Date of Award

Summer 8-2026

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

English

Program/Concentration

English

Committee Director

Rosaleen Keefe

Committee Member

Daniel Richards

Committee Member

Louise Phelps

Committee Member

Joseph Skelly

Committee Member

Michael Bernard-Donals

Abstract

Since 2020, the United States has experienced a surge of incendiary rhetoric in contemporary political discourse, which exacerbates societal polarization and incites violence as evidenced by heightened politically motivated attacks. Numerous actors characterize the impetus of such violence as “extreme rhetoric.” No standard definition exists for such a term, and this gap necessitates the central research question of this dissertation, which interrogates how rhetoric can be systematically evaluated for “extremeness.” I propose that the issue of extreme rhetoric can be fruitfully examined from within the context of rhetorical theory, but instead of attempting to create a new definition of “extreme rhetoric,” I create a scale to measure and qualify rhetoric to evaluate how certain terms can shut down discourse and prevent collaboration and growth. The main contribution of this dissertation is the design of a multidimensional model that will consider multiple aspects of communication to determine how rhetoric might be considered “extreme.” This model, which I have titled Empirical Rhetorical Modeling, will provide scholars and practitioners an analytical tool intended to help contextualize the conversations about “extreme rhetoric” by offering a way to think beyond binaries and absolutes, approaches that tend to result in no-win scenarios, impasses, and division. By analyzing the depth of rhetoric, even if initially considered “extreme,” the model offers opportunities to find commonalities, points of agreement, or flaws that have potential remedies. Drawing on Plato's Gorgias, I critique the unethical deployment of rhetorical power for self-advancement over civic good, likening such misuse to the irresponsible wielding of combat skills that corrupts both rhetor and polis. Additionally, using Charles Peirce’s triadic semiosis as my theoretical framework, I intend to show that manipulation of the understanding of certain terms, specifically “genocide” and “democracy,” to examine contemporary rhetorical situations and explore the implication and emotional impact of words. The model is tested using three cotemporary rhetorical artifacts whose content and tone offer an impression of extremeness, and each result shows if the rhetoric should be considered extreme. Furthermore, the analysis of those results highlights how each artifact could be altered slightly so its message is less divisive and contributes to productive discourse. This is, after all, what Plato stated rhetoric should be to best support the polis.

Rights

In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).

DOI

10.25777/5sp9-9j42

ISBN

9798193216308

ORCID

0000-0001-9657-9317

Download

Share

COinS