Field Statement: Ontology and Materiality in Composition (Attempt 1)

            It is difficult to imagine a single list for composition which would gather all of my research interests together. Thus, I’ve created this list as a way to broaden my knowledge of the field as a discipline and pursue my enduring interest in ontology and materiality. This exam could be divided into three focuses: foundational texts and ontological critiques; texts that ask questions about what is the writer; and issues of materiality in public writing and circulation. Although these focuses might seem disparate at first glance, I believe they are fundamentally connected by how composition has treated – or ignored – issues surrounding ontology and ethics. The title “Ontology and Materiality in Composition” is perhaps misleading, as throughout its history, composition has largely focused on epistemological concerns and has only recently begun to question the ontology that underwrites these epistemologies. Thus, many of these texts deal with the histories and taxonomies, the stories told by the discipline to describe and reproduce itself. James Berlin’s Rhetoric and Reality begins with the major theories of epistemology (objective, subjective, and transactional) and reads the history of composition across and intertwined in the perspectives. Berlin’s work here and in Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures laid the foundation not only for a specific understanding of what the discipline was and from where it came, but also paved the way for a cultural studies approach to the teaching of writing. Several of the texts in this list are similarly foundational – either for the discipline as a whole (e.g. Steven North’s The Changing of Knowledge in Composition) or for a disciplinary focus like public writing (e.g. Paula Mathieu’s Tactics of Hope).

This list is not exclusively concerned with past depictions of composition’s ontology – or lack thereof; it also looks to where composition currently wrestles with questions of ontology and ethics: depictions of the writer, and circulation in public writing. The idea of the writer as an autonomous thinking and creating subject has never been increasingly come under question. However, following the critiques of anti-foundationalism, postmodernism, and posthumanism, composition scholars have returned to the questions of the writer and the writer’s body in order to grapple with questions of agency, authorship, invention, and ethical interaction. These returns are often coupled with either a renewed focus on the materiality of the body or theoretical arguments to support their positions, but rarely both. Several questions will drive my exploration of writers: How are writers depicted in scholarship? What are they depicted in relation to? How do they accomplish the act of writing? What assumptions about materiality are bound up in these depictions? And finally, what are the affordances and limitations of these assumptions?

Faced with rhetorical situations where oppositional writing practices could not, at least alone, alter large social arrangements, despite mounting urgency (see Welch), recent scholarship in public writing has turned its attention to how circulation impacts the writing’s efficacy. In this conception, circulation is less about the content of the written message, and more about the materiality of the message – the what, where, and when of the message. As Trimbur notes, this focus is necessary to continue “the unfinished business of democratic education” (217). In response, scholars have pushed the claims further, asking academics to go public with their work, act as public intellectuals, and engage critically in service-learning (Mathieu Circulating 11). The shift to activism, community publishing, and writing for, about, and with the community have led to all sorts of ethical questions about the proper relationship between the academy and the community. However, when I turn to consider materiality and ontology in public writing and circulation, I’m particularly concerned with how shifts to integrate circulation into service-learning and public writing studies and pedagogies might have led to a shift away from the complex ways writing is shaped, exchanged, and distributed as a commodity and as a material thing, rather than as messages and meanings. Thus, I will be asking several questions to guide my reading of circulation and public writing. How is circulation depicted in public writing scholarship? What is depicted as circulating? How are agents described as related to writing? What assumptions about language, words, and materiality underwrite these depictions? And finally, what are the affordances and limitations of these assumptions?

Part 1: Histories and Writers in Composition

Beard, David E. “A Broader Understanding of the Ethics of Listening: Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Media Studies, and the Ethical Listening Subject.” International Journal of Listening.  23.1 (2009): 7-20. Print.

Berlin, James A. Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Lauer Series in Rhetoric and Composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, 2003. Print.

---. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges. 1900-1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987. Print.

Bernard-Donals, Michael and Richard R. Glejzer. Rhetoric in an Antifoundational World: Language, Culture, and Pedagogy.

