Moral integrity

November 15, 2008
Credo: The moral integrity that makes for a powerful speech

Geoffrey Rowell
TimesOnline. Novemeber 15, 2008.

One of the many striking things in the election of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States is the power of his language. His gifts of oratory and rhetoric are palpable, rooted in ancient and classical means of communication, in which rhythm, alliteration and assonance all have their part to play. In his powerful repetition of questions and phrases, challenging and cumulative sentences end with some simple affirmation — “Yes, we can.”

Aristotle famously spoke of three aspects of arguments that convince — logos, pathos and ethos. The first is centred on logical reasoning, the second on emotional appeal, and the third has at its heart an ethical appeal, convincing by the character of the speaker or author. When there is a mismatch or a disjunction between powerful words spoken and the character of the speaker, then the accusation of hypocrisy is quick to be made. Oratory and rhetoric to be powerful and convincing need to be grounded in a life that is consonant with the ideals proclaimed. Words without moral commitment will never suffice. It is not merely Obama’s words that have swayed Americans and moved so many elsewhere, it is the sense that words and character match. Both politicians and preachers are judged by their integrity, the coherence of life and rhetoric.

Obama Effect

Call for Papers: The Obama Effect

 October 23-25, 2008, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

 Since he stepped into the national political spotlight at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has challenged conventional wisdom about race, politics, media, and generation.  In this historic election year, it is imperative for scholars and professionals in a wide variety of disciplines to reflect upon the potential effects of Mr. Obama on: American and global public opinion; party politics; voter participation; media representations; international relations; religious discourses; and constructions of racial, sexual, and gender identities.

 This conference invites papers from scholars and professionals working from different perspectives on the phenomenon of Senator Obama’s political career. Our goal is to create a conference that will showcase various and interdisciplinary approaches to the “Obama Effect” to provide participants with a multi-faceted view of the past year’s campaign and its potential effects on a wide range of social arenas.

Function vs Rhetoric

Function v. Rhetoric
Peter Campbell
LRB

• Architect and Engineer by Andrew Saint

It is difficult to work out who gets the credit for a building – so many people are involved, from owners, contractors and governments to bricklayers and roofers – but it is particularly hard to decide what is due to the architect and what to the engineer. Andrew Saint, in his new book, sees them as sibling rivals, and in tracing how their relations have changed over time, looks for answers to three questions. Was there a time when the roles of architect and engineer were indistinguishable? If so, how and why did they separate? And, finally, have they now been reconciled?

Burke Dramatism and Obama

caerglas: Looking for feedback on Obama. Also: my take on his Rhetoric.

Obama can talk, he's great. His Ethos and Pathos are strong. He sounds very sincere and caring, and what he says is often what I've felt has needed to be said, and is something I feel I can get behind. He's a modern day Cicero--and that guy was a jerk, an autocrat who made the people feel very good and pleased with themselves for doing what he wanted them to do. Or he's a modern day Saruman, to be a nerd--his logic, his policies weren't good at all, but he sounded really wise while saying it and everyone wanted to agree with it as it sounded great the way he said it.

Obama's Rhetorical style in this speech gives me pause--it gives me great pause, really. It's big on hierarchies and centralizing power into his hands. In brief: it's pretty big with Kenneth Burke's (I think) Dramaticism. That's a style that's great on Ethos and Pathos. It's a style that encourages the audience to identify with the speaker, to identify themselves (and the speaker) with his description of the current state of affairs. This description must paint the current state of affairs as flawed and troubled--but the speaker knows a way to improve the current problems and transcend the current state of affairs into an improved situation, while at the same time the speaker and the audience transcend from their current state and into an improved state--not just because they've identified with the current situation, and that situation has improved--but also through the audience's allegiance with the speaker.

Perhaps this is necessary for getting groups of people together... but it's dangerous as it throws a lot of power into the hands of the 'leader.' It's also dangerous as it causes centralization of power and 'unification' among the followers. Dramatism requires hierarchies--'you must transcend the troubled times by following me as the leader; through following me, who is one of you, we all will transcend into a better state.' And that's what's up with my concern on trusting Obama. Such charisma is not necessarily to be lauded in a leader we cannot predict, and I cannot predict him. Aside from the Rhetorical clues in his style, Obama explicitly called the present as a time for "unity," or unification. He's very much against divisive speech here.

Over de retoriek van de oorlog: ‘Hollywood regisseert mee de oorlog van George W. Bush’. De Morgen 19.3.2008.

Vandaag vijf jaar na het begin van de oorlog in Irak proberen voormalige Hollywoodmedewerkers vanuit het Witte Huis het conflict in de media nog steeds zo heroïsch mogelijk te verkopen. Op de wijze van 'artificial reality imagineers' die de optredens van VS-president George W. Bush mee regisseren.

(...)

In 'De verkoop van een oorlog' toonde het Nederlandse VPRO-programma Tegenlicht maandag met dit voorbeeld aan hoe het Witte Huis de beeldvorming over de Irakoorlog manipuleerde met behulp van 'artificial reality imagineers', communicatie-experts die naast de gewone werkelijkheid een gemedialiseerde - en politieke - realiteit bouwen. Ze doen dat op de wijze van Scott Sforza, die, tot zijn vertrek uit het Witte Huis in de zomer van 2007 , de zichtbare optredens van Bush regisseerde.

Visual Rhetoric

Een interessante vraag over de relatie tussen retoriek en visuele geletterdheid:

Reading Response « Rhetoric and Technology - ENC 6421

Prompt 2: Drawing on at least two of the readings, explain what is rhetorical about the visual turn.

In the introductory chapter of The Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the technique of discovering the persuasive aspects of any given subject-matter.” Rhetoric, as Aristotle defines it, could be applied to nearly any medium, any object, anything that communicates a meaning or attempts to persuade a viewer, reader, hearer, or observer. So what is.

(…)

The visual turn is rhetorical in its very nature – visual elements communicate and persuade, whether intentionally or not.

Presidential Rhetoric

Off the Page: The Harvard Press Author Forum: Presidential rhetoric in historical perspective

PARTICIPATING AUTHOR: BRYAN GARSTEN

Bryan Garsten is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, and author of Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment.