Biopolitics, Contagion, and Digital Health Production: Pathways for the Rhetoric of Health and Medicine

Lisa Keraenen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1103596

2015-01-01

Communication Quarterly

Abstract:During a rare epiphanic moment in graduate school, as part of an exercise in narrative identity construction, I realized that most of what I had been writing about for years concerned the body, disease, illness, the Hippocratics, breast cancer, pathographies, and plastic surgery. I recognized that what moved me most was what some of us were then calling the “Rhetoric of Medicine,” a further sub-specialization of the “Rhetoric of Science” (Scott, Segal, & Keränen, 2013). John Lyne encouraged those of us studying the rhetoric of science at the University of Pittsburgh to specialize in a particular science, and so we tromped down to the 10th floor of the university’s iconic 42-story Cathedral of Learning to take history and philosophy of science courses. While sitting in one such seminar and watching astronomy calculations churn up chalk dust as they flew across a blackboard, I thought I might be better off if I stuck with what I loved: medicine, which is, like rhetoric, a whole lot of têchne with some science thrown in. Somehow throughout my undergraduate and graduate coursework, I had blitzed past numerous opportunities to study “Health Communication,” prejudging the field as too functional, too decidedly un-critical, and too allied with dominant power structures. I found myself instead drawn to what was then called the “Medical Humanities,” which, like the study of medical rhetoric-turned-health rhetoric, has recently broadened into the “Health Humanities” (Jones, Wear, & Friedman, 2014). Rather than starting over with a medical degree, I signed up for a master of arts in bioethics, a move that required clinical experience. Spending summers shadowing physicians, surgeons, social workers, and medical ethicists in hospital