In Search of Good Humans, Speaking Well
Communication’s Ableism Problem
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12464894 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vanessa B Beasley (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1-2 |
| Pages | 291-306 |
| Publication date | 2021-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Rhetoric and Public Affairs (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1094-8392 • E-ISSN: 1534-5238 |
| Publisher | Michigan State University Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0291 |
| OpenAlex | W3195395721 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 16 |
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
Ableism · Argument (complex analysis · Epistemology · Expansive · Ideal (ethics · Linguistics · Normalization (sociology · Political science · Public relations · Rhetoric · Rhetorical question · Social science · Sociology · Communication in Education and Healthcare · Gender Studies · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Public Relations and Crisis Communication · Rhetoric and Communication Studies · Social Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |