Analysis of Modern Rhetoric

Analysis of Modern Rhetoric:

An Exploration of Obama’s Candidacy Speech

Rhetoric is, in its simplest form, communication. It is both conscious and subconscious in its attempt to convey a message. “How we perceive, what we know, what we experience, and how we act are the results of our own symbol use and that of those around us; rhetoric is the term that captures all these processes. For us, rhetoric is the human use of symbols to communicate” (Foss et al. 1). Being that rhetoric is simply symbolic communication, it stands to reason that almost anything can be rhetorical. Words, no matter their delivery, have the ability to expose perspective on behalf of both writer and reader. “[R]hetoric is symbol, by which we mean something that stands for or represents something else by virtue of relationship, association, or convention” (Foss et al. 2). Such is the case throughout the existence of rhetoric.

Rhetoric has experienced six distinct periods since its formal inception in the fourth century B.C.E.; these periods include classical, medieval, renaissance, enlightenment, nineteenth-century, and modern rhetoric. Though each period had obvious and unique characteristics from those surrounding it, a common thread exists among them all. Rhetoric was used with the aim of delivering a message to an audience; in most cases, this message was intended to be persuasive. And, modern rhetoric is no different from traditional styles in this aspect. The same basic concept has reigned true for centuries. However, there are distinguishable differences between modern rhetoric and prior periods. In many ways, modern rhetoric is far more relatable, analytical, and applicable than the flowery language and roundabout arguments that marked early classical and medieval rhetoric. Barack Obama’s official presidential candidacy speech provides a strong example of modern rhetoric as exists in the 21^st century, particularly when exploring elements of delivery, language, audience, and culture.

In the winter of 2007, Barack Obama, a young senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. The 30-minute speech was televised nationally to an audience of thousands; it marked the first in a long string of speeches that would rally millions of voters and, ultimately, help him to win the election. Obama’s candidacy announcement is demonstrative of contemporary rhetoric in that it was written with the specific intention of speech. “Departments of speech formed in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, breaking away from English departments, whose primary focus was literature. The curriculum of the new speech department was based on [public speaking]” (“Modern” 1186). Rather than a press release that textually announced Obama’s candidacy, he chose an oratory method. This is a far cry from textbook-based rhetoric that plagued post-Gutenberg printing press eras. After this advancement, the tradition of oration was somewhat lost because it was no longer necessary. Rhetoric developed an audience of readers rather than listeners; rhetoric was first for text, then – only maybe – for speech. However, required business skills of the 20^th century ignited newfound interest in teaching speech and presentation skills. “The speech course [continues] to be quite popular with students for whom the ability to speak confidently, both on the job and in community life, may be as important as the ability to write well” (“Modern” 1186). Such education has persisted into present day and has dramatically influenced modern rhetoric. Speech is now a commonplace in academic, political, and professional arenas. Obama’s announcement is highly reflective of a society that encourages oration, specifically in the realm of politics. Academia has helped to solidify the penchant for beautifully delivered speeches as society’s marker for success.

Language choice is another element of Obama’s announcement that reveals its achievement as an example of modern rhetoric. The speech begins with a very individualistic approach. For example, he says:

[L]et me tell you how I came to be here…I moved to Illinois over two decades ago. I was a young man then, just a year out of college. [A] group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year. And I accepted the job, sight unseen, motivated then by a single, simple, powerful idea – that I might play a small part in building a better America. (Obama)

The speech continues for several minutes with reference to personal experiences, beliefs, and accomplishments of the senator. In sharing personal stories, Obama is establishing credibility for himself. Whereas the earliest forms of rhetoric depended on group involvement and collaboration, modern rhetoric values individual ethos. Political upheaval in 1960s and 1970s America effectively worked to prioritize personal thoughts over popular opinion. “Personal writing, the individual’s search for an ‘authentic voice,’ was regarded as a form of opposition to the impersonal and oppressive Establishment…” (“Modern” 1185). This trend is still echoed in modern politics as personal statements of opposition are those most loudly heard and appreciated by citizens. Contemporary society is far more individual-centric than existed in Aristotelian times. Understanding this, Obama strategically began the speech with a personal statement that would help to better connect his audience. Personal expression is a prominent marker of modern rhetoric, as it was only dubbed acceptable within recent decades; therein, Obama’s speech is a key example of modern rhetoric.

Whereas statements of opposition are best relayed through individual testimonials, audience applicability is equally important in modern rhetoric. Obama does a flawless job melding the two components together. He seamlessly transitions from personal history to the duties of all citizens without hesitation or awkwardness.

