Hareim Hadi Hassan

This project develops a novel framework of “argumentative civility” by analyzing political argumentation's nature and challenges. It distinguishes political disagreements from other domains, focusing on civility's dual role as both a facilitative and potentially oppressive tool. Key inquiries include: Who defines civility? Can it foster engagement without silencing dissent? The analysis integrates Western virtue argumentation theory with Islamic traditions of Munāẓara and Adab al-Jadal to build a cross-cultural model for civil discourse. Ultimately, this research aims to establish argumentative civility as a means of fostering peaceful coexistence and socio-political transformation through reasoned, inclusive debate across cultural boundaries.

Many disciplines have studied political extremism, but studying it argumentatively is yet to be explored. This project develops a novel approach to extremism by defining it in neutral terms and suggesting a typology of extremism as the following: civil extremism, critical extremism, uncritical extremism, violent extremism, justified violent extremism and unjustified violent extremism. These terms show the novelty of this dissertation's approach to extremism. Throughout this dissertation, I will refer to political extremism as a political position with a controversial nature aiming at a radical replacement of a political status quo. I call this definition ‘a neutral definition.’ The typology of extremism suggested here is not merely theoretical but will be evaluated through the growing literature on extremism and with empirical cases. In this project, I argue against the common understanding of extremism as an inherently negative phenomenon. I make a case against this negative approach and argue that, at times, extremism could be the push needed for democratic development. In the first chapter, Towards a Neutral Account of Extremism, I present a case in defence of a neutral definition of extremism. In chapter two, Extremism and its Dimensions, I support the neutral definition of political extremism and depict the differences between extremism and concepts with which it is often mixed such as terrorism, fundamentalism, fanatism, and radicalism. In chapter three, How Do Jihadis Argue? ISIS, as a Case of Unjustified Violent Extremism, I examine a case of the most problematic type of extremism: unjustified violent extremism. I will provide answers to these questions: how do jihadis argue? What were the main rhetorical strategies used by al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, to make a successful case for joining ISIS? The title of chapter four is Expanding Argument from Authority: Argument from Charismatic Authority and the Case of Donald J. Trump. This chapter contributes to the literature on arguments from authority by introducing arguments from charisma. Here, I aim to conceptualize an argument from charisma and then apply this conceptualization to a case study. I analyze the Save America speech by Trump on January 6, 2021. The main research questions of this chapter are as follows: what is an argument for charisma? How is charisma related to extremism? How do we identify an argument from charisma and charismatic elements in argumentation? In chapter five, I study the extremist arguers' vices and virtues: Extremism’s Vices and Virtues: Towards a Consequentialist Virtue Argumentation. The approach that I use is a pluralist approach to virtue. This means that I examine the virtues and vices of extremists from a consequentialist approach, virtue argumentation theory, and vice epistemology. In this chapter, I examine cases of civil and uncivil extremism. Cases of civil extremism are from the suffragist movements and the anti-slavery movements. The case of violent extremism is from the anti-colonial violent struggles. The main research questions are: what are the vices and virtues of extremist arguers? How does a consequentialist approach to virtue study differ from virtue argumentation and vice epistemology? In chapter six, Lessons and Challenges, the concluding chapter, I reflect on this question: what can we learn from extremism, and why should we worry about it? In the process of answering this question, I reflect on a problematic account of civility, which I call ‘pro-status-quo civility,’ and suggest a different account as a remedy, which I call ‘argumentative civility.’

One of the positive ways in which argumentation can improve political thinking is through providing definitions. We can establish definitions through argumentation, filtering out ideas that are irrelevant or unacceptable, and collecting features that offer a comprehensive understanding of a crucial concept. In this paper, we use argumentation to illuminate the concept of extremism. We proceed in this way: first, we discuss the relationship between argumentation and definitions. Second, we look at the current state of affairs by exploring contemporary definitions of “extremism” and by identifying several problems in the definition literature. Third, we assume the burden of proof in providing a definition that avoids problems we have identified. Fourth, we discuss other closely-associated concepts and their definitions—terrorism, radicalism, and fundamentalism, explaining how these concepts are distinct from our definition of extremism.