{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02996845425867508, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.827956989247312, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Remembering “Memory,” Part II: A Rhetorical Commentary on an Institutional Keyword in Communication Studies

In an earlier paper we considered “how the emergence and epistemological performance of ‘memory’ across the discipline not only illuminates important fault lines but also reveals fertile sites of multiplicity.” In this essay, we seek in the end to demonstrate how the meaning(s) of “memory”—as a keyword in communication organizations and as a signifier of the (un)remembered disciplinary history of communication studies—have not received nearly enough attention for their effects on current communication theory and praxis.