Hi everyone, Knowing full well that the Text and culture course from your point of view is already in the past, I hope you can still muster the energy to take an hour or two to go over your assignment again in the light of the following comments. I think that you may profit from it, because even if you won t analyze either speeches or advertisements again during your university studies, you will definitely be asked to perform textual analyses of various kinds and that is really what you ve done in this assignment, too. First of all, let me just say that I m pleased with how well you handled the assignments you ve all done really well, both in class and in the written assignments. I have asked some of you to revise what you have written, but that is almost invariably because your English should improve, not because I have found fault with your analytic skills. Language proficiency and analytic ability go hand in hand, of course, but in this case I have focused more on the latter than the former. If I have written Revise on your essay, it means that to pass you have to go over your essay and correct the grammar. Your grades will be reported tomorrow, Thursday April 29. At the end of this document I ve included the original assignment, so that you can refer to the speech and ad as you browse the comments. The speech An overwhelming majority (two thirds) chose to analyze (NB analyze is a verb; the noun is analysis ) Barack Obama s speech, perhaps because it seemingly gives you more to work with, perhaps because you found it more enjoyable many have commented on Obama s skill as a rhetor. I asked you to look at the speech from the point of view of its occasion, its disposition, and its style, or to use the rhetorical terms, from the aspects of inventio, dispositio, and elocutio. Most of you have followed this suggested order somewhat mechanically, dividing your presentation into three sections as well. You can do so, of course, and it works pretty well when you re studying the occasion and the disposition of the speech, but much less so when it comes to style. The main reason for this is that style is a factor throughout a speech, and if you want to suggest how it contributes to the argument you really need to look upon it in context. In other words, while it is helpful to look upon the style of a speech as a separate element while you 1
analyze it, once you present that analysis it is almost always more effective to integrate your observations about the way language is employed with your general account of what it is trying to persuade us of and how it is structured, than to set style off as a separate issue. That said, I m aware that you were not presented with any examples of how this could be done during our short stint together; I mention it now just so that you ll keep it in mind for future assignments of this order. When you perform a rhetorical analysis, the most important thing is to specify the thesis, but in order to do so adequately one needs to look at the occasion for the speech as well. It is particularly urgent that one tries to explain how the thesis of the speech is related to the situation. What is the purpose of the speech? Who is it directed to? And what factors constrain what the speaker can say if he or she wants to be successful? Almost all of you have provided a relevant factual background to Obama s speech, and some of you have clearly considered these questions. Here are some examples (I have silently corrected the language in one or two cases): The victory speech given by Barack Obama wanted to persuade people of mainly two things: the importance of what was achieved that Election Day, and the challenges facing America and the world. This election was about more than just electing a new president; it was about the people wanting change, specifically the change they saw in Obama. This writer begins with stating the general purpose of the speech, as s/he sees it an excellent strategy, since it gets the argument going at once, and makes the rest of the analysis easy to follow. Here s another example: Obama and his team had built his presidential campaign on a powerful message of the possibility of change. After eight years of the Bush administration, the world was ready for a new political direction and great expectations were placed on Obama to solve not only the amounting tasks at home, but also the global issues such as climate change and terrorism. Obama would also have to face up to the pressure of the opposition who had doubts 2
in his ability as a fairly young and, in their eyes, inexperienced candidate at this level. In his speech he would have to convince the opposition that he was apt for the task. In addition he had to make the gravity of the task ahead clear to his supporters, as well as maintain his positive approach. This writer rewardingly makes explicit what the first one merely suggests, namely that the speech was of tremendous importance for how Obama was to be perceived. Even so, I think this writer rather understates the case, because at stake in this speech is not only Obama s reputation with the opposition, but the trust of his supporters. Or to quote yet another of you: The main purpose of the speech is to confirm Obama's identity as President and democratic leader [ ]. Although Obama had the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans who came to Grant Park that day, he knew that there was work to be done to deserve their hearts as President of the United States. At this moment Barack Obama was a candidate no longer. Now his target was to establish his position as President. In other words, Obama s ethos is very much at stake in this speech. Many have paid little attention to Obama s use of ethos in this speech, assuming it to be well-established on account of him just having been elected president. But establishing Obama s presidential ethos is precisely what this speech is ultimately about: because he has won the election he must prove himself worthy of the trust that has been placed in him. Hence the significance of the opening sentence of the speech: If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. As most of you have seen, this sentence functions as the exordium of the speech, that is, as an opening statement designed to establish the ethos of the speaker as someone who has something interesting to say, is trustworthy, and of good will. Its gratifying to me that many of you have seen this, even though you have not always adequately explained why this passage meets the 3
