This is the assignment for our very first virtual meeting. You'll use the COMMENT feature to post your responses, and we will have agreed in class on Tuesday what the deadline is. Remember that you must have a gmail account to post comments.
Why this assignment? To identify your default critical lens and to expand it; to begin thinking about Delivery (the 5th canon of Rhetoric).
Reading/viewings/listenings:
To the right you'll see a list of links to several campaign speeches. You don't have to use these--they're just suggestions. But do choose 2 speeches from the 2008 campaign repertoire for a comparative analysis. Youtube has many versions, of course, but many of these are clips; be sure you get an entire speech. (That said, I've included the Clinton crying clip.) Note: If you can find Michelle Obama's Villanova U speech, please let us know. It's a wonderful speech and I can't find it anywhere. It used to be online--I suspect it drew some criticism and got removed. My browser won't open the AOL version.
So now you have 2 speeches in hand.
1. Get in touch with your inner, default critical lense, "default" meaning what you'd say around the table with friends or maybe even in another graduate class (and these may be quite different!). You might do a race or gender comparison, but you could also just do, say, a "hand gesture" or "deference to whom" comparison. Write something and hold it.
2. Now read Lindal Buchanan's Introduction to her book (which I'll provide in PDF Wed AM if not before). It introduces the fifth canon and expands the traditional definition. Choose something from her nuanced view of delivery and review your speeches once again. Write something more.
Now Post your comment.
Note: If you don't know your classical terminology, use the Pernot review (also soon available in PDF).
Note: It would be great if you did a little interaction on line, via Comments. But no pressure just yet.
11 comments:
test comment
For this analysis, I chose to look at Sarah Palin's acceptance speech and Michelle Obama's DNC speech. I find it particularly interesting that in the speeches, Palin and Obama almost immediately identified themselves according to the relationships they occupy. They both identify themselves as wife, mother, daughter early in their speeches, which seems to imply that their sense of self is tied largely to the social roles they occupy within their respective families. In other words, although they are both speaking in a political context, they identify primarily with their family ties, and as a result of those ties, they have a vested interest in civic matters. Obama's and Palin's identities, seem significant. Both seem to emphasize the roles they occupy in order to establish their ethos, lending credibility to their presence in the political arena.
Linda Buchanan's view of delivery can account for this emphasis to some extent. In her introduction, Buchanan suggests that there is a feminine and a masculine delivery style. The feminine style, now forgotten, calls for the woman rhetor to sit in silence, deferential, while a male reads her speech. In the masculine delivery style, women were unapologetic, standing and delivering directly to the audience. In some ways, it seems like Obama's and Palin's situating of self within familial relationships serves as a nod to the feminine delivery style, acknowledging that although they are speaking, and thereby occupying a position of power, they are also "traditional women" in the sense that their domestic roles are of central importance to their identity. This identification can be read as a disarming tactic, relating to people's expectations of a women's traditional role in society. These women can speak confidently, and hopefully they will not consequently alienate their audience if they self-identify in a manner that reinforces traditional expectations.
The public positioning that Obama and Palin engage in can also be understood in terms of Buchanan's second and third topos in her analysis of delivery. The second topos involves access to public platforms. According to Buchanan, "feminine gender ideals and expectations posed serious obstacles to women rhetors, who had to fulfill responsibilities to home, children, and family before even attempting to reach public platforms" (161). In the case of these speeches, Obama and Palin may acknowledge their roles as spouse, parent, and daughter in order to offer assurance that family is of primary importance to them, no matter the presence of politics and civic duty in their lives.
The third topos of space deals with how social context "determines whether or not particular groups are perceived to 'belong' in public settings" (161). As Palin and Obama speak, an act which has been male-dominated for so long, they seem to bridge the gap between the public and private domain by affirming their social roles and how these roles have led them to civic life; it is because of her children and her hope for their future that Michelle Obama believes in her husband's run for office, and Sarah Palin describes her political arc as a journey from average soccer mom to PTA member to political player. Both became interested in civic responsibilities because they could see how they pertain to their children and, more broadly, the next generation. Through their positionings, Palin and Obama could be justifying their existence in the political domain.
Exhausted from watching so many political speeches from this past year's campaign, it was with some reluctance that I returned to them once again. So tainted is my perception of Sarah Palin by Tina Fey and SNL that I find it almost painful to watch Palin's speeches as the delivery just doesn't work for me. I juxtaposed Palin's Iowa stump speech with Michelle Obama's DNC speech. Of course these are two very different rhetorical moments evident in the expectations, setting, and timing of the utterances and it is easier to be more critical of Palin than Obama. The differences in delivery most captured my attention.
