#Erika Rummel | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ally3bd-blog · 5 years ago

Text

*Isocrates, Politics, and Rhetoric*

The critical questions that will be discussed in this post are: How does or doesn’t this artifact fit Isocrates’ criteria of good rhetoric (kairos, appropriateness, originality)? Is this example of “good rhetoric” ethical/productive for democracy and/or limiting to society?

The artifact which will be used to answer these questions is the speech that Former President Barack Obama gave following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Obama used rhetoric which is ethical for democracy in his speech addressing the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, while following Isocrates’ criteria for good rhetoric of kairos, appropriateness, and originality.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place on December 14, 2012 in Newtown, Connecticut where a twenty year old named Adam Lanza shot and killed twenty children and six adults. Barack Obama’s speech in response to this was given on the same day as the shooting. The video is four minutes and 10 seconds long; however, Obama’s speech only lasted three minutes and forty-eight seconds. In his speech, Obama responded to the shooting, offered condolences to the public, acknowledged a necessary state of healing, and made a call to action in order to prevent future mass shootings (“President Barack…”).

In “Against the Sophists”, David Mirhady and Yn Lee Too translated Isocrates’ explanation of three different criteria in order to have good rhetoric: kairos, appropriateness, and originality.

These criteria are addressed in the claim that “speeches cannot be good unless they reflect the circumstances…, propriety…, and originality…” (Isocrates 64). Kairos was mentioned first, which deals with circumstances as aforementioned, or “speak[ing] in a timely fashion on a matter” (Kunde). It is important that topics are dealt with in a timely manner so that issues aren’t brought up from far in the past or addressed before it should be. Appropriateness is the next criterion. This includes “propriety and decorum/community traditions, including values” (Kunde). If a speaker goes against the people’s norms, then they are likely to be questioned or not taken seriously. The rhetor needs to adhere to the community’s values and beliefs in order to have a positive effect on them. Lastly, there is originality, which is mostly self-explanatory. The rhetoric should be original and creative. The audience is more likely to pay attention if the rhetor brings up new ideas or explanations about a topic rather than repeating old ones.

Former President Barack Obama followed the necessary criterion of kairos in order to produce effective rhetoric in his speech about the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school. As mentioned previously, kairos involves “speak[ing] in a timely fashion on a matter” (Kunde). Barack Obama satisfied this requirement of good rhetoric because he gave his speech on the same day that the shooting occurred. In a situation of great distress such as this, it is important to have a response right away. If Obama had waited a few days to respond instead of doing it right away, the public might be concerned that their leader doesn’t know what to do about the situation. The people needed to be consoled by someone in a position of power. They needed to know that what happened wasn’t just going to be ignored and brushed away. Families needed to know that their children’s deaths did not go unnoticed and current parents needed to hear that there would be action taken to protect their children’s lives from being taken like the twenty kids at Sandy Hook. Obama started off his speech by saying “this afternoon I spoke with Governor Malloy and FBI Director Mueller” (“President Barack…” 00:01-00:05). By starting off with this statement, the public begins listening to his speech with an understanding that their president has been proactive in handling the situation before he even spoke to them. This speech is a great example of the importance that kairos holds in creating effective rhetoric.

For this speech, there was an elevated importance of appropriateness in comparison to that of typical rhetoric. Since this speech was in response to a school shooting that resulted in the deaths of many elementary age children, there were many parents, teachers, students, and community members scared and mourning this loss all across the globe. Appropriateness was defined as “propriety and decorum/community traditions, including values” (Kunde). In this situation, it is important to know what the community wants to hear. Do they want to hear their president console them and create an environment for healing or do they want to hear him start a discussion about ways that gun laws need to be changed in order to protect our kids in the future? Obama did a great job of addressing the needs of the United States after this tragic event took place. Throughout the history of the United States, it can be seen that after something devastating has happened, the leaders will typically console America and attempt to bring everyone together. Obama followed the public norm by making grief and community the topic of his speech. He appealed to the nation by expressing his condolences for everyone affected by the shooting. He did this by saying “our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost. Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well. For as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early and there are no words that will ease their pain. (“President Barack…” 01:35-02:05). Another important aspect of appropriateness in this situation has to deal with policy change. After an event this tragic has occurred, most Americans are not immediately ready to talk about what needs to be changed. They need time for grief, but want to know that this won’t happen again. Obama adhered to this norm as well. He let the public know that there would be change, while making sure he did not spend much time talking about what exactly was to be done. Towards the end of his speech, he said “we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics” (“President Barack…” 02:31-02:39). By making this statement, the public can feel more relaxed than before knowing that there will be action taken to prevent this from happening in the future.

