This essay identifies and explicates a key rhetorical form—“redemptive exclusion”—underlying former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s efforts to defend barring Syrian refugees from American soil. Through a reliance on ethotic prolepsis, the rhetorical form of redemptive exclusion enables the creation of a transcendent perspective that reconciles seemingly opposite contemporary cultural and political rhetorics: xenophobic discourses of exclusion become coarticulated with the mythic promise of an America open to all. We show how Haley’s rhetoric combines antithetical gestures of inclusion and exclusion by interweaving synecdochic narratives of her own immigrant history; hyperbolic narratives of American benevolence toward immigrants; and stereotypical narratives of terrorist identity that preempt the acceptance of Syrian refugees as even potentially American. We argue that Haley converts the rejection of Syrian refugees from American soil into an opportunity for constraining and qualifying the mythic ideal of the United States as an historical beacon for immigrants around the globe. In the conclusion, we suggest that a close study of how redemptive exclusion takes life in Haley’s discourse offers more general lessons about the rhetorical and ideological character of controversies over U.S. immigration policy.

Book Review| March 01 2016 Purpose, Practice, and Pedagogy in Rhetorical Criticism Purpose, Practice, and Pedagogy in Rhetorical Criticism. Edited by Jim A. Kuypers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2014; pp. vii + 222. $85.00 cloth; $84.99 e-book. Antonio de Velasco Antonio de Velasco University of Memphis Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2016) 19 (1): 169–173. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.19.1.0169 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Antonio de Velasco; Purpose, Practice, and Pedagogy in Rhetorical Criticism. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2016; 19 (1): 169–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.19.1.0169 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.

Book Review| March 01 2011 The Present State of Scholarship in the History of Rhetoric: A Twenty-First Century Guide The Present State of Scholarship in the History of Rhetoric: A Twenty-First Century Guide. Lynée Lewis Gaillet and Winifred Bryan Horner. Antonio de Velasco Antonio de Velasco Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2011) 14 (1): 182–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/41940533 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Antonio de Velasco; The Present State of Scholarship in the History of Rhetoric: A Twenty-First Century Guide. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 March 2011; 14 (1): 182–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/41940533 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. © 2011 Michigan State University Board of Trustees2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract This article challenges the common assumption that Chaim Perelman's concept of the universal audience ought to be thought of primarily as a rational standard for argumentation. I argue instead that it has more interesting implications for political critique than for practical reason and that it can be used to draw attention to how social constructions of universality circulate in various contexts of symbolic production. To extend the reach of Perelman's insight, I relate it to four concepts in critical theory and suggest ways that the universal audience might be reconfigured as an instrument for politically conscious rhetorical criticism.