When Experts Deny Science: The Rhetorical Performance of Malexpertise

Abstract

Throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, experts have been relied upon to offer public health information and guidance to members of the public. Most of these experts speak as representatives of science, and work hard to communicate verified health information, including promoting COVID-19 vaccination as a safe and effective method of disease prevention. However, some so-called experts use their status to deny these same recommendations. When experts deny science, when they make dangerous recommendations including avoiding COVID-19 vaccination, they become a new type of rhetorical figure: the malexpert. Malexperts are experts gone wrong. In this dissertation, I establish a framework for differentiating true expertise from malexpertise by analyzing the anti-COVID-vaccination rhetorics of a group of twelve individuals known as the Disinformation Dozen. By engaging in the method of close reading and rhetorical criticism, my ultimate argument is that the identification and subsequent calling-out of malexperts is key to mitigating the effects of COVID-vaccine-related disinformation.