requirements of an exordium. Here s a representative example: He starts by saying that you should not give up on your dreams, that tonight a black man has become president of the United States and that the power of democracy still lives on. This is indeed what he means, and it is of course highly significant that he uses himself or rather, the situation as proof of the reality of American democracy. But it is equally significant that he doesn t actually say that tonight a black man has become president of the United States, but merely implies it. Obama, being who he is, is in a tricky situation: he must show pride in what he is an Afro-American (it wouldn t do to disown his core supporters) but he must also be careful not to lay too much emphasis on the race issue. After all, he wants to come across as the whole people s president, not just the Afro- American community s. The way he solves this dilemma is a good illustration of the usefulness of discussing matters of style throughout one s analysis, for he does so by means of a periphrasis instead of saying that the reality of the American ideal is proven by the fact that a black man has for the first time been elected President of the United States, he presents the American ideal as having been questioned, yet disputes this questioning by reference to tonight. He thereby achieves several things. To begin with, he implicitly reminds us of the mounting critique of the Bush-administration that has preceded him for it is, of course, the way they have handled themselves that has made people question the power of our democracy. He thus sets the stage for what will be his own thesis, namely that change has come to America. Secondly, he directs attention to the present moment, a circumstance that clearly suggests that this speech is primarily a demonstrative (or epideictic) one. And thirdly, he redirects attention from himself to his audience: tonight is your answer (my emphasis). Thus he has proven himself knowledgeable (having acknowledged that the course America has been on under the previous administration has not been sound), trustworthy (having attested his faith in the same ideals as that of the average American), and of good will (generously having given the audience credit for having achieved the change that he is the mere representative of). At the same time, he has skillfully avoided to mention the fact that he happens to be black, yet through this very avoidance has in fact drawn attention to this circumstance a subtle use of a trope called paralipsis, a more vulgar version of which would be: I could 4
make a big issue out of the fact that I m black, but there s no reason to do so, so I won t mention it. The effect in this case, be it noted, depends upon the kind of reversal of perspectives achieved by the way the opening sentence redirects the attention from Obama to the American voters: tonight is your answer. It is up to us at this point at least - to formulate that answer in words, and if our words include the first black American president, well, then that answer only shows that race is still a big issue for us, while Obama himself could claim to see beyond such discriminating categories as race, which is precisely the message he wants to send to the American public. Having explicated the exordium of the speech, we have already turned our attention to its dispositio, or its arrangement. Most of you have made good use of an analysis of the disposition of the speech. Accounting for the disposition of a speech helps provide structure to your own argument, and often works well. The main drawback with such a procedure is that it might make you describe the speech rather than analyze it. But as long as one is careful to point out not only what the speaker says in the different parts of the speech, but also how and why s/he says it, discussing the disposition is often a seminal way of approaching a speech. In this case, there has been a lot of variation as to your analyses of the speech s disposition, but most commonly it has been perceived in either of the following two ways: PART Paragraph(s) Paragraph(s) Exordium 1 1-5 Narratio 2-4 6-12 Propositio (thesis statement) 5 It s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America. Argumentatio 6-27 14-27 Peroratio 28-30 28-30 13 The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you we as a people will get there. Of these two alternatives and many others were advanced as well the first one clearly makes more sense. I have already suggested that Obama is careful not to overplay the race card in this speech, but he does play it. The exordium in paragraph one is followed 5
by a narratio in the form of three anaphoric paragraphs which serve as a background to the propositio delivered in paragraph five, vividly showing that the dream of our forefathers is still alive in our time by painting a picture of a nation in which the notion of democracy has come alive again. The thesis statement as such, as two persons have valuably noted, comes in the form of an allusion to a classic soul single by Sam Cooke, which was adopted by the civil rights movement in the 1960s: Sam Cooke was a black American singer in the sixties. He sang this song called A Change is Gonna Come: It s been a long time coming but I know, a change is gonna come. It was also sung by other black American artists like Otis Redding and Aretha Franklin. A stroke of genius by Obama, drawing on a lot of pathos. In a knowingly understated way, then, Obama again draws attention to the race issue involved without directly saying so. But this is not the main reason paragraph five works better as the speech s thesis statement than does paragraph 13. The latter paragraph does stress the collective nature of the enterprise Obama envisions, but so does paragraph five ( because of what we did ). More importantly, while paragraph 13 speaks of the future, paragraph five speaks of the present, indeed, it directly ties in with the tonight which gets such emphasis in the exordium. (Parenthetically, let me suggest that another way to gain entrance into a speech like this could be to take note of words that recur with some frequency. A quick count reveals that tonight is used 13 times, America 14-21 if one includes derivatives like Americans change 6, I 27 and you/your 29 times. I leave it to you to ponder the implications of this in the present context.) This tonight is importantly stressed once again in the peroratio: So tonight, let s ask ourselves [ ]. As I mentioned in class, the three genres are generally associated with three distinct temporal perspectives, the deliberative being associated first and foremost with the future, the judicial with the past, and the demonstrative with the present. While the speech refers both to the past and the future, there can be little doubt that the stress is on 6