Palin plays on her smalltown folksiness as she says things like "comin' down" and "that's cool". She talks about being a hockey mom, refer's to Alaska's "first dude" and manipulates her voice inflection when she wants to emphasize a point in a way that reminded me of the MC at wrestling match or monster truck rally. But I suppose this is what you get with a less scripted speech--you see the person's energy and perhaps more sincere feelings.
Obama on the other hand was much more poised and dignified and certainly more scripted. I enjoyed her speech and found it easier to swallow than Palin's. Yet, one particular aspect of her delivery bothered me. In the instances when she was emphasizing a poignant moment in her life or talking about the plight of the American worker, she did a light stutter in her speech as though trying to sound more conversational, like she wasn't reading from a teleprompter. While I don't deny her sincerity, it seemed a bit forced. Granted I haven't seen her speak in very many unscripted situations so perhaps this cadence is true to her natural speech.
After reading Buchanan's article, I was struck by the many negotiations women rhetors had to make in order to create a successful ethos. Particularly, the challenges maternal rhetors must face stood out as I considered Palin's and Obama's comments. While drastically different in their overall delivery, they both successfully negotiated their split roles as mother and public figure. As Buchanan suggests, these rhetors "had to reassure the audience that their public appearance did not entail the neglect of either their homes or families." Although Buchanan considers 19th century female rhetors, the conditions of that period continue to influence women entering politics. Palin emphasizes throughout her speech family. She does this through repeated references to families in her hometown and through highlighting her husband’s experiences. She points to his achievements at work and in play. While she doesn’t discuss her children in the clip, many of her other speeches do. Palin positions herself as a hockey mom thereby ensuring her audience that while she is running for vice president, she is also very much in tune with the duties and responsibilities of motherhood.
Obama also taps into these topoi. She begins her speech talking about her brother and his example and makes numerous references to her children, to her parents, and to her role as wife to Barak. By speaking to their partnership and support she has given him, she balances her own personal achievements as a lawyer and successful career woman. Despite a more progressive cultural landscape than that which existed in the 19th century, women rhetors today continue to negotiate gender expectations. By tapping into the audience’s commonplaces, or shared expectations of what a female public figure should do, they construct a powerful ethos.
Speeches:
Michelle Obama “Women’s Week of Action” Speech 9/24/2008 (Madison, Wisconsin)
Sarah Palin Stump Speech 9/18/2008 (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)
First Viewing/ Critique/ Comments & Observations
This campaign season was a real thrill from the get-go. I was totally jazzed to see some historically underrepresented groups - women! African Americans! - in the political spotlight. It was exhilarating to watch.
I followed the election closely, and saw Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin speak at their respective party conventions. I did not want to review those [interesting] speeches again for this assignment, but instead wanted to look at two shorter speeches made by Obama and Palin on the campaign trail. These speeches were made in the Midwest within a week of one another. It is fascinating how differently these women present themselves and “their” candidates. There is, of course, an important distinction between Obama’s role and Palin’s role on the campaign trail; Obama is campaigning for a husband and not for an elected position whereas Palin is on the ballot. While both women play a supporting role and are “vouching” for a man seeking the top spot, I don’t know if some differences in content, style, and delivery might be because of these different roles. I’d be interested to hear others’ takes.
Obama-- Obama spoke for over 20 minutes at a “Women’s Week of Action” event. She began by thanking many people. At first, I thought this thanking went on for too long, but I realized that it underscored an important note she wanted to make in the speech. This note was highlighted in both the content of what she said and in her style of delivery. Obama emphasized the importance of connectedness. She described the connections that brought her to the campaign -- her role as a wife, a mother, a daughter, a sister, a part of a community. Thanking those who had hosted her visit, invited her, organized the event, worked on the campaign, etc. showed an interconnectedness between people in a community and the importance of collective action.
Obama talked about conversations. At the same time, she delivered the speech in a conversational tone, used hand gestures and mannerisms (touching her hair, making a motion with her hands as though “getting something off her chest, bent/tilted her head, at times, as though sharing something private) that would be appropriate over a cup of coffee. Conversations mobilize people to participate in the election, she told the crowd outright, but also expressed by delivering a speech that felt like a conversation.
