Standards, Shame, and Outrage: A Rhetorical History of Sexual Assault and Policy Change in the US Military

The purpose of this study is to examine the discourse surrounding sexual assault and policy change in the U.S. military. As rhetoricians continue to embrace public sphere theory, the field has started asking what rhetoric's role is in solving public problems. My research questions were twofold: how do rhetorical processes construct social realities around sexual assault and how have these processes impacted policy change? These questions seek to further examine the rhetorical nature of publics and public spheres, specifically those surrounding the military and its interaction with the civilian public. In order to answer these questions, the case studies herein make use of rhetorical histories, grounded theory, discourse analysis, and public sphere theory. Also integral to these cases is the study of anger as a rhetorical force. The role of anger in this discourse is important, as it informs the narrative that grows out of each case study and it shapes public response to formerly private problems. Rhetoric's intervention in these cases shows the power of policy, language, and the material impact of both. The major guiding principle of my methodology is that institutions are shaped and brought to life through rhetorical processes and that these processes construct social reality inside and out of the institution in question. This dissertation examines public facing documents – memos, press releases, speeches, interviews, and leaked documents – and arranges them chronologically to offer a broader view of the discourse around sexual assault in context. The two case studies examine how the culture reinforced by uniform and fitness policies enact gender-based violence and follow the public responses to these incidents.