Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is a study of the political significance of rhetoric in democratic contexts. I explore both the uttering of language (the domain of rhetoric) and the interpretation of language (the domain of hermeneutics), to examine the discursive power of rhetoric and the role that rhetoric might play in facilitating acknowledgment, critical reflection and evaluative judgment in audiences. I distinguish three interpretive frames, which I call dissonant, resonant and disruptive, through which audiences receive rhetoric and consider how rhetoric might differently prompt those frames. I highlight dissonant rhetoric – rhetoric that marries aesthetic attunement with affective turbulence. Dissonance, I argue, has the transformative capacity to spark moments of critical reflection – potentially emancipatory instances of transcendence from conventional discourses and perspectives. Dissonance, thus, has a role to play in a robust rhetorical democracy, prompting audiences to actively question or acknowledge what was once taken for granted. The first chapter of this dissertation argues for a hermeneutically informed conception of rhetoric as world-disclosure and looks to the critical implications of this view. Chapter two provides an exegesis of Nietzsche’s reflections on rhetoric and attends to its actual deployment in Nietzsche’s works. I argue that Nietzsche’s rhetoric is often intentionally dissonant and oriented toward facilitating receptive effects. In the third chapter, I situate the argument between rhetorical theories that call for prejudicial attunement, the “systemic approach” to deliberative democracy and Arendtian judgment theory, to propose a theory of rhetorical democracy that foregrounds rhetoric’s receptive effects. I argue that the contemporary literature insufficiently engages with the receptive dimension of rhetoric and therefore does not capture the full range of world-building effects of rhetoric. The fourth chapter draws on Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of the self to examine the reception of rhetoric. Using the NFL “take a knee” protests as a case study, I point to the transformative potential of the act of “kneeling” against injustice and consider the different ways this protest may be received by audience members: as a dissonant, resonant or disruptive form of rhetoric. Chapter five looks to comedic rhetoric as particularly promising for soliciting dissonant responses in audiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".