Thomas Habinek; Jean Ferguson Carr, Stephen L. Carr, and Lucille Schultz; and Susan Miller. 8 See http://wealthforcommongood.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ShiftingResponsibility.pdf for more information. 9 For Jim and Bob … Susan, Sharon, Richard, Jan, Nan, and Jerry (chair), Octalog, 1988, St. Louis. 10 Éthea, where animals belong, in their wildness. I'm using Charles Scott's The Question of Ethics for reading, as CS cites such in the Iliad (6.506–11). The horse wants to return to its Nomós, field, as opposed to Nómos, law (Scott 143). I've consulted Charles Chamberlain's "From Haunts to Character." 11 I would claim, therefore, that it is our responsibility to search out our other-abilities, our impotentialities, to address the other that is indefinite. I'm not referring to potentialities, that is, Techné or Dynamis. Rather, I am referring to what Aristotle notes only in passing as Adynamis, or Impotentiality (see Metaphysics 1046e, 25–32). This, then, would be the para-methodology of misology! As well as the wildness that I refer to! In reference, as Giorgio Agamben says, Adynamis, or Impotentiality, would address all that has NOT YET been intuited, thought, acted on in ethico-political lived experiences (see Potentialities). Or forgotten! At least, in our wide, impotentially wild field.

(1992). Legitimating leadership: The rhetoric of succession as a genre of presidential discourse. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 25-38.