---. “Against Publics (Exilic Writing)”. JAC 28.1-2 (2008): 29-54.

---. The Practice of Theory: Rhetoric, Knowledge, and Pedagogy in  the Academy

Bloom, Lynn Z., Donald A. Daiker and Edward M. White. Composition Studies in the New Millennium: Rereading the Past Rewriting the Future. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2003. Print.

Brooke, Collin Gifford. “Forgetting to be (Post)Human: Media and Memory in a Kairotic Age.” JAC 20.4 (2000): 775-795.

Brooke, Robert. “Control in Writing: Flower, Derrida, and Images of the Writer.” College English 51 (1989): 405-17.

Cooper, Marilyn M. “Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted.” College Composition and Communication. 62.3 (2011): 420-449. Print.

*Courser, Thomas. Vulnerable Subjects: Ethics and Life Writing.

Crowley, Sharon. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1998. Print.

*Davis, Diane. Inessential Solidarity: Rhetoric and Foreign Relations. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2010. Print.

---. “Finitude’s Clamor, or Notes Toward a Communitarian Literacy.” College Composition and Communication 53.1 (2001): 119-145.

Dobrin, Sidney I. Beyond Post-Process. Utah State UP, 2011. Print.

Dobrin, Sidney I. Postcomposition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2011. Print.

Faigley, Lester. Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1992. Print.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1993. Print.

Gil-Gomez, Ellen M. “The Practice of Piece-Making: Subject Positions in the Classroom.” Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words. Eds. Susan Jarratt and Lynn Worsham. New York: MLA of America, 1998. 198-205. Print.

Hairston, Maxine. “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing.” College Composition and Communication. 33.1 (1982): 76-88. Print.

Harkin, Patricia and John Schilb. Contending with Words: Composition Rhetoric in a Postmodern Age. New York: MLA of America, 1991. Print.

Harris, Joseph. A Teaching Subject: Composition Since 1966. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997. Print.

Haswell, Janis and Richard Haswell. Authoring: An Essay for the Profession on Potentiality and Singularity. Logan, Utah: Utah State UP, 2010. Print.

Hawk, Byron. A Counter-history of Composition: Toward Methodologies of Complexity. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2007. Print.

Knadler, Stepher. “E-racing Difference in E-Space: Black Female Subjectivity and the Web-based Portfolio.” Computers and Composition 18.3 (2001): 235-255.

Knoblauch, C.H., and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1984. Print.

Kopelson, Karen L. “Tripping over Our Tropes: Of ‘Passing’ and Postmodern Subjectivity? What’s in a Metaphor?” JAC 25.3 (2005): 436-467.

Lu, Min-Zhan. “An Essay on the Work of Composition: Composing English Against the Order of Fast Capitalism.” CCC 56.1 (2004): 16-50.

Lundberg, Christian and Joshua Gunn. “Ouija Board, Are There Any Communications? Agency, Ontotheology, and the Death of the Humanist Subject, or, Continuing the ARS Conversation.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.4 (2005): 83-106.

Lyotard, Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 1984. Print.

Massey, Lance and Richard C. Gephardt. Changing of Knowledge in Composition: Contemporary Perspectives. Utah State UP, 2011. Print.

Miller, Susan. Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991. Print.

---. Rescuing the Subject, 2^nd Edition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Print.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1987. Print.

Racevskis, Karlis. “Returning to the Subject.” Works and Days 49-50 (2007): 79-86.

Rickert, Thomas. Acts of Enjoyment: Rhetoric, Zizek, and the Return of the Subject.

Rose, Jeanne Marie. “When Human Subjects become Cybersubjects: A Call for Collaborative Consent.” Computers and Composition 24.4 (2007): 462-477.

Sanchez, Raul. The Function of Theory in Composition Studies. Albany: SUNY Press, 2006. Print.

---. “Outside the Text: Retheorizing Empiricism and Identity.” College English. 74.3 (2012): 234-246. Print.

Scott, Tony. Dangerous Writing: Understanding the Political Economy of Composition. Utah State UP, 2009. Print.