At one point, she addressed “just the women” in the audience directly, with her hand on her hip in a knowing, conspiratorial, voice. She repeated, the second time loudly (this line stood out because while she could be heard, she did not use the upper registers of her voice), that women “get it done.” This playful, conspiratorial, almost teasing (toward men in general, and her husband by implication) tone was meant to provoke trust and intimacy. She revealed something about her own life experiences; she was communicating to the women that she is trustworthy, “one of us,” and holds a nuanced (if not feminist) view of how labor is (unequally) divided in life and in relationships. She projected a feminine energy.
Palin-- Palin spoke for 8-9 minutes at a traditional rally/event in Cedar Rapids. She began by thanking the city for welcoming her and John McCain (who was there, standing beside her). She asked all the veterans of the Iraq war to raise their hands and she addressed each of them, thanking them, over a roaring crowd. The emphasis on the veterans and the special commendation to military families seemed to serve a different purpose than the thanks given in Obama’s speech. Instead of using the appreciation to foster a sense of interconnectedness and community, it created instead a sense of hierarchy and deference. McCain, by virtue of being a veteran, basked somewhat in this deference and smiled and waved as though the crowd were thanking him.
The special thanks to the veterans also underscored the theme of doing battle with or fighting a common adversary: in this case, the adversary was the democratic ticket. Unlike Obama, who only alluded to McCain/Palin, and who emphasized the qualifications of her husband (i.e. repeated that there is “one candidate”), Palin repeatedly invoked by name Obama and Biden. She emphasized not one candidate, but two candidates (one good, one bad) reinforcing the hierarchical nature of her speech and argument.
Palin moved around a lot. She pointed and waved her arms. She seemed to make herself and her gestures big, energetic, enthusiastic, and strong. She spoke with force and pitch that sometimes caused her voice to become thin. She delivered lines line thrusts or jabs -- they were short, pointed, and sharp in content and delivery. The short length of her overall speech reinforced the feeling of quick, sharp, punches; she spoke as though boxing in an arena. The speech was athletic and performative. I would characterize her aim as wanting to rouse or rile her audience, prepare them for a fight, underscore the importance of hierarchy and deference, and separateness and strength over togetherness. I perceived her delivery as masculine.
After Reading Buchanan’s Piece
Buchanan’s piece made me think more deeply about the audiences Obama and Palin were addressing in their speeches. In both cases, the women were addressing largely supportive audiences. While some dissenters or neutral observers may have been in the crowd, cheers, signs, and conjecture based on experience of how audiences were screened prior to the speaking events lead me to believe that neither woman was facing a hostile audience.
Obama -- Obama was likely facing an audience disproportionately made of women. I suggest this because of the theme of the talk and its situation as a “Women’s Week of Action” event. She addressed women specifically, as mentioned above, but not before saying that she saw some “handsome” men in the crowd. “Handsome” is an interesting word choice; it is complimentary and possibly flirtatious. This move evoked, for me, the Lucy Stone anecdote in Buchanan’s introduction. Obama presented herself as one of equals, and again fostered through both her vocalizations and gestures a collaborative feeling. Buchanan explains this spirit of collaboration infused rhetorical approaches in the previous century: “Antebellum women collaborated with families, friends, and hired help in order to negotiate conflicting private and public obligations, accommodate gender norms, construct feminine ethos, and create and present public discourse” (9).
Palin -- Palin’s speech, particularly her vocalizations and gestures, seem to invoke radically different rhetorical strategies. While Palin spoke about her husband the “First Dude” her tone was markedly different than Obama’s when she spoke about Obama. The tone was one of respect, but equality. While Obama implied she and her husband had different (potentially unequal) responsibilities, thus aligning herself with her audience, Palin spoke of her husband as a comrad or friend. This is one example of the way Palin rejected the opportunity to use or call upon her gender in the speech performance.
Palin, who had recently given birth, made no mention (none that I can remember right now) of her children or her recent pregnancy. Buchanan devotes some time to the public perception of pregnant rhetors, and the largely problematic way women of child-bearing age (and women with young children) were viewed in the public sphere. Palin, interestingly, does not have the body of a woman who recently delivered a child; she is fit and was dressed in a dark, tailored suit that projected a no-nonsense, business-like persona. Buchanan critiques the double-standard inherent in judging a pregnant woman or mother with children (men with children would not need to be at home with the baby of course). This perceived negligence negatively affected the ethos of women rhetors. Palin in this presentation seemed to distance herself from a maternal persona, and thus reinforced an idea about power divorced from motherhood and womanhood. Instead of using her appeal as a woman and mother to connect with her audience, Palin delivered a speech that seems to want to be measured on the merits of the “masculine, elitist standards” (10). Her delivery and gesture performance seems still, in light of the reading, masculine.
