British women participated in public political work at a higher rate than ever before during the 1906 United Kingdom general election campaign. Working as fundraisers, door-to-door canvassers, and even orators, women were particularly active in debating the campaign's central economic question: should Britain uphold the free trade policies it had maintained since the 1840s, or should it follow its economic rivals, Germany and the United States, in strengthening tariff protections? Dorothy M. Hunter (1881-1977) rose to prominence during this period as a compelling public speaker who worked on behalf of the Liberal Party and its free trade agenda. Her career serves as a fascinating case study for understanding how some British women established their credibility in traditionally male spheres at the beginning of the twentieth century; nevertheless, historians of the Edwardian era have largely overlooked her work. Based on an analysis of the collection of Hunter's documents held at the Surrey History Centre in Woking, England, this paper argues that Hunter built her authority as an activist in the public sphere upon the conventional understanding of women's power over the private sphere. Following the rhetorical tradition established by Victorian philanthropists, Hunter increased the scope of her influence by extending the definition of "the household" and "domestic duty" to encompass public life and civic virtue. This strategy is present throughout her work from 1900 to 1914, from emotionally persuasive didactic literature written early in her career to economic arguments presented in public meeting halls at the height of her fame.

The study of the rhetoric of science reveals the means of persuasion scientists use when communicating their ideas. In the mid-twentieth century, when the controversial oral contraceptive pill was being developed, rhetoric surrounding its biology and morality was cautious and conservative. Some scientists discussed only the revolutionary science behind the pill and others condemned it as socially and scientifically unacceptable, but few walked the middle ground between biology and morality. In his publication “Control of Reproduction in Mammals,” however, Doctor Gregory Pincus integrates science and morality. This rhetorical analysis discusses the techniques Pincus used to communicate his ideas and determine whether or not they successfully persuaded his audience. His diction, figurative language, and argumentative appeals are analyzed and compared to contemporary documents. In assessing his choices, recent studies of the rhetoric of sexuality and medicine are consulted. I find that, while Pincus’ methods may have been unintentional, he successfully communicated to a divided public through contrasting language, varied arguments, and polysemy. This research is valuable because studies of the rhetoric surrounding issues at the intersection of science, politics, and sexuality are surprisingly limited. As medical technology and society progress, it is crucial to learn more about the role of rhetoric in the communication of science in order to preserve scientific integrity, freedom of accurate information, and reproductive rights.

La Llorona's ghostly figure has haunted the pages of Chicanx literature for years as the monstrous woman. While her story shifts forms depending on the cultural context, the essentials remain: she was a woman, wronged by the father of her children, who now wanders the rivers at night wailing for the two children she drowned in anger, grief, or desperation. She has often been considered a monstrous figure whose function has been to regulate female identity. However, authors like Gloria Anzaldúa and Sandra Cisneros have sought to reclaim this ghostly visage from the grasp of patriarchal structures that condemn la Llorona's actions. Anzaldúa's poem "My Black Angelos" and Sandra Cisneros' short story "Woman Hollering Creek" revise la Llorona to acknowledge the female agency she represents. While critics have focused on feminine agency in these works, the function of the monstrous has been overlooked. The monstrous usually refers to something feared or uncanny with women and people of color's bodies representing cultural fears, but in these cases the monstrous is reimagined as a tool for agency. Through the lens of monster theory, and drawing on the theories of Jeffrey Cohen, Cristina Santos, and Luce Irigaray, this paper argues that Anzaldua's and Cisneros' representations of la Llorona develop feminine agency and community just as other critics have mentioned, but they also complicate monster theory by resituating the subjectivity to account for the postive monster of la Llorona. Through this, monster theory's dependence on a self/other dichotomy falls away and, with it, la Llorona's position as only a monster to be feared. Instead, these representations of la Llorona invite Chicanx women into the community of the monstrous, where Cisneros and Anzaldúa transform it from an androcentric space of "othering" and oppression to one of belonging and power. 