Shipka, Jody. Toward a Composition Made Whole. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2011. Print.

Sirc, Geoffrey. English Composition as a Happening. Utah State UP, 2002. Print.

Slevin, James F. Introducing English: Essays in the Intellectual Work of Composition. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2001. Print.

Thacker, Eugene. “Data Made Flesh: Biotechnology and the Discourse of the Posthuman.” Cultural Critique 53 (2003):72-97.

Part 2: Public Writing and that Troubling Circulation

Anderson, Erin. “Global Street Papers and Homeless (Counter) Publics: Rethinking the Technologies of Community Publications.” Reflections 10.1 (2010):76-103. Print.

Ackerman, John and David J. Coogan.. The Public Work of Rhetoric: Civic Scholars and Civic Engagement. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2010. Print.

Brandt, Deborah. “Sponsors of Literacy.” College Composition and Communication. 49.2 (1998): 165-85. Print.

Coogan, David J. “Service Learning and Social Change: The Case for Materialist Rhetoric.” College Composition and Communication. 57.4 (2006): 667-93. Print.

Coogan, David J. “Counterpublics in Public Housing: Reframing the Politics of Service-Learning.” College English. 67.5 (2005): 461-82. Print.

Cushman, Ellen. “The Public Intellectual, Service Learning and Activist Research.” College English. 61.3 (1999): 328-36. Print

de Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: U of California P, 1984. Print.

Deans, Thomas. Writing Partnerships: Service-Learning in Composition. Urbana: NCTE, 2009. Print.

Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text. 25/26 (1990).

George, Diana. “The Word on the Street: Public Discourse in a Culture of Disconnect.” Reflections. 2.2 (2002): 5-18. Print.

Habermas, Jurgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: AnInquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press, 1989. Print.

Harter, Lynn M., Edwards, Autumn, McClanahan, Andrea, Hopson, Mark C.  and Evelyn Carson-Stern. “Organizing for Survival and Social Change: The Case of StreetWise.” Communication Studies.55.2 (2004):407-424. Print.

Marx, Karl. Capital v. 2. London: Penguin Classics, 1992. Print.

---. Grundrisse. London: Penguin Classics, 1993. Print.

Mathieu, Paula. Tactics of Hope: The Public Turn in English Composition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2005. Print.

Mathieu, Paula and Diana George. “Not Going It Alone: Public Writing, Independent Media, and the Circulation of Homeless Advocacy.” College Composition and Communication. 61.1 (2009):130-150. Print.

Mathieu, Paula, Steve Parks, and Tiffany Rousculp. Circulating Communities: The Tactics and Strategies of Community Publishing. New York: Lexington Books, 2012. Print.

Mentzell Ryder, Phyllis. Rhetorics for Community Action: Public Writing and Writing Publics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010. Print.

Morley, David and Worpole, Ken. The Republic of Letters: Working Class Writing and Local Publishing. Philadelphia and Syracuse: New City Community Press/Syracuse UP, 2009. Print.

Mortenson, Peter. “Going Public.” College Composition and Communication. 50.2 (1998): 182-205. Print.

Negt, Oskar and Alexander Kluge. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993. Print.

Parks, Steve. Gravyland: Writing Beyond the Curriculum in the City of Brotherly Love. Syracuse: Syracuse UP, 2010. Print.

Parks, Steve and Eli Goldblatt. “Writing Beyond the Curriculum: Fostering New Collaborations in Literacy.” College English. 46.2 (2000): 584-606. Print.

Shirkey, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2008. Print.

Trimbur, John. “Composition and the Circulation of Writing.” College Composition and Communication. 52.2 (2000): 188-219. Print.

Warner, Michael. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, 2005. Print.

Weisser, Christian. Moving Beyond Academic Discourse: Composition Studies and the Public Sphere. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. Print.

Welch, Nancy. Living Room: Teaching Public Writing in a Privatized World. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, 2008. Print.

Wells, Susan. “Rogue Cops and Health Care: What Do We Want From Public Writing?” College Composition and Communication. 47.3 (1996): 325-41. Print. 