the present, as the propositio emphasizes by means of the triadic climax it contains: It s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America (my emphasis). If this is the thesis, then what follows should confirm that change has indeed come to America. And it does the following argumentatio can be divided into four or five sections, each of which serves to explain and deepen our understanding of the nature of the announced change. Obama begins by giving thanks (in paragraphs 6-10) to his opponents and supporters, a move that some of you have been prone to see as a parenthesis of sorts, before the real argument gets going (others have seen it as a narratio, setting the stage for the thesis in paragraph 12 or 13). But if you think about it, it is quite obviously an argument in support of the thesis that change has come to America, for what occasions these thanks is of course the most obvious aspect of the announced change, namely that America has elected a new president. Obama then moves on to discuss the new kind of political campaign that lies behind his success, and the new kind of president he will be (paragraphs 11-15). This calls for a new kind of co-operation between the government and the people, manifested in the new spirit of patriotism invoked in paragraphs 16 and 17, and a new outlook upon the world suggested by paragraph 18. In paragraph 19, finally, Obama offers one final argument in support of his thesis, namely that the ability to change is in fact the defining characteristic of America as a nation: For that is the true genius of America that America can change. This statement in turn is supported by the case of one individual, 106 year old Ann Nixon Cooper, in paragraphs 20 to 27. Most of you have looked upon this passage as part of the argumentatio, but I m prone to agree with the argument that One could consider paragraphs 20-28 to be part of the peroratio: even though the paragraphs combined are long, they sum up the beginning of the speech and what Obama s campaign was all about change. Another factor that strengthens this position is the quite marked change of tone that sets in with paragraph 22. The great majority of you have observed that Obama makes use of figures of speech such as anaphora (beginning a set of sentences with the same phrase, such as It s the answer told paragraphs 2-4), and epistrophe (ending a set of sentences with the same phrase, such as Yes we can 7
paragraphs 22-27, and 29). Fewer have commented on where these figures are used another unhappy consequence of dealing with elocutio as a separate category, rather than in relation to a discussion of inventio and dispositio. But as can be seen, they are used primarily in the beginning and towards the end of the speech. In this case, indeed, they can be said to signal the peroratio, or conclusion, of the speech, the function of which, as you remember, is to remind the audience of the thesis and sum up the argument, while at the same time adding pathos in order to move the audience I have stated that the speech is primarily demonstrative (and those of you who did take genre into account in general seem to agree), but that does not mean that one cannot approach it from the perspective of other genres as well. The speech is deliberative and it is evident that Barack Obama speaks of the future, of what can be achieved by them as a nation, one of you argues, and several others concur. What this really illustrates, I think, is that most speeches in practice mix the rhetorical genres. This is not to say that trying to establish what genre the speech belongs to is pointless; on the contrary, it just underscores that our understanding of the thesis may depend upon our understanding of the speech s genre. For if what we are dealing with is primarily a deliberative speech, then it makes more sense to argue that its thesis is to be found elsewhere than in paragraph five, or, alternatively, that it needs to be seen in relation to some sub-thesis to be fully understood. In either case, however, the important thing is not so much what passage you identify as the thesis, but that you make an effort to present as convincing case as you can for seeing it as such. If nothing else, the above discussion hopefully makes clear how you can build a case for seeing this or that sentence or passage as the thesis statement of a text: you do it by relating all other parts of the disposition to it: the exordium establishes an ethos of the speaker that resonates well with the thesis, the narratio prepares for the it, the argumentatio supports it, and the peroratio sums it up. There are many more things to say about this speech we haven t even broached the question of the ideological doxa or common assumption that forms one of the central constraints on what any American politician can say if s/he hopes to have some measure of success. But the recourse to American history and quotes from earlier American leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King that many have ably 8