I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change. The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed…Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s need to be done. Today we are called once more – and it is time for our generation to answer that call. (Obama)

In modern rhetoric, personal statements rouse groups of people in resistance to or defense of something while embracement and connection actually motivate people to take action of these assertions. In addressing the audience as “we,” Obama gives validation to a cause. “Our learning comes from interpretation, our disciplines grow by argument, our communities cohere through discourse, our ideologies are structures of persuasion” (“General Introduction” 15). Obama establishes himself as a leader initially with “I” statements then invites the audience to join his effort with “us” and “we” declarations. Unity is necessary in modern rhetoric to affirm community support. Society demands not only a strong leader, but also one with a collaborative, inclusive cause.

The cultural perspective associated with Obama’s candidacy announcement is another defining feature of modern rhetoric. As obvious as this might seem, Obama’s speech was history making because of his race. Just a few decades ago, African American rhetoric was largely ignored by mainstream society. It took the persistent efforts of dozens of rhetoricians and an enormous societal uprising to rid America of racist mindsets. “Enlarged as a theoretical resource, rhetoric has also expanded its grasp of the ways that women, people of color, and cultural or ethnic minorities use language to gain a hearing for themselves” (“Modern” 1183). As people of color are becoming increasingly involved in facets of politics and business, rhetoric will evolve to better facilitate their cultural norms and expectations. In general, the sheer fact that Obama was able to make the announcement of his presidential candidacy is a marker of modern rhetoric; quite simply, such a declaration would not have been possible in early periods. Obama’s speech is a powerful demonstration of rhetoric’s progression from ancient Greek times to contemporary, limitless opportunities.

It is interesting to compare traditional forms of rhetoric with modern interpretations as similarities and differences are readily apparent. In fact, there has been little difference in regards to the main goal of rhetoric; just as ancient orators hoped to inspire a crowd to some particular action or belief, contemporary politicians and lecturers desire an audience to rally for their cause as well. In its simplest, truest nature, rhetoric is simply communication. Not much has been lost in the way of this. This being said, modern rhetoric has changed a great deal in the finite details. This evolution includes delivery, language, audience, and culture. Modern rhetoric is far more accessible and relatable than existed a millennia ago, with an entirely new audience and culture with which to influence or draw inspiration. Digitalization has provided the masses an opportunity to access rhetoric like never before as well as enables the “everyday” individual an opportunity to broadcast his own materials. Contemporary rhetoric is less elitist, to be blunt. Approaches to rhetoric are quite different from ancient methodologies. As exemplified in Obama’s announcement of presidential candidacy, modern rhetoric has the innate ability to fuse traditional, pure practices of rhetoric with globalized and relatable traits of the present.

Works Cited

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2001. Print.

“General Introduction.” The Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 1-16. Print.

“Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric: Introduction.” The Rhetorical Tradition. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 1181-1205. Print.

Obama, Barack. “Our Past, Future and Vision for America.” Obama Presidential Announcement. Springfield, IL. 10 Feb. 2007. Address. Web. http://www.barackobama.com. 28 Nov. 2010.

Response to Reading Seventeen

The Rhetorical Tradition describes the meaning of Modern and Post-Modern Rhetoric. I found it quite interesting to compare these contemporary understandings of rhetoric with more classic approaches. I came to realize that there are far more similarities than differences. Whereas the mediums in which rhetoric is displayed are quite varied from one period to the next, the content and delivery is not all that unique. Though I tend to think that society wants rhetoric to have progressed dramatically since the ages of Classical Rhetoric, I really do not think that it has. What worked in the fourth-century B.C.E. -- including the five classical elements and three rhetorical appeals -- are still applicable, perhaps with a slightly modern twist.

I was quite fascinated between classical themes of oration and those of modern politicians who often utilize oratory methods. Press releases a far cry from textbook-based rhetoric that plagued post-Gutenberg printing press eras. After this advancement, the tradition of oration was somewhat lost because it was no longer necessary. Rhetoric developed an audience of readers rather than listeners; rhetoric was first for text, then – only maybe – for speech. However, required business skills of the 20th century ignited newfound interest in teaching speech and presentation skills. “The speech course [continues] to be quite popular with students for whom the ability to speak confidently, both on the job and in community life, may be as important as the ability to write well” (“Modern” 1186). Such education has persisted into present day and has dramatically influenced modern rhetoric. Speech is now a commonplace in academic, political, and professional arenas. Press announcements are highly reflective of a society that encourages oration, specifically in the realm of politics. Academia has helped to solidify the penchant for beautifully delivered speeches as society’s marker for success.