I chose Hillary's PA victory speech and Palin's Iowa stump speech for comparison. Hillary's speech first struck me because of her use of pregnant pauses and also her lack of a lot of body movement. These factors made her seem very deliberate in her choice of words. When she didn’t intend to pause, though, as when the crowd was chanting and she stopped so as not to be drowned out, she was still attempting to speak; she gave the impression that she had something to say and was going to deliver her message on her own terms. Her use of a series of rhetorical questions at the end of the speech, though, served as a greater form of engagement with the audience, as they could then shout out answers without drowning her out. I also thought it was interesting that when she referred to her “working class” background, she only mentioned male relatives, a grandfather and her father. I wondered if that was an attempt to call attention away from her gender.
Palin’s speech first struck me with its extreme activity. She uses a lot of hand motion and arm waving, I thought she talked faster than Hillary, too. She called her role as a mother and wife into the audience’s consciousness almost immediately, referring to her husband and his multiple accomplishments and her “hockey mom” status. She also let the crowd chant over her and stops for much longer than Hillary did. She used a number of colloquialisms, such as “first dude,” and “that’s cool.” I noticed that she also played up her “working class” background, like Hillary, but she did mention her sister’s new gas station among the accomplishments of the males. To me, her gender was always something that was really apparent (well, obviously) in the way she spoke and in what she spoke about.
So after reading Buchanan’s introduction, I thought about the way that women rhetors were questioned in their private lives because of this creation of a public presence and how that questioning might influence the way women present themselves in their public appearances and speeches. Hillary, of course, has for years been a “frigid” woman “who couldn’t keep her man happy” and was often portrayed as masculine within the press. Palin came under criticism for her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and was consistently mocked throughout the course of the election for her “beauty queen” persona. So, I looked at the speeches again to see if the women’s differing positions within the social context in which they were speaking affected my view of their presentation. I also reconsidered their roles within the campaign itself—Hillary as a presidential candidate, Palin as a VP candidate—to see if that might account for the way they are delivering their words.
Hillary’s speech again struck me as being very deliberate. She spoke slowly and though she didn’t move around a whole lot (head, arms, hands), her words were very active. She “carries dreams,” “fights for you,” and “stands up strong,” for example. I thought that active persona she created with her words was a result of the role she was attempting to undertake, that of leader of our country. Her personal references to her family and to the hardships that Americans were facing were either masculine or neuter. The problems she mentions, such as gas prices and grocery/medical bills, are issues that people of all genders must deal with. The only direct reference she makes to her femininity, in fact, was also an active one. She talked about elderly women who were once not able to vote and about parents using her a figure to encourage their little girls, both of which bring to mind not so much the fact that she is a woman, but the fact that she is a revolutionary female figure.
Palin differs markedly in her presentation. While she uses many hand gestures and movements of her head and face, her speech indicates some deference, a more passive role in both her personal life and political career. She refers to her role as a wife and a mother, and spends about 30 seconds talking about her husband’s accomplishments. Then she moves into talking about what John McCain can, has, and will do. We get very little information about what she herself has done. I thought this was no doubt a result of her role as a running mate rather than a presidential candidate herself, yet the fact that she is a woman makes it more significant. Palin further exhibits some passivity when she allows the audience free reign with their chanting. She stands silently while they drown her out and waits several seconds before attempting to continue her speech. I also noticed that she looked down at the podium a lot, as though she were reviewing her notes, which of course negatively affects her delivery.
Both women are either downplaying or highlighting their gender respectively with regard to the role they are attempting to fulfill. Their rhetorical choices serve to create two very different forms of ethos in an effort to justify their very different positions as women within the traditionally masculine political sphere.
