{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/98784"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/98784","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Foucauldian Micropolitics and the Evolution of Party Polarization: Diverging Discourses in America's Two-Party System","abstract":"Much attention has been paid to the growing level of polarization at both the party level and within the American public, particularly since the late 1970's. Many scholars will either argue that elite polarization is representative of pre-existing, strongly felt political beliefs in the electorate, or that voters act on the basis of the elite cues they observe in politicians. Scholarship has been lacking, however, a microlevel analysis of the polarization of elite discourse, its motivations, and its effects on the American voter. This study quantifies the divergence in party discourse on particular issues through an analysis of published platforms and presidential candidate convention speeches. By employing Foucauldian theories of micropolitics and biopower, a qualitative case study, critical discourse analyses, and ANES polling data, this study finds that not only have the parties been deploying drastically diverging discourses on issues of biopolitical administration, but this also tends to engender political saliency on issues in which voters were not significantly concerned. There are certainly insidious implications for a representative system of government when parties utilize discourse to manufacture political opinions for their own self-interest. The data herein show that both parties have been guilty of such mobilization tactics within the last forty years.","abstract_html":"Much attention has been paid to the growing level of polarization at both the party level and within the American public, particularly since the late 1970's. Many scholars will either argue that elite polarization is representative of pre-existing, strongly felt political beliefs in the electorate, or that voters act on the basis of the elite cues they observe in politicians. Scholarship has been lacking, however, a microlevel analysis of the polarization of elite discourse, its motivations, and its effects on the American voter. This study quantifies the divergence in party discourse on particular issues through an analysis of published platforms and presidential candidate convention speeches. By employing Foucauldian theories of micropolitics and biopower, a qualitative case study, critical discourse analyses, and ANES polling data, this study finds that not only have the parties been deploying drastically diverging discourses on issues of biopolitical administration, but this also tends to engender political saliency on issues in which voters were not significantly concerned. There are certainly insidious implications for a representative system of government when parties utilize discourse to manufacture political opinions for their own self-interest. The data herein show that both parties have been guilty of such mobilization tactics within the last forty years.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Schoonover, Kyle Michael"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Arts","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Political Science","degree_department":"Political Science","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Goedert, Nicholas"],"committee_members":["Nelson, Scott G.","Luke, Timothy W."],"year":2020,"date_issued":"2020-06-08","date_published":"2020-06-08","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:56Z","subjects":["Michel Foucault","Polarization","Discourse","Biopolitics","Truth","Power"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:25911"],"render_values":[{"text":"vt_gsexam:25911","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/98784","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Goedert, Nicholas"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Nelson, Scott G.","Luke, Timothy W."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Schoonover, Kyle Michael"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2020-06-09T08:00:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2020-06-09T08:00:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2020-06-08"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Michel Foucault","Polarization","Discourse","Biopolitics","Truth","Power"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:25911"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/98784"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Much attention has been paid to the growing level of polarization at both the party level and within the American public, particularly since the late 1970's. Many scholars will either argue that elite polarization is representative of pre-existing, strongly felt political beliefs in the electorate, or that voters act on the basis of the elite cues they observe in politicians. Scholarship has been lacking, however, a microlevel analysis of the polarization of elite discourse, its motivations, and its effects on the American voter. This study quantifies the divergence in party discourse on particular issues through an analysis of published platforms and presidential candidate convention speeches. By employing Foucauldian theories of micropolitics and biopower, a qualitative case study, critical discourse analyses, and ANES polling data, this study finds that not only have the parties been deploying drastically diverging discourses on issues of biopolitical administration, but this also tends to engender political saliency on issues in which voters were not significantly concerned. There are certainly insidious implications for a representative system of government when parties utilize discourse to manufacture political opinions for their own self-interest. The data herein show that both parties have been guilty of such mobilization tactics within the last forty years."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstractgeneral","label":"General Abstract","values":["Even the most casual observer of the American political system will note the adversarial and polarized relationship between Republicans and Democrats. Rather than focusing on the general differences between the two parties, this project looks at how the language and dialogue of political elites affects the average American voter. What I found is that, as the two parties discussed certain issues more frequently and in distinct ways, these issues became increasingly important to the American electorate. In other words, politicians tell voters which issues are important to them through their choice of rhetoric. This is quite different than common assumptions of democratic societies where legislators merely represent the interests of their constituents, rather than manufacture them."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Arts"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["ETD"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Foucauldian Micropolitics and the Evolution of Party Polarization: Diverging Discourses in America's Two-Party System"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Goedert, Nicholas"],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Nelson, Scott G.","Luke, Timothy W."],"dc:contributor.department":["Political Science"],"dc:creator":["Schoonover, Kyle Michael"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2020-06-09T08:00:51Z"],"dc:date.available":["2020-06-09T08:00:51Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2020-06-08"],"dc:description.abstract":["Much attention has been paid to the growing level of polarization at both the party level and within the American public, particularly since the late 1970's. Many scholars will either argue that elite polarization is representative of pre-existing, strongly felt political beliefs in the electorate, or that voters act on the basis of the elite cues they observe in politicians. Scholarship has been lacking, however, a microlevel analysis of the polarization of elite discourse, its motivations, and its effects on the American voter. This study quantifies the divergence in party discourse on particular issues through an analysis of published platforms and presidential candidate convention speeches. By employing Foucauldian theories of micropolitics and biopower, a qualitative case study, critical discourse analyses, and ANES polling data, this study finds that not only have the parties been deploying drastically diverging discourses on issues of biopolitical administration, but this also tends to engender political saliency on issues in which voters were not significantly concerned. There are certainly insidious implications for a representative system of government when parties utilize discourse to manufacture political opinions for their own self-interest. The data herein show that both parties have been guilty of such mobilization tactics within the last forty years."],"dc:description.abstractgeneral":["Even the most casual observer of the American political system will note the adversarial and polarized relationship between Republicans and Democrats. Rather than focusing on the general differences between the two parties, this project looks at how the language and dialogue of political elites affects the average American voter. What I found is that, as the two parties discussed certain issues more frequently and in distinct ways, these issues became increasingly important to the American electorate. In other words, politicians tell voters which issues are important to them through their choice of rhetoric. This is quite different than common assumptions of democratic societies where legislators merely represent the interests of their constituents, rather than manufacture them."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Arts"],"dc:format.medium":["ETD"],"dc:identifier.other":["vt_gsexam:25911"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/98784"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Michel Foucault","Polarization","Discourse","Biopolitics","Truth","Power"],"dc:title":["Foucauldian Micropolitics and the Evolution of Party Polarization: Diverging Discourses in America's Two-Party System"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Political Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:56Z"}