pointed to make evident that the change Obama makes himself a spokesman for is not so much a matter of creating new ideals as reinventing old ones. A French expression comes to mind: plus ca change, plus c est la même chose the more things change, the more things stay the same. That would seem to be the constitutive doxa of American political speech to be successful, American politicians have to reaffirm the notion that America is, as Obama puts it, a place where all things are possible. (If you re interested in this aspect of the speech, it is quite instructive to compare the way supposedly American ideals are invoked by Obama, with the way they are deployed in the concession speech of Obama s principal opponent, John McCain, which you can watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss6ltp8bj8. Say what you will of McCain s politics, he too can speak!) As you ve noted I ve already spent several pages commenting an assignment that you were supposed to take care of in two or three pages. But then, that is part of the challenge of this assignment for as some of you have manifestly noted, it is much more difficult to perform a task of this order when space is limited. But it is quite possible to produce an adequate analysis of a speech of this length and sophistication in 2-3 pages it s all about economizing, of deciding what are the truly central points to put across. The ad Fewer people analyzed the ad than the speech, perhaps because it is in some sense a more difficult task. (Another reason might be that I didn t provide you with a sample analysis of an ad the way I did with a speech, as someone did well to point out to me in the course evaluations. I ll make sure to do so in the future, and will also try to produce clearer examples of how one could structure essays of this kind.) One can t rely on an account of the disposition of an ad as easily as one can that of speech, for instance, though quite a few of you have successfully dealt with that problem by making use of the AIDA (Attention; Interest; Desire; Action) model instead. Still, there is the added difficulty of adequately specifying the thesis of an ad for whereas the thesis statement in a speech is almost invariably spelt out, that of ads often rely as much or more on the pictorial element as on the words as such. 9
In general, you would seem to agree with this as one student maintains, the most important thing in this ad is not the text, but the picture. It is certainly true that the image, as this writer and many others suggest, provides much of the pathos of the ad: the image of the woman blissfully taking a shower evidently is designed to make an emotional impact on us. But we need to be wary of not making too mechanical a distinction between pathos and logos, by arguing for instance that the picture = pathos, and the words = logos not only because such a division makes one wonder what happened to ethos, but because ads just as speeches make use of all three appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) throughout. What ought to be noted is that what is really most important are neither the words nor the pictures, but the relation between words and images in the ad. We ll come back to this. I suggested in class that one may make use of dispositio in analyzing ads provided that one conceives of it in functional rather than sequential terms. So conceived, it can be usefully compared to the AIDA model. If we submit the present ad to such a treatment, we get the following outline: Attention / Exordium: Can you feel it? Interest / Narratio: The images of herbs and a woman blissfully taking a shower, forming the emotional background to the copy Propositio Picture and name of product Desire / Argumentatio The explicit arguments are found in the copy, which as is common in ads is brief; so brief, in fact, that we do well to look at it in detail, as we will below. Action We are given a telephone number and the adress of a website which demonstrates the products. Peroratio Logotype - slogan. 10
Note that the AIDA model is not a point by point counterpoint to the classic components of a speech, which in some ways is a richer model than the marketing one. Nevertheless, we could do worse than starting out from a closer consideration of the above factors. Unlike a speech, the exordium of an ad does not have to establish the ethos of the speaker as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and of good will we are, after all, dealing with a text. But it does have to catch our attention. There are several things that indicate that the main weight of performing this office falls on the phrase Can you feel it? To begin with, with the exception of the logotype/brand name, the font of the phrase is considerably bigger than that of the other words of the ad. The letters of the phrase are green, making it stand out from the rest of the text, while at the same time suggesting that it is related to the plants depicted to the left of the smiling woman, and to the first sentence of the copy. Yet while that sentence is set in CAPITAL letters, the catch phrase throughout is set in the lower case as is indeed the slogan we find under the logotype: the art and science of pure flower and plant essences. If we were to read the ad the way we are trained to read the pages of a book starting in the upper left corner, and then moving right downwards the organization of the ad may seem to imply that the catchphrase is the conclusion of the ad rather than its introduction as it were. But this is to disregard the fact that the ad-makers are counting on a reader browsing the ad, rather than studying it intently. One of you suggests that this is a factor that should be taken into account: The contrasts between the colors in the picture and the question above it capture the attention of the person who is looking at this advertisement. It is also a very beautiful picture which is taken by a professional photographer. We are used to read from the top-left side of a page. The question can you feel it is placed between the picture and the text above it. When reading this question and then looking at the picture, the usual way of reading is disturbed and the notices that something is wrong. By putting the picture below the facts about the product, you may be interested in 11