Members of the LGBT+ community have long been wanting accurate representation on the big screen. Following the outlawing of “sexual perversion” by the Hollywood Production Code of 1930, homosexuality of any form was only allowed if the character was shown as a villain so as not to encourage their behavior. Traces of this restriction still remain today. Bisexual people in particular are even more problematic with their onscreen images often being either negative or absent completely. This is true even of films created by and for members of the LGBT+ community. To illustrate the pervasiveness of these issues, my research has taken a critical look at four films, Gray Matters, Imagine Me & You, I Can’t Think Straight, and Kyss Mig (Kiss Me), that have bisexual themes and have been celebrated for providing LGBT+ characters with rare happy endings. My project is titled “Happy Endings for Whom?” because I argue that these films perpetuate narratives tying bisexuality with deception and infidelity that are harmful to bisexual people and other members of the LGBT+ community. To do so I break down the plot structures and how the main characters are described and portrayed (ex: Who are the heroes? Villains? How do they identify?). The goal of my research is to expose the power structures that exist within media about and for members of the LGBT+ community and encourage individuals to be more thoughtful audience members and content creators. 

Gattaca is one of the most influential science-fiction movies of the past two decades. It has been used as a cultural shorthand to guide our discussions about bioethics and genetic technologies and to allow non-experts entry into a technical discussion. Its continued relevance and use hinges on reading it as a cautionary tale warning against genetic determinism. However, an examination of the portrayal of science in Gattaca reveals that the movie fails to communicate a successful image of the human spirit conquering genetic determinism and subtly supports transhumanism. This paper conducts a rhetorical criticism of Gattaca, analyzing the gap between the explicit claims of science in the movie and the visual reality portrayed there. These claims are made in a scene early in the movie by a geneticist who lists “prejudicial conditions” he has “taken the liberty of eradicating.” However, upon close examination of subsequent scenes, these prejudicial conditions are present even (and especially) among the movie’s genetically elite. This diminishes the hero’s victory over his supposed eugenic competitors because we are subtly told that science has not yet achieved what it claims. Punctuated by a scene with the one successful genetically-engineered character, a transhuman musician, audiences learn that when science gets it right, the eugenically engineered truly are superior to the rest of us. This rhetorical insight has severe implications on our use of this movie as a cultural shorthand; when referenced to guide bioethical discussions or to promote understanding of new genetic technologies, it creates a sense of false security as the enemy of Gattaca—genetic determinism—is much more insidious than its portrayal in the movie. This subversion of Gattaca’s superficial message undermines the use of the movie as a terministic screen and provides unique dangers for discussion of bioethics and genetic engineering guided by it.

 After Andrew Wakefield, the physician who claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, was discredited and disbarred, he spent almost a decade in relative obscurity before trying to clear his name and provide a concrete foundation for his pseudoscientific crusade. The method he picked to accomplish that was to publish a movie in 2016, meant to illustrate the supposed dangers of vaccination and the purported concealment of that fact by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and assorted pharmaceutical corporations. This film, Vaxxed, failed – it was barred from the Tribeca Film Festival, and opened to a crowd of a few dozen. Nonetheless, it is an immensely useful work in understanding both antivaccination ideologies and tactics, as it represents a summation of all their ideas and rhetorical strategies in a single vector. Over the course of this rhetorical analysis, I consider the strategies used by Wakefield and his associates, and find that they focus on anecdotal evidence, a conspiracy narrative, and the manufacturing of doubt, fear and scientific controversy wherever possible. I then discuss the impact of this film, both its reception and its effects as propaganda, and the reasons why it appears to have been such a dramatic failure, when previously, Wakefield’s paper drawing connections between the MMR vaccine and autism stirred such controversy and was so successful. Finally, I offer a few suggestions regarding recommendations for individuals seeking to debate or rebut antivaccination rhetoric, as well as a general perspective on the continuance, such as it is, of the antivaccination movement.

Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPGs) are an increasingly popular group activity known both for their collaborative nature and creative demands. Despite the growing popularity, TTRPGs have yet to escape their reputation as a medium for social outcasts to construct escapist power fantasies. The intent of my research is to show that these “power-fantasies,” can actually become a valuable way to explore political and personal identity. I constructed a TTRPG called Blank Spaces, designed for exploring identity, and played with 6 different groups for 22 hours. After each session, I interviewed the players and used recordings of these sessions to qualitatively analyze player experiences. Players were often surprised that they had unwittingly performed meaningful self-criticism and world-criticism, all while simply enjoying a game. This has demonstrated that TTRPGs can be incredibly powerful self-exploration, critisim, and development tools.