Seeing as Making: Mediation, rhetoric, and the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act

Poroi Pub Date : 2022-01-31 DOI:10.17077/2151-2957.31089
Scott Weedon
{"title":"Seeing as Making: Mediation, rhetoric, and the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act","authors":"Scott Weedon","doi":"10.17077/2151-2957.31089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do material and discursive arrangements, technologies and rhetoric, shape the subjects and objects of medical discourse (Scott & Melonçon, 2017; Selzer & Crowley, 1999)? How are the affordances of material and discursive arrangements seized by political actors? Tackling these and similar questions has been a growing preoccupation in the rhetoric of science, technology, and medicine, where researchers have sought better ways of understanding the entanglements of the symbolic and material (Booher & Jung, 2018; Graham, 2009; Jack, 2019; Propen, 2018). A perspicuous case for this research is the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (UICA), an amendment to the Public Health Service Act mandating that women receive an ultrasound and have its images described to them before having abortions. Three US states have a version of this law, with over twenty others having laws similar to the UICA (Guttmacher Institute, 2019, n.d.). Through this law, antiabortionists are able to construct a kairotic situation through the mediating capacity of ultrasound where they can use the actual state of affairs (a woman seeking an abortion) to argue through images for a possible future (a woman foregoing abortion). This article analyzes the UICA to understand how the political speech of antiabortionists enrolls the moralizing capacity of ultrasound to construct a kairotic situation to intervene in women’s pregnancies. Starting from studies of actor-networks (Latour, 1983;1999a) and technological mediation (Verbeek, 2011; 2015), and departing to feminist rhetorical science studies (Booher & Jung, 2018; Frost & Haas, 2017) and rhetorical approaches to imagery and visualization (Propen, 2018; Roby, 2016; Webb, 2009), I argue that not only do translation processes and technical mediation distribute agencies; they construct the very situations where agencies are constituted. This study can widen our understanding of how political entities appropriate the rhetorical capacities of technology and discourse to translate their politics into legislature.","PeriodicalId":93222,"journal":{"name":"Poroi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poroi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17077/2151-2957.31089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do material and discursive arrangements, technologies and rhetoric, shape the subjects and objects of medical discourse (Scott & Melonçon, 2017; Selzer & Crowley, 1999)? How are the affordances of material and discursive arrangements seized by political actors? Tackling these and similar questions has been a growing preoccupation in the rhetoric of science, technology, and medicine, where researchers have sought better ways of understanding the entanglements of the symbolic and material (Booher & Jung, 2018; Graham, 2009; Jack, 2019; Propen, 2018). A perspicuous case for this research is the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (UICA), an amendment to the Public Health Service Act mandating that women receive an ultrasound and have its images described to them before having abortions. Three US states have a version of this law, with over twenty others having laws similar to the UICA (Guttmacher Institute, 2019, n.d.). Through this law, antiabortionists are able to construct a kairotic situation through the mediating capacity of ultrasound where they can use the actual state of affairs (a woman seeking an abortion) to argue through images for a possible future (a woman foregoing abortion). This article analyzes the UICA to understand how the political speech of antiabortionists enrolls the moralizing capacity of ultrasound to construct a kairotic situation to intervene in women’s pregnancies. Starting from studies of actor-networks (Latour, 1983;1999a) and technological mediation (Verbeek, 2011; 2015), and departing to feminist rhetorical science studies (Booher & Jung, 2018; Frost & Haas, 2017) and rhetorical approaches to imagery and visualization (Propen, 2018; Roby, 2016; Webb, 2009), I argue that not only do translation processes and technical mediation distribute agencies; they construct the very situations where agencies are constituted. This study can widen our understanding of how political entities appropriate the rhetorical capacities of technology and discourse to translate their politics into legislature.
视同制作:调解、修辞和超声知情同意法案
材料和话语安排、技术和修辞如何塑造医学话语的主体和客体(Scott & melon, 2017;Selzer & Crowley, 1999)?政治行动者如何抓住物质和话语安排的支持?在科学、技术和医学的修辞学中,解决这些问题和类似的问题越来越受到关注,研究人员在这些领域寻求更好的方法来理解符号和物质的纠缠(Booher & Jung, 2018;格雷厄姆,2009;杰克,2019;Propen, 2018)。这项研究的一个明显案例是《超声知情同意法》(UICA),这是《公共卫生服务法》的一项修正案,要求妇女在堕胎前接受超声检查,并向她们描述超声图像。美国有三个州有这项法律的一个版本,还有20多个国家有类似于UICA的法律(古特马赫研究所,2019年,n.d)。通过这项法律,反堕胎者能够通过超声波的调解能力构建一个kairotic的情况,在那里他们可以利用实际情况(一个妇女寻求堕胎)通过图像来争论一个可能的未来(一个妇女放弃堕胎)。本文通过对UICA的分析,了解反堕胎者的政治言论是如何利用超声波的道德化能力来构建一个介入妇女怀孕的kairotic情境。从行动者网络(Latour, 1983;1999a)和技术中介(Verbeek, 2011;2015),然后转向女性主义修辞学研究(Booher & Jung, 2018;Frost & Haas, 2017)以及意象和可视化的修辞方法(Propen, 2018;罗比,2016;韦伯,2009),我认为不仅翻译过程和技术调解分配机构;它们构成了构成机构的情况。这项研究可以扩大我们对政治实体如何利用技术和话语的修辞能力将其政治转化为立法的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信