Whereas the earliest forms of rhetoric depended on group involvement and collaboration, modern rhetoric values individual ethos. Political upheaval in 1960s and 1970s America effectively worked to prioritize personal thoughts over popular opinion. “Personal writing, the individual’s search for an ‘authentic voice,’ was regarded as a form of opposition to the impersonal and oppressive Establishment…” (“Modern” 1185). This trend is still echoed in modern politics as personal statements of opposition are those most loudly heard and appreciated by citizens. Contemporary society is far more individual-centric than existed in Aristotelian times. Personal expression is a prominent marker of modern rhetoric, as it was only dubbed acceptable within recent decades.

Whereas statements of opposition are best relayed through individual testimonials, audience applicability is equally important in modern rhetoric. In modern rhetoric, personal statements rouse groups of people in resistance to or defense of something while embracement and connection actually motivate people to take action of these assertions. Unity is necessary in modern rhetoric to affirm community support. Society demands not only a strong leader, but also one with a collaborative, inclusive cause.

Response to Reading Sixteen

Fortunately, I have been able to take several university classes that focus on racial issues in contemporary society. Many of these classes explore racial themes from the 1800s onward. Therein, I have read countless pieces by Frederick Douglass, including the essay in The Rhetorical Tradition. I find the struggles of African Americans, particularly those of Douglass's time to be almost unbearable. The conditions and social moods that these individuals were subject to are outrageous and horrific.

In one particular class, my professor used the phrase "write themselves into existence." To me, this was an absolutely poignant phrase that described how early African American writers had to literally write themselves into existence. In order to have an identity, they had to almost force it upon people. Another concept I have come to understand through these kinds of classes is that of "double consciousness" in which the individual is caught between an identity they want to have and an identity that has been given to them. Those this was a term coined by W.E.B. Dubois, I imagine that Douglass faced a similar struggle. I have learned a great deal in previous classes and reading Douglass's essay for a second time only helped to reaffirm my knowledge on the subject matter.

Nineteenth and twentieth century dominant discourses clung to three main ideas about African American culture. The first was simply that they were inferior to white society purely because their complexion was darker. The second belief was that all great accomplishments came from European ancestry. They saw African Americans as imitators incapable of being educated. Whites also viewed themselves to be the only civilized peoples because blacks, according to them, had no history of arts and sciences. Dominant discourses laid forth harsh judgments of African American society. But counter narratives, like the works of Douglass and so many others, encouraged an enlightenment of sorts. They created a defense against common thoughts of segregation, thus initiating momentous change. But interestingly, these doctrines of hope often shed additional light on the inner turmoil African Americans face while caught between the past and present. African Americans struggled between their heritage and their future, their identity and subjectivity.

African American writers were charged with the uphill battle of writing themselves into existence during the troubled times of nineteenth and twentieth-century America. Dominant discourses shaped white America’s thoughts. They allowed an ignorant, second-class stereotype to become the prevailing identity for African Americans. Unfortunately, it was a majority opinion unchallenged for decades. Sociology describes this as “institutional racism,” in which individuals may, unwillingly, succumb to the social pressures of racist behavior purely to fit in with cultural norms (McIntyre 34). The civil rights movement, often through the use of counter narratives, confronted such social traditions. African American authors showed America a more subjective view of themselves. The goal by writing themselves into existence was to disestablish the predominant standards, creating an identity based upon personal rather than cultural definitions. But in this battle to fight dominant discourses, African Americans were conflicted in a state of double consciousness. W.E.B. Dubois keenly describes this in Of Our Spiritual Strivings, “It is a peculiar sensation, this double consciousness…One ever feels his two-ness, --- an American, a Negro” (38). There was a disconnection between identity, cultural interpretations, and subjectivity, personal views of self. African Americans struggled with identification based on what past white Americans perceived and their own future ambitions of self definition.

I cannot begin to imagine the struggles that existed for these early rhetors of color. How brave they were to try to counter dominant trends that had been pervasive and horrific for centuries!

Works Cited

Dubois, W.E.B. “Of Our Spiritual Strivings.” The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: UP John Wilson and Son, 1903. 37-44.
McIntyre, Lisa. The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Response to Reading Fifteen

In reading about nineteenth-century rhetoric in The Rhetorical Tradition, I am reminded of a Romantic author I studied in one of my previous English classes.

