Civility as rhetorical enactment: Establishing criteria and evaluating Senate debate
Abstract
Communication scholars, political scientists and participants in political discourse have all noted the negative effects of incivility on public policy. Specifically, many have complained that debate in the United States Senate often leaves much to be desired; it is said that civility is lacking. Though scholars appear to see civility as key to constructive debate on public policy issues, we lack a thorough understanding of how civility, in words and deeds, plays out within actual floor speeches. Without understanding the discursive functions and nuances of civility, critics of the Senate can only point to the most blatant violations of rules of decorum (such as swearing and name-calling). We lack a theoretical framework that would allow critics to judge the civility of floor debates. The overall purpose of this dissertation is to determine the status of civility within contemporary Senate debate and to investigate the specific verbal and nonverbal qualities of (in)civility within actual floor speeches. This study proceeds by distilling from the available literature on civility five dimensions of or criteria for civility in Senate debate, These criteria are used as a tool to evaluate three recent debates in the Senate: the debates over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the John Ashcroft Confirmation, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This study finds that incivility is common in Senate debate. Moreover, accusations of incivility are found to be a prominent rhetorical strategy. This study elaborates on ways in which senators enact or create (in)civility through various argumentative strategies and adds to the current understanding of civility (which sees civility primarily as a constraint upon behavior) an argumentative perspective, arguing that civil and uncivil strategies give specific argumentative advantages to participants in floor debate. This study also emphasizes the importance of verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the enactment of civility.
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Stewart, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Communication|Political science
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.