The Blogora: The Rhetoric Society of America


Call for Chapters Interrogating Gendered Pathologies

Submitted by syntaxfactory on February 23, 2016 - 11:52am

Call for Chapters

Interrogating Gendered Pathologies
Edited by Erin A. Frost and Michelle F. Eble

The field of medical rhetorics has produced numerous studies over the past
15 years showing disparities in health (Agne, Thompson, & Cusella, 2000;
Bennett, 2009; Berg & Mol, 1998; Britt, 2001; Brueggemann, Dunn, White,
Heifferon, & Cheu, 2001; Dutta & Kreps, 2013; Eggly, Barton, Winckles,
Penner, & Albrecht, 2013; Kevles, 1998; Kreps, 2005; Lynch, & Dubriwny,
2005; Sankar, Cho, Condit, Hunt, Koenig, Marshall, Lee, & Spicer, 2004;
Scott, 2003; Zoller & Meloncon, 2013). In fact, evidence of gender and
race-based health disparities continues to exist despite numerous
legislative attempts to eradicate them (e.g. the NIH Revitalization Act of
1993 which required the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical
research, the designation of the Center for Minority Health and Health
Disparities as a NIH institute in 2010, the Healthy People program
established in 1979). Female bodies, in particular, are disproportionately
medicalized, labeled as non-normative, and brought under surveillance and
disciplined by the medical sphere. Non-white bodies, queer bodies, and
differently abled bodies are often marked as particularly risky. This
should concern not just members of these groups, but everyone: ?indeed, we
are all more or less abnormal in some way or another, and thus we are all
potential targets for psychiatric power? and medical power (Taylor, 2015,
p. 264).

Even in studies that focus on specific populations, we sometimes conflate
identity characteristics with biology. For example, Johnson (2013) reports
that heart disease presents differently in women than it does in men. While
this information is important in better diagnosing women (who,
historically, have been measured against male norms), it also risks not
accounting for the fact that not all women (or men) present in the same
way; some women might experience symptoms ?like a man? or vice versa--to
say nothing of those who do not self-identify according to either of our
culture?s simplistic sexually dimorphic (male/female) gender categories.
Ultimately, work on health disparities tends to focus on technology and
biology despite the fact that pathology--the process by which we determine
causes and symptoms of diseases--clearly has social and cultural components
that are just as significant. Drawing on the work of both medical
rhetoricians and technoscience scholars (e.g. Haraway, 1983; Harding, 2005;
Hayles, 1999; Idhe, 2003; Latour, 1987; Wajcman, 2004), we want to reunite
technological and biological information with the lived realities of the
bodies said information belongs to.

This proposed edited collection engages the field of medical rhetoric in
more actively re-orienting ourselves toward recognition of the whole body
in context. This collection will focus especially on gender issues--in part
because of a dearth of work in this area--but we also seek to recognize the
intersectionality of health disparities across race, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and (dis)ability. We welcome chapter proposals from scholars
in a variety of fields that relate to medical rhetorics, and we invite a
range of topics related to gendered pathology including but not limited to
the following themes:


the gendered and intersectionally charged nature of healthcare and
medical practice and communication

health disparity patterns

feminist technoscience approaches to healthcare disparities

work that moves toward active interventions into unjust healthcare

identification of new areas in need of attention

rhetorical practices by which bodies are constructed and constrained by
healthcare discourses

regulations and guidelines for preventative care (e.g. mammograms) and
the effects of changes to such rhetorics

Please send chapter proposals of up to 400 words and a one-page vita to
Erin Frost ( and Michelle Eble ( by March 1,


400-word proposal due Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Acceptance of proposal determined by Friday, April 1, 2016

Chapter draft (9,000 words maximum) due Thursday, September 1, 2016

Bookmark this CFP here:

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.