reading about these products that makes this woman in the picture enjoying her shower so much. This reasoning has much to say for itself. Since the picture is by far the most striking feature of the ad, we are likely to read the words immediately above it first, then move up to the first sentence of the copy (that stand out through their color and capital font), and finally read the logo and slogan. Indeed, we can hardly avoid reading these items in this order, merely by glancing at the page. If we have no interest in skin care products, we will probably turn the page after that, if not sooner. But if we do take an interest in such products (and as many of you have stressed, the average reader of a monthly magazine for women likely will), we may well pay a little more attention to the copy on a second glance: NEW FROM ROSEMARY MINT INVIGORATING BODY CARE, HEAD-TO-TOE. Experience the uplifting aroma of certified organic rosemary and peppermint, the cooling vitality of mint and a blend of 100 % pure flower and plant essences. In four new products, for cleansing that restores skin s balance, moisturizing that cools and an invigorating aroma that lingers. Take the invigoration home today. Find Aveda by calling 888.688.6604 or visting www.aveda.com. Not much of an argument, one may feel there is no clear logical progression in the copy, instead it repeats a set of seductively suggestive words: ROSEMARY MINT rosemary and peppermint; INVIGORATING invigoration; uplifting aroma invigorating aroma; cooling cools. But then, that may just be the point: the words are not supposed to be perceived as an argument, for an argument requires somebody making it, and that would entail that there is somebody behind the product who is trying to convince us to buy it. That might put us on guard; much better, then, if we get the impression that the product as such does the talking. All of the sentences lack a grammatical subject: the first and the third sentences are grammatically speaking fragments. In the other three the grammatical subject is suggested merely through the 12
imperative form: Experience! Take! Find! It is part of the art of advertising that the ad makers manage to turn what is in fact a set of commands into something which sounds as the language of seduction. And the trick of course is to suggest that we are not being persuaded, that the product exists in a realm in which you, the consumer, is the only real subject: can you feel it? Feel what? The ad tellingly does not say and by avoiding to provide an answer to the question it itself raises, it suggests that we are free to supply the answer ourselves any answer. Can you feel it? The luxury of 100% pure flower and plant essences cleansing, moisturizing, and invigorating your skin; the invigoration of head-to-toe body care; the joy of bringing nature into your bathroom; the art and science of AVEDA; the sense of finally having found a skin care product which does it for you; the sensual pleasure of showering in a waterfall of diamonds. Can you feel it? What? Anything! As long, that is, as your answer is in compliance with that already provided by the picture, which figurally screams Yes I can! Or as one of you puts it: The effect of the slogan being a question is that it involves the audience. It also subconsciously triggers the emotional side of our brain, because we answer the question, and then we do feel something, whatever it might be. Like many ads perhaps most this one provides a promise: Whatever you long to feel, the ad in effect says, AVEDA will enable you to feel. And it s true in a sense, provided only that we will ourselves (some would say delude ourselves) to believe that the product can make good on the promise of the ad. The same student makes another observation concerning the copy-text that bears consideration: It ends with the quite powerful and straightforward phrase Take the invigoration home which means that we are able to take home all the values this ad is related to. Or in other words: buy our products. The last comment is particularly apt, since it makes evident that the phrase Take the invigoration home is in fact a periphrasis or circumlocution, that is, as we saw in the above discussion of Obama s speech, a way of saying something whilst avoiding to say it directly. The purpose of this circumlocution in this case is obvious: the ad wants us to buy the products on offer, but it also wants to make us forget that we have to pay for doing so. Buying this product, the ad 13
tries to convince us, is not like one of those everyday transactions, like buying groceries for dinner, or toilet paper, toothpaste, or whatever it is we need; it is something we do for the sake of pleasure rather than necessity. With that we have arrived at what is arguably an underlying doxa of a majority of ads: we do not pay for the products on offer, or if we do, the price paid is such a small one compared to what we get that the products are more adequately described as gifts with which we are encouraged to improve our lives. I leave it to you to ponder the rationality of that notion. Speaking of doxa, let me conclude by clearing up a few points. Doxa, as mentioned, designates an opinion or a set of opinions that is tacitly assumed within a community. Doxa, one could say, is that which goes without saying, that which is taken for granted. What this is will of course vary from time to time and place to place. Ads tend to rely heavily on such unspoken tenets, and many have tried to specify what doxa lies behind this particular ad, but quite often have confused doxa with connotations in general. Freshness is not a doxa (if possibly a connotation) of the image of the showering woman, to feel fresh, is to be happy is. And now So why is all this important, you may ask yourself. If rhetoric will not be a part of your future English studies, then what good is this extended discussion of an assignment that is already some three weeks in the past? Well, for one thing, as I mentioned in class I m convinced that even a little bit of practice in rhetorical analysis may help you a great deal in becoming a better student, regardless what subject you go on to study. But more specifically, this assignment will have introduced you to the art of textual analysis, a skill which is of central importance in all literary courses as well. In this class, we have dealt with speeches and advertisements, and it s important to realize that the principles of analysis that you have been introduced to in reading these types of text (ethos, logos, pathos; inventio, dispositio, elocutio; etc), cannot be directly transferred to the study of literary texts. Literary texts are, as a rule, neither spoken nor visual, and cannot again, as a rule be adequately summed up in the form of a thesis. 14