Rhetoric of Bioethics: Field Statement (Attempt 1)

            In contemporary legal, medical, philosophical, and public forums, bioethics occupies a central position with social groups debating issues concerning life and health as well as the technological and medical interventions into both: abortion, genetic screening, cosmetic surgery, research procedures, xenotransplantation, regulation of human organ markets, and “human enhancement” (see John Harris) to name a few. However, in the digital age, it is the transformation of the very notion of life that has sparked the most hopes, anxieties, and ethical challenges for Western democracies. Broadly construed, this list seeks to trace the shifting definitions of life, human, animal, and machine in these debates and how these debates are structured in contemporary political, legal, economic, and medical forums. These debates are of both an ethical and ontological order. In Bioethics in the Age of New Media, Joanna Zylinska defines bioethics as an "ethics of life" where "life names both the physical, material existence of singular organisms (what the Greeks called zoe) and their political organization into populations (bios)" (xiii). Traditional bioethics has been focused on zoe, with an explicit exclusion of bios; however, whenever we face singular decisions regarding individual beings, their lives and health, we are already situated in and drawing on a broader political context (xiii). Thus, bioethical decisions have moral and political influences and consequences. Within contemporary debates, though, not only do we see a shifting line about what counts as an ethically significant being shifting (e.g. the Spanish Parliament's extension of human rights to great apes), but also a disintegration of the boundary between what counts as a living being and a nonliving being (e.g. theories of the posthuman).

            The renewed focus on the both the material and ontological existence of beings as well as their (bio)political existence – an existence often rhetorically constructed through laws and policies – aligns with recent trends in material rhetoric. In the introduction to Rhetorical Bodies, Jack Selzer notes that academy’s embrace of the “rhetorical turn” this perspective has all too often reduced material things to mere functions of language, constructed by verbal and written language practices (4, 8). Selzer argues that we need to invert this perspective, allowing “material practices and realities … [to] come under rhetorical scrutiny” (8). While the essays collected in Rhetorical Bodies focus largely on matter itself, Body Talk’s focus on the discourses surrounding reproductive technology reveal the other side of material rhetoric’s coin. Language is not as immaterial as previously thought. The invention of new reproductive technologies and the rhetoric used to talk about them reveals countless material consequences in the lived lives of women – such as “ownership and control of knowledge, access to techniques of science and technology, place and power of expertise and professionals, societal definitions of pathology, definitions of the self, the rights granted to embodied citizens, and views about the relationship between technology and religion” (Lay et. al. 3). Since the essays in this collection focus mostly on texts, material rhetoric’s current trend is less an issue of artifact of study than of how the artifact is examined. Material rhetoric examines both the materiality of language and language of the material. Bioethics – as a discipline focused on the defining our ethical obligation to beings that are materially and discursively constructed – seems rich for rhetorical study.

            Key texts in my list will focus on two themes: shifting definitions and the structure of debates. Philosophically, bioethics often focuses on what counts as life as well as what lives are worthy of rights and ethical treatment. Historically, “human life” – often defined by shifting traits, capacities, and capabilities in different historical contexts – has held a privileged position in bioethical relations. However, criticisms of this position of human exceptionalism by individuals in animal studies, disability studies, posthuman studies have not gone unheard in bioethical debates. Many of the texts on this list interrogate the couplings between the living and nonliving, the human and nonhuman, as attempts to challenge traditional understandings of bioethics. Because what counts as life – as well as lives worthy of rights and ethical treatment – are decided through debates within public and private forums, key texts in my list will highlight the relationships between institutions and organizations and the discourses that circulate. For example, in “Not-so-Public Relations: How the Drug Industry is Branding Itself with Bioethics,” Carl Elliott describes how bioethics has drawn the attention of biotechnological industries, who increasingly invest in persuading bioethics experts and medical practitioners of the social justice of using specific drugs and enhancements, and as Zoltan P. Majdik and Carrie Anne Platt note in the most recent issue of Rhetoric Society Quarterly (42.2), campaigns to promote the ethical choice of using biotechnological products has recently shifted target audience to the individuals who would need the drug, producing subject positions with a moral obligation to use certain products. These trends influence the seemingly public debates around bioethical debates, leading at times to the regurgitation of positions without recognition of the stakes within them. While these bioethical marketing trends are predominantly American trends, neoliberalism, globalization, and the financial investments of biotech companies run the risk of strengthening the Americanization of bioethics around the globe by increasing the circulation of such public health campaigns. Thus, this list seeks not only to explore what is at stake in the representations of life, human, animal, and machine are debated in contemporary bioethics, but also how and why certain bioethical stances are dominant.  

