Nuclear Criticism: In Pursuit of a “Politically Enabling” Deconstructive Voice

Unnatural acts: Nuclear language, proliferation and order

“…This general claim has two dimensions: motive vocabularies and insidious modes of expression. First, scholars unite Burke's theory of perfection (all things proceed inexorably toward their ideal) with the notion that language shapes views and action to claim discourses (as things that contain meanings) advance toward their perfection, as well (Brummett 1989;Williams 1988;Schiappa 1989;Kauffman 1989). Second, scholars declare natural and familiar forms of expression serve at once as unseen, constraining and corrupting wellsprings of discourse (Easlea 1987;Brown 1989;Caputi 1994;Taylor 1997).…”

Nuclear weapons and communication studies: A review essay

“…Alternately, another group of studies has drawn on post-structuralist theories of deconstruction and intertextuality as well as Bakhtinian theories of dialogism to emphasize the constitutive and relational properties of linguistic and iconic "utterances" (Benson & Anderson, 1990;Mehan, Nathanson, & Skelly, 1990;Mechling & Mechling, 1995;Taylor, 1992Taylor, , 1996Taylor, , 1997bTaylor, , 1997dWertsch, 1987;Williams, 1988) In this model, culture is a "noisy" site, "aswarm" with the multiple and conflicting voices of nuclear interests. A partial list of these interests includes pacifists, environmentalists, scientists, arms-control negotiators, federal regulators, military officials and veterans, industrialcontractors, legislators, artists and entertainers, historians, feminists, and the community residents surrounding production and testing facilities.…”

Reassessing Truman, the bomb, and revisionism: The burlesque frame and entelechy in the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan

“…As their work illustrates, by looking at larger textual economies of an era, critics can better recognize and explore how "[p]eople perceive and remember these narratives not in isolation but as a part of a system" (Mechling & Mechling, 1991, p. 109). Williams (1988) and Taylor (1990Taylor ( , 1992Taylor ( , 1993aTaylor ( , 1993bTaylor ( , 1995Taylor ( , 1996 most nearly practice the nuclear criticism of Diacritics (Klein, 1984a) in their focus on the deconstructive tools of rhetoric. Recognizing the trouble nuclear criticism has faced in making a political project out the work of Derrida and Burke, Williams points to several possibilities for critics to create a "politically enabling deconstructive voice" (p. 193).…”

“…11 The works of Bjork (1988Bjork ( , 1992, Schiappa (1989), Mechling and Mechling (1991, Williams (1988), and Taylor (1990Taylor ( , 1992Taylor ( , 1993aTaylor ( , 1993bTaylor ( , 1995Taylor ( , 1996 offer several options for critics seeking to engage politically-cogent nuclear issues. Bjork's work, like that of other scholars interested in Reagan's rhetoric (Goodnight, 1986;Ivie, 1984;Rushing, 1986;Zagacki & King, 1989), focuses on specific rhetorical appeals used to obfuscate and manipulate a national symbolic reality to further a nuclear agenda.…”

“…Like Mechling and Mechling (1991, I observe the pervasive attitude of that time, and like Taylor (1990Taylor ( , 1992Taylor ( , 1993b, I attempt to show how this pervasive rhetorical frame created an entelechial force compelling the actors in the historical bombing drama along a destructive path. In making this examination, I take care to use affirming language in observation of Williams' (1988) injunctions for a positive nuclear criticism. This project has a home in critical communication 12 and it recognizes that governing our nuclear age inherently involves communication questions because the problems of the nuclear age arise from both discursive and material practices.…”