Nevertheless, to be adequately understood literary texts, like more transparently rhetorical ones such as speeches and ads, need to be studied both as wholes (expressing some kind of general idea) and as assemblages of individual passages (a collection of arguments advanced in support of the general idea expressed). While speeches have theses and dispositions, novels have themes and plots, and poetry motifs and stanzas. In all cases, the job of the academic reader that is, of the kind of reader you are training to be at university level is to make sense of the text by relating observations about individual words or passages to that greater whole which is made up of the text in its totality. If you think about it, the thesis of a text is basically an answer to the question of what it is about, whereas its disposition and elocution suggest how it portrays whatever it is about. By considering the occasion of the text (the invention aspect), finally, we are in effect pondering why the text has been given its specific formal features, and why it makes use of these specific rhetorical tropes and figures. These three questions, then what, how, and why are just as relevant in relation to poems, short stories, and novels, as in relation to speeches and ads. If there is a difference, it lies mainly in that the range of answers one can come up with in response to these questions is generally much greater in respect to literary works than to other kinds of text. But the close attention we need pay to details in the text, and the close consideration of how those details relate to the text as a whole, and vice versa, is precisely the same regardless of what type of text is involved. It is, at any rate, just such an exercise in textual explication that you have performed in this assignment hopefully, you will find the experience useful in your future studies. / Magnus 15
Text and culture written assignment Text and culture written assignment Perform a rhetorical analysis of the speech or advertisement attached. The analysis should be no less than 500 and no more than roughly 1000 words, that is 1,5 to 3 pages long. It should take the form of a well-structured mini-essay, and must include a word count. You may assume that the reader you are writing for is acquainted with rhetorical terminology. In other words, you need not explain terms like ethos, pathos, logos, inventio, dispositio, elocutio, exordium, narratio, propositio, argumentatio, peroratio, and the like, but you should make evident that you know how to employ them, by considering the speech or ad in such terms. The analysis should be informed by three questions: What does the text try to persuade us of? How does it try to persuade us (what arguments and/or other strategies does it employ to this effect)? And finally, why have these particular means of persuasion been chosen? That is, why could one assume that they may be effective? These questions should be implicitly addressed throughout your argument. Complete the assignment and put it in my mail box with a standardized cover with your name on, no later than Thursday, 8/4, 2010. It should also be submitted electronically to my e-mail address (magnus.ullen@kau.se). Please note that assignments that are only submitted electronically, or that are handed in without a standardized cover, will not be returned (though they will of course be read and graded). Good luck! / Magnus 16
1. Barack Obama, Election Night Victory Speech Grant Park, Illinois November 4, 2008 If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. It s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference. It s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America. It s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America. I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation s promise in the months ahead. I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden. I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that s coming with us to the White House. And while she s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure. 17
To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you ve sacrificed to get it done. But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to it belongs to you. I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory. I know you didn t do this just to win an election and I know you didn t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair. The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you we as a people will get there. There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it s been done in America for two-hundred and twentyone years block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand. What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you. 18
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people. Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too. And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America s beacon still burns as bright tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope. For that is the true genius of America that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow. This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old. She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn t vote for two reasons because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin. And tonight, I think about all that she s seen throughout her century in America the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can. At a time when women s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can. 19
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can. When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can. She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can. A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can. America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. You can watch the speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jll5bacaaqu 20
2. 21