Rethinking Lists: Perhaps The Rhetoric of Bioethics?

Now that I've passed the prelim - thank heavens - I need to start developing my lists and field statements. It's difficult to picture exactly how these all will work together. Unfortunately, one of the people I wanted to do a list with is no longer going to be at our department (my thoughts on that would deserve an entirely different post). So, I've been trying to think up what might make useful lists, and how I might configure the different faculty around into the lists. Originally, I had the following three: "Activism and the Problem of Circulation in Public Writing" (Gallagher), "Material Rhetoric" (Britt), and "Ethical Engagement with the Other" (Sullivan). But I'm beginning to rethink the third list because it was just too widespread - covering questions like what is a writer? How do we imagine the writing suject? How does writing create community?

I'm thinking now I might title it "The Rhetoric of Bioethics." By bioethics, I'm drawing from Joanna Zylinska's definition in Bioethics in the Age of New Media. For Zylinska, bioethics should be imagined as an "ethics of life" where "life names both the physical, material existence of singular organisms (what the Greeks called zoe) and their political organization into populations (bios)" (xiii). Traditional bioethics has been focused on zoe, with an explicit exclusion of bios; however, whenever we face singular decisions regarding individual beings, their lives and health, we are already situated in and drawing on a broader political context (xiii). Thus, bioethical decisions have moral and political influences and consequences. Within contemporary debates, though, not only do we see a shifting line about what counts as an ethically significant being shifting (e.g. the Spanish Parliament's extension of human rights to great apes), but also a disintegration of the boundary between what counts as a living being and a nonliving being (see work in STI on the "posthuman").

The battleground of bioethical debates seem to be a rich place at which many of my interests intersect - animal abuse and domestic violence, animal studies and posthuman studies, ethical engagement with the other, law, ontology and definitions of materiality, etc. - and as such, I think this is a place that I need to explore. I can picture several projects emerging from reading these texts. (1) What metaphors are used to represent the subjects of bioethics? What is at stake in these representations? (2) What metaphors are used to represent the relationship between subjects? What are the accordances and limitations of these representations? (3) How does work in bioethics relate to contemporary law? To continental philosophy? To scientific research (e.g. ethology, etc.)? (4) What rhetorical strategies are these scholars using to argue for alternate bioethical/biopolitical ways of relating to the Other?

Here is a bit of my preliminary list (obv. it needs to be cut down):

The Rhetoric of Bioethics

Adams, Carol J. Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Inc., 1995. Print.

Agamben, Giorgio. The Open: Man and Animal. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2004. Print.

Bates, B. R. "Care of the Self and American Physicians' Place in The "War on Terror": A Foucauldian Reading of Senator Bill Frist, Md." Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31.4 (2006): 385-400. Print.

Bardini, Thierry. Junkware.

Beihl, Joao and Torben Eskerod. Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment.

Bennet, Jane. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things.

Bogost, Ian. Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like To Be A Thing.

Bryant, Levi R. The Democracy of Objects.

Calarco, Matthew. Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York, NY: Columbia UP, 2008. Print.

Campbell, Timothy C. Improper Life: Technology and Biopolitics from Heidegger to Agamben.

Clough, Patricia Ticineto and Craig Willse. Beyond Biopolitics: Essays of Governance of Life and Death

Costa, Beatriz da and Kavita Philip. Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. Print.