Comment from Kate Alexander
From Annarose Fitzgerald:
Even in the most accomplished and educated women, there remains a pressing need to assure people that none of their accomplishments or goals have anything to do with what they want for themselves. From the earliest beginnings of Ms. Clinton’s campaign, I heard friends and relatives whom I would have thought would be impressed by such a viable female candidate call her “selfish” and “in it for herself”—in a way that was never a concern with any of the male contenders. When comparing Michelle Obama’s DNC speech to Hillary Clinton’s much briefer but very noticed emotional speech, I saw this anxiety to place selfless motives at the forefront of their agendas as a key part of both women’s speeches. Clinton and Mrs. Obama both allude to the opportunities they’ve been given, and their desire to give back.
Reading the story of Lucy Stone at the beginning of Buchanan’s introduction to Regendering Delivery, made me envision the mobs these current women rhetors were facing. While no clubs or other physical threats were as imminent for these women as they were with Stone, both use their femininity to get the crowd on their side. Though Clinton does not implore a single man for protection, she reveals her vulnerability to the audience by her tearing eyes and breaking voice when she states, “Some of us go out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds.” With the phrase “out there,” she encourages us to envision her as someone in need of protection against a harsh world. She leaves out the details of the harsh things people may be saying and writing about her, instead inviting us to recall the most recent attacks against her and her campaign. Much like Stone’s potential attacker, we now want to prove ourselves worthy of her reliance and shelter her from further blows. After all, she is only putting herself through this for the sake of our country, asking only for a little exercise and some healthier food than pizza while she’s on the road.
Mrs. Obama has a similar need to prove to us just how unselfish both she and her husband are, and also assumes a shared viewpoint with her audience. Since her husband didn’t work for “Wall Street” when he graduated, and she left her job with a “big law firm”; we are to understand that these phrases connote a self-serving world far removed from the selfless and sincere goals to which she and her husband aspire. In speaking of her role as a mother, and concern for her girls being her first priority, Mrs. Obama also asks us to protect her in her vulnerability, and cast her husband as someone who could protect us as well, much as he protected her infant daughter on the ride home from the hospital. The crowd that was screaming and shouting just moments before now begins to tear up at this anecdote; she holds their attention while calming them down.
Watching these speeches side by side, I was amazed at how the need to appear both selfless and vulnerable was so adamant, even when they were in a clear position of power. Both women assure their audiences that they seek no victories for themselves, but only for us—and in spite of their possession of the microphone, they are powerless without our cooperation as well.
I looked at Hilary Clinton’s Pennsylvania victory speech and Sarah Palin’s stump speech (only part one is linked here—here is the link to the second half of that speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFmYj96hmJc&feature=channel_page).
A few things struck me from viewing these speeches back to back. Both Palin and Clinton attempted to connect with their audience by making reference to the region they were visiting. While Clinton used her male family members’ ties to Pennsylvania to evoke a response, Palin made some folksy references to the local hockey team and a joke about construction. As they delivered their speeches, I found Clinton’s delivery seemed the most careful and deliberate, while Palin’s delivery seemed more loose and off the cuff. She peppered the speech with a lot of casual, folksy phrases and used big gestures. Palin did seem to be a little more controlled and careful in her delivery at times when she was talking about specific issues and policy suggestions—as though she was staying on script for some of the talking points in the speech but cutting loose in the sections where she could improvise a bit.
Both candidates used “we” a lot in their speeches, but the meaning of “we” was different for each. For Palin, “we” most often referred to Sarah Palin and John McCain. For Clinton, “we” was used to refer to herself and everyone in her audience. Palin’s “we” linked herself with McCain, while Clinton’s “we” served more to bring the audience into the speech and point out that they are participating in this race with Clinton.
Palin and Clinton differed greatly on how they brought their identity as a woman into the speech. Even though the CNN cameras made a point to show that her husband and daughter were in the audience, Clinton never mentioned them. In fact, the only family that Clinton mentioned were her father and grandfather, and this reference served to connect with her audience by showing she has similar roots, so it’s almost as though she were comparing herself to these men. Palin, on the other hand, wastes almost no time before mentioning her husband Todd. A few minutes later she also introduces him, making her role as wife clear to the crowd. Paln also identifies herself immediately as a hockey mom, and later as a mother of a child with special needs. Her gender dictated roles are at the front of her speech, and not lying on the back shelf, as seems to be the case with Clinton.