Obama uses originality in this speech, which is the last of Isocrates’ criteria for creating good rhetoric. To reiterate, originality could be using a new concept or a new way of explaining an old concept. It is a creative and unique way of approaching a subject and adds something new that other rhetoric has not addressed. Former President Barack Obama used originality in this speech by taking himself out of the shoes of the president and placing himself into the shoes of a parent in front of the public eye. He does this when he says “we have endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years and each time I learn the news, I react not as a president, but as anybody else would, as a parent and that was especially true today. I know there is not a parent in America who doesn’t feel the same overwhelming grief that I do” (“President Barack…” 00:24-00:50). The majority of presidents attempt to create a distinct public persona, which is separate from the way they are in their own private life. By placing himself in the position of a parent instead of a president, he becomes immediately more relatable to his audience. He continues this later on by saying “this evening Michelle and I will do what I know every parent in America will do, which is hug our children a little tighter and we’ll tell them that we love them and we’ll remind each other how deeply we love one another” (“President Barack…” 02:41-02:54). In saying this, Obama shows that he is a loving parent and not just the President. He shows that he is relatable and can feel the pain of those parents who lost their children. This tactic is more unique and therefore satisfies the originality criterion.

Erika Rummel further explained Isocrates three criteria for evaluating rhetoric in an article titled “Isocrates' Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation” in The Classical Journal. Rummel explained Isocrates’ criterion of kairos as “the feeling for the right word at the right time” (Rummel 26). This definition argues that it’s not just the timing that matters, which was discussed earlier, but also what is said. Isocrates didn’t believe in knowledge that was absolute; therefore, he had to rely on doxa, or opinion. Rummel explains how Isocrates believed “that man, by observing cause and effect relationships, could arrive at a reasonably accurate assessment of a given situation” (Rummel 26). So, one way to learn how to best use kairos would be to watch and examine the way that the public is responding to different stimuli. Viewing the various circumstances which will cause the public to ask in a certain manner will give the rhetor a good idea of how to approach kairos. They will know what the public wants and needs to hear along with when the rhetor should speak on a subject. It is likely that Obama knew how to effectively use kairos from watching former presidents’ speeches and given multiple himself in the past. His experience and knowledge from others before him allowed him to observe cause and effect relationships with the public. Rummel then goes on to talk about the importance of appropriateness. She explains this by stating that “ideas and arguments are right if… their value is relative to a given situation and that a rhetorical composition must be judged on this basis” (Rummel 27). This definition encompasses the weight of community values, which was discussed previously. Rummel reflects how Isocrates’ believes that a rhetor must construct his rhetoric based on the values of the audience. Obama had already spoken to Governor Malloy before giving his speech, which gave him an idea of what those closely affected by the situation needed to hear. Since Obama was a parent himself, it was easier for him to know what the public’s values were after the incident because he could empathize with the parents who lost their children and whose children’s lives were affected by the shooting. This gave him the ability to provide words of condolences and grieve alongside the public. Lastly, Rummel explains the evaluative criterion of originality by using the term style instead. She says that “in [Isocrates’] opinion, the good orator ought to smooth out and polish his speech until the arguments are well-ordered, the sentence structure harmonious and the phrases agreeable and melodious” (Rummel 29). A good orator must have spent time crafting their rhetoric. Their arguments must flow from one to another in a logical way and their diction must be appropriate. In Obama’s speech, he brought up different points in a logical order. He started out with grief, then transitioned into the importance of community and healing together, and lastly he made a call to action for future change. Rummel’s interpretation of Isocrates’ evaluative criteria added new insight into the definitions mentioned previously by Mirhady and Lee Too. Even with these new descriptions, Obama’s speech was able to successfully fulfill the criteria necessary for good rhetoric.

Obama’s speech following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is a good example of ethical rhetoric that was productive for society. In his speech, Obama did not attempt to mislead his audience in any way. He focused on making an emotional appeal and didn’t use many facts to appeal to the audience. He mentioned some factual information when he stated how he talked to Governor Malloy and FBI Director Mueller and listed previous locations where shootings have taken place. The previous shooting locations can be fact checked for validity and it wouldn’t make sense for Obama to say that he spoke to two government officials if he hadn’t. As a result, the audience could trust that what Obama was saying was truthful and not deceiving. Obama’s speech attempted to create a sense of community to promote healing and grief support among citizens of the United States. There is no malicious intent. If the public listened to Obama’s speech and took action afterwards, they would be caring for one another and thinking of different ways that change can be made to prevent more mass shootings. Those outcomes are both productive for society and promote a sense of community and positive change for the future. As a result, the rhetoric Obama used in this speech was ethical (“President Barack…”).

Works Cited:

“President Barack Obama Speech - Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting - Newtown, Ct.” YouTube, Modesto News, 14 Dec. 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhxjS1FO33c

Isocrates. (2000). Against the Sophists. (D.C. Mirhady and Y. Lee Too, Trans.) (pp. 61-66). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in c. 390 B.C.E.).

Kunde, M. (2019). Lecture on Isocrates. Personal Collection of M. Kunde, Augustana College, Rock Island, IL.

Rummel, E. (1979). Isocrates' Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation. The Classical Journal, 75(1), 25-35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296831

0 notes