Condit, C. M. "Feminist Biologies: Revising Feminist Strategies and Biological Science." Sex Roles 59.7-8 (2008): 492-503. Print.

---. The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates About Human Heredity.

---. “Rhetorical Formations of Genetics in Science and Society.” Rhetoric Review. (2001).

Coole, Diana and Samantha Frost. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics.

Cooper, Melinda. Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era.

Critical Art Ensemble. Molecular Invasion (Autonomedia).

---. Flesh Machine: Cyborgs, Designer Babies, Eugenic Consciousness.

DeLuca, K. M. "The Possibilities of Nature in a Postmodern Age: The Rhetorical Tactics of Environmental Justice Groups." Communication Theory 9.2 (1999): 189-215. Print.

Derrida, Jacques. The Beast and The Sovereign, V. I.

---. The Beast and the Sovereign, V. II

---. The Animal that Therefore I Am.

Doyle, Richard. Wetlands: Experiments in Postvital Living.

---. On Beyond Living.

---. Darwin’s Pharmacy: Sex, Plants, and the Evolution of the Noovosphere.

Engnell, R. A. "Materiality, Symbolicity, and the Rhetoric of Order: "Dialectical Biologism" As Motive in Burke." Western Journal of Communication 62.1 (1998): 1-25. Print.

Esposito, Roberto. Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota P, 2008. Print.

Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality.

---. The Birth of the Clinic (selections to be determined).

Gronnvoll, Marita and Jamie Landau. “From Viruses to Russian Roulette to Dance: A Rhetorical Critique and Creation of Genetic Metaphors.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 40.1 (2010). Print.

Halberstam, Judith M. and Ira Livingston. Posthuman Bodies (Unnatural Acts: Theorizing the Performative)

Haraway, Donna. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women.

---. ModestWitness@Second_Millenium_FemaleMan_Meets_Oncomouse.

Haraway, Donna J. When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota P, 2008. Print.

Lynch, J. A. "Articulating Scientific Practice: Understanding Dean Hamer's Ogay Geneo Study as Overlapping Material, Social and Rhetorical Registers." Quarterly Journal of Speech 95.4 (2009): 435-56. Print.

---. “Geography, Genealogy, and Genetics: Dialectical Substance in Newspaper Coverage of Research in Race and Genetics.” Western Journal of Communication. (2008).

Mol, Annemarie. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice.

Morton, Timothy. Ecology without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics.

Nadesan, Majia Holmer. Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life.

Parikka, Jussi. Insect Media: An Archaeology of Animals and Technology. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota P, 2010. Print.

Petersen, Alan and Alan R. Petersen. The Body in Question: A Socio-cultural Approach.

Pettman, Dominic. Human Error: Species-Being and Media Machines

Pruchnic, Jeff. “Rhetoric, Cybernetics, and the Work of the Body in Burke’s Body of Work.” Rhetoric Review 25.3 (2006): 275-296.

Rajan, Kaushik Sunder. Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life

Rose, Nikolas. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century.

Rotman, Brian. Becoming Beside Ourselves: The Alphabet, Ghosts, and Distributed Human Being.

Serres, Michel. The Parasite.

Shea, Elizabeth. How the Gene Got Its Groove. State U of New York P. 2008. Print.

Sheller, M. "Bodies, Cybercars and the Mundane Incorporation of Automated Mobilities." Social & Cultural Geography 8.2 (2007): 175-97. Print.

Thacker, Eugene. After Life.

---. Biomedia.

Uexkul, Jakob von. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: A Theory With Meaning.i

Waldby, Catherine and Robert Mitchell. Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism.

Wills, David. Dorsality: Thinking Back Through Technology and Politics.

Wilson, J.C. “(Re)Writing the Genetic Body-Text: Disability, Textuality, and the Human Genome Project.” Cultural Critique. (2002).

Wolfe, Cary. What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota P, 2010. Print.

Wolfe, Cary. Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minneapolis P, 2003. Print.

Zylinska, Joanna.  Bioethics in the Age of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009. Print.