Considering Buchanan’s regendered view of the fifth canon, we can see some explanation for Palin’s gender roles making such a prominent appearance in her speech. Buchanan writes about the influence that maternity has on a woman as a rhetor. She writes that these women “had to reassure their audience that their public appearance did not entail neglect of either their homes or families,” (9). In mentioning Todd at the beginning of the speech (she more formally introduces him as the “first dude” a few minutes in, but informally makes reference to “Todd and I” at the very beginning), Palin is reassuring the audience that she is not neglecting her spousal duties. Todd stands behind her both figuratively and literally, and she is sure to point out his contributions to the family lest anyone start to think there is any sort of role reversal at work in this family.
An interesting spin on Clinton’s avoidance of mentioning her husband, child, or her gender, then, is that she is not subject to the same critical eyes as Palin is. Clinton is older than Palin, and her daughter is grown. At the time of her Iowa stump speech, Palin had a four month old baby with special needs. These women are arguably in different stages of their maternal lives. As Buchanan points out, many women were unable to have a successful speaking career until they were older and had fulfilled their obligations at home. Clinton’s age could exempt her from needing to thoroughly inject her gender and her family into her speech. We would also need to consider the beliefs or values of the audience members, though. A more conservative crowd like the one Palin addresses may need the extra reassurance from Palin.
Katherine Alexander
English 540
Professor Susan Romano
January 24, 2009
I have selected two speeches, one by Barack Obama (http://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm) and another by his wife, Michelle Obama(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/michelle-obamas-democraticconvention speech.htm).
President Obama delivered his speech in Philadelphia, the birthplace of independence for the USA. This speech was in response to the outburst by Reverend Wright and also to the inferences and innuendos made about race during the campaign. Obama’s words are now regarded as important commentary on racial issues in this country and will probably be regarded historically in a manner similar to the “I have a dream” speech of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Obama chose a venue for delivery across the street from Independence Hall in Philadelphia and begins his speech from the first line of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.” He then nods to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as he begins “two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall across the street.” By invoking both these words which helped to establish this country along with the place where the Declaration of Independence was signed and a nod to the Great Emancipator, Obama appeals to patriotism of all, but soon moves to a statement that the document was stained by this “nation’s original sin a slavery,” thus adding a religious metaphor to his already deeply symbolic verbiage. Thus, he set the tone for what was to follow.
Not scolding, but rather expressing his faith in the “unyielding faith in the decency and the generosity of the American people,” Obama tells his story. The son of an African father from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, Obama was reared to a great extent by his grandfather who fought in Patton’s army and his grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line. In this paragraph of his speech, Obama is very successful in placing himself in both the mainstream of America and also as an American with a very individual story, just as so many Americans have.
During the speech Obama proclaims that he “can no more disown him [Reverend Wright] than he can his white grandmother…a woman who helped raise [him], a woman who sacrificed again and again for [him], a woman who loves [him] as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
This part of the speech places Obama in two worlds. He seems to be asking his hearers to try to understand this. He cannot sacrifice one world for the other, because he belongs to both in every way. Southern author William Faulkner provides a quote from where Obama will move for the rest of his speech: “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.”
As he talks about the past, he very carefully alludes to some of the sufferings of black people in this country. He includes poor white people, Hispanics, and people from other races marginalized in America as he moves to conclude his commentary. He alludes to people of all races who serve together to protect our country, as he refers to the people from these races who receive inferior educations, health care, and job opportunities.
To finish, Barack Obama speaks of the honor of presenting a speech at Ebenezer Baptist church to honor MLK. At this speech he met a young white girl, who had a difficult life because of economic deprivation. He related her story as he proclaimed this is “where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty-one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.”
The second speech I have chosen was delivered by Michelle Obama at the Democratic National Convention where her husband was about to be named the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. It is important to remember that Michelle, is a Harvard educated lawyer, as is her husband.
Michelle begins her speech speaking of the improbable journey that brought Barack and her to “this moment.” She alludes to herself as a sister, with a six foot six brother (a basketball coach with whom Barack spars), a daughter of a blue collar worker on the South Side of Chicago and a mother whose integrity, compassion, and love are reflected in Michelle’s own daughters. She refers to the self sacrifice of her parents to make a better life for her and her brother. She then moves to create a parallel between her life and Barack as she refers to his family who scrimped and saved to give him a better life. She recounts his days working in community organization where he encounter the poverty and stark lives of people living on very little. She refers to these individuals as people who “believed—like you and I believe—that America should be a place where you can make it if you try.” She and her husband, are, of course, the finest examples of this belief.