The Romantic Era began quickly after the Enlightenment, as focus on science and logic gave way to ideas of art and idealism. Nineteenth-century rhetoric, as described in The Rhetorical Tradition, is largely reflective of Romantic ideas I believe.

"[D]uring the eighteenth-century, poets and critics were developing a new model of literature that focused not on its ends but on its creation. The artist's mind, in this new view, is more relevant to an understanding of art than the mind of the audience is. The recurrent ideas of the Romantic revolution reflect this turn toward the creator of art" (Bizzell and Herzberg 995).

William Blake, the author in which I was reminded of, was an 18th century Romantic whose visionary world came to life in the words and illustrations of his poetry. A spiritual man, Blake created paintings from his vivid imagination, just as written expressions seemed to similarly come to him. Abstraction is common to Blake poetry; it can be difficult to see the connection between the poem and illustration depicted alongside. It takes a thorough dissection of both language and art to understand the poem’s meaning in its entirety. Furthermore, like many Romantic poets, it is his vivid imagination and madness that make Blake’s poetry so captivating. In "Songs of Innocence and of Experience," Blake epitomizes Romantic thought by describing many of the ideals so closely related to Romanticism: devastation, romance, nature, and subjectivity. Blake's content ambiguity is quite reflective of the idea that the creator of art is far more intuitive on its meaning than an answer. Romantic authors need only answer to themselves, it seems.

Response to Reading Fourteen

Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students chapter eleven provides a very interesting examination of memory, in terms of both ancient and modern expectations.

One of the more interesting points made by the book, I believe, is that memory is far less narrative than we initially think. The book gives the example of essay composition. It reminds us that we must remember commonplaces and argumentative strategies, how we went about composing other pieces of discourse, and grammar and spelling information. No matter how many notes an individual may take, much of these elements are based entirely on memorization. Writing cannot occur without some rudimentary experience.

"[T]hese days, people tend to think of their memories as narratives of their past lives, rather than as carefully organized depositories of common knowledge. Despite this belief, our memories are stocked with many things besides narratives of our experiences..." (Crowley and Hawhee 380).

It is certainly a unique thing that memory is so all-encompassing, and yet we forget the most nuanced abilities of memory. Processes are just as important as narrative descriptions, if not more. Case in point: rhetoric. If we cannot remember the steps involved in document creation, then rhetoric cannot exist. No degree of extraneous experience will be able to explain the formulation of rhetoric; this is a purely methodical and systematic memorization process. "[P]eople do not begin composing as though nothing has ever happened to them or as though they remember nothing of their past lives" (Crowley and Hawhee 380).

Response to Reading Thirteen

I have long been interested in European history, especially the Age of Enlightenment. The Rhetorical Tradition provides an outstanding description of this revolutionary time in history. Therefore, I will describe what I believe to be the most extraordinary and pivotal results of the Enlightenment.

"The period in European history from the seventeenth through the eighteenth centuries -- the period known as the Enlightenment -- is marked by revolution in science, philosophy, and politics" (Bizzell and Herzberg 791).

The Age of Enlightenment is one of those token periods in history; I would not doubt that every student has studied this era at least twice during their academic careers, if not more. Of course, there is a reason for this excessive exploration of a period in history. The Enlightenment fundamentally changed the ways in which society viewed the world. And not for just a brief period; rather, the Enlightenment altered life in ways that would have forever, undeniable influence.

There were changes to science, philosophy and politics. In terms of science, scientists shifted experiments to meet requirements of the scientific (experimental) method and sought new discoveries that would better explain questions within our physical world. Science became investigative as never better. Philosophy changed in that philosophers began to look for the great connection between humans; what, they asked, was universal amongst all human populations. Additionally, they sought answer to questions of psychological, which worked alongside advancements in science. Finally, politics evolved to reflect increasing demand for democracies. Old orders lost credence, giving way to a standardized and seemingly natural order of democracy. "These vast social and intellectual changes inevitably affected the ways that language, communication, and rhetoric were understood during this crucial period" (Bizzell and Herzberg 791).

Logic was one of the most identifiable changes during the Enlightenment. As experimental science took root, logic became an infinitely important component of rhetoric; arguments now required scientific, fact-based evidence. Additionally, as the study of psychology offered reasoning and imagination as natural human capacities, poetry and art became intertwined with rhetoric. Creativity was considered equally important as pure argumentation. This was one of the first times in history that storytelling was deemed acceptable formats of rhetoric. I consider this quite interesting, as the Enlightenment is often synonymous with science and art generally represents the opposite of this.