In her speech, Michelle very openly invokes her motherhood and how important her girls are to her and her husband, just as our children are important to us. She makes many mentions of Barack’s serious reverence for his role as father, something her never really had. She ends by honoring her father’s memory and her daughters’ future as she calls for a united America, an America where hopes can be fulfilled.
Clearly, Michelle’s speech was intended to support her husband by placing herself in the support position. She did accomplish this and also provided insights into her strengths as a result of her upbringing, as she demonstrated her ability to deliver a message of strength because of her abilities in rhetoric.
Now I shall present my analysis based on the Pernot material and the Buchanan Analysis of the Fifth Canon.
Barack Obama’s speech is very direct and responds to some very deeply embedded beliefs in America and more specifically the actions of his pastor, the Reverend Wright. He well performs the duties of an orator as he begins by;
• Instructing and informing: providing information about the history of the U.S. and placing blacks within that history);
• Winning over: won’t use the term delight here, but will speak of Obama’s stories which place him among the people whose votes he is seeking.
• Moving: here he places himself in two worlds. The presentation of his white self-sacrificing family and their unselfish contribution to his rearing create empathy among his listeners as well as hope that they too can aspire to a better life in this country.
Barack Obama is clearly endowed with the natural gift of oratorical ability. His natural gift is probably enhanced by both his education and his practice. As a graduate of Harvard Law and the President of the Harvard Law Review, he is especially prepared to be successful in his use of rhetoric. In his speech, he uses all of the preparatory elements listed by Pernot:
• The idea of fable or fabula is demonstrated in his reference to the beginning of the U.S. Both Homer and Vergil, as well as others, use this technique as they present their great epic poetry. Reference to the grandeur of beginnings is a very effective method to capture and audience.
• Obama moves to narrative as he describes the plight of African American people who are, as citizens, really supposed to be part of the grandeur proclaimed by America’s beginnings.
• He includes much anecdotal information such as his story as a multiracial young man being raised by grandparents who epitomize America and who also have not always been charitable about racial matters.
• His uses of fabula, narrative, and anecdote help to provide his refutation and confirmation of the ideas of race that he is presenting. On the one hand, he indicates we are all citizens of the U.S. (all races), while on the other, he demonstrates that blacks and other races, as well as poor whites have been marginalized.
• As Obama delivers his message, he presents the commonplace as well as the fabula or myth-like language. Most often, this is seen in the many anecdotal references appearing in his speech.
• The praise section here is interesting because Obama uses this method to praise the forefathers for their intentions, albeit stained with slavery, and also the people who now contribute to make the US a better place.
This speech appears to fall into the category of the epideictic or panegyric which both praises and calls deficiencies to the attention of his listeners. Within this framework, we can also see glimmerings of Obama’s legal training and the orderly procedure one must follow in preparing such a speech.
Obama very carefully presents his exordium by using encomium or praise while alluding to the fabula of the story of our country. He then presents the narration that will provide the basis for his discussion. The main points presented in his exordium are: a refutation of Reverend Wright’s remarks and Obama’s placement in a two worlds, both equally inhabited by him. He clarifies this for his listeners throughout the speech, as he catches their attention, and wins their good will by appealing to patriotism and empathy of his listeners. His argumentation is presented in terms of facts surrounding the African American experience in the US. This is the proof section of the argument. After presenting all of his material, Obama summarizes by invoking his faith in America as a nation always in flux, a nation where all people can work together to make a better world.
Michelle Obama’s speech was delivered for an entirely different purpose: to support her husband’s nomination for President of the United States. She clearly follows the rhetorical form, but places her fabula, narrative, and anecdotal elements around her role as a sister, wife, daughter, and mother. Buchanan suggests that rhetoric of gender can be used to create a connection with one’s audience. This idea is very present as Michelle Obama presents herself in her many roles. However, she then differentiates and places herself in another space as a woman who did not have the opportunities of many, but aspired because of sacrificing parents to her new role. Her informal use of anecdote served to connect and endear her to her audience who surely must have felt empathy for her. She proved herself a very capable speaker even in this “softer” context in “support of her husband.” We do know that she is capable of delivering a speech much less feminine –gendered, but chose this method of delivery to relate to her audience.
As Barack’s wife, she conveyed his story to America through her eyes. A very effective means of presentation of a spouse is for the other spouse to recreate him or her from a position of love and admiration for that person. Obama clearly feels the same admiration for her as he said, “How about Michelle Obama? Now you know why I asked her out so many times even though she said no. You want a persistent president.”
Post a Comment