Ethos is the most important characteristic to have as a speaker – if an audience has no trust in the speaker, then he is simply wasting his time. Aristotle breaks ethos into three parts, eunoia, phronesis, and arete. Eunoia is the demonstration of good will to others. George Bush utilized this aspect very effectively in his speech. He asked Americans not to feel hate for or prejudice against Muslims, especially those in the U.S. He made the distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists with phrases such as, “Islamic extremism [has] been by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics”, and, “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.” He mentioned Arabs when speaking of people in other nations supporting the U.S., and mentions the “saying of prayers – in English, Hebrew, and Arabic.” He deflected the anger many Americans would potentially have felt towards innocent Muslims toward the terrorists deserving of that anger. He demonstrated goodwill by acknowledging all the nations who were supporting and praying for the U.S and thanks them for their support. He also makes good use of eunoia by commenting on the unity the different political parties have shown in the face of the tragedy. His use of eunoia is very effective both in calming the fear of his audience and in focusing anger and desire for revenge to where it is warranted.
Winston Churchill used eunoia to a much lesser degree. He expressed goodwill and gratitude to King Leopold and the people of Belgium for protecting Dunkirk, though he hinted that he thought their plan of neutrality was one of the causes of the problem. He, similarly to Bush’s method, used the term Nazi rather than German when speaking of war crimes such as the bombing of hospital ships, thereby removing the full blame from the German people at large. He was also very gracious in speaking of the French and Belgians, even though it was largely due to their unwise decisions and military blunders that Britain was dragged into a lost battle. Churchill could get away with using less eunoia than Bush, because his situation did not really call for it. The enemy was more clearly defined in World War II than it is in the war on terror. Churchill was completely justified in using the term German to describe Britain’s enemy, but Bush needed to define the enemy and ensure peaceful Muslims that they could expect peace in return.
Phronesis could be defined simply as good sense or practical wisdom; it includes showing relevance, referencing past experience and similar cases, and showing which issues are most important. Both Bush and Churchill had almost no need to show the relevance of what they were speaking about to their audiences – both of their countries were in imminent danger and had just sustained major blows. Churchill mentioned past history in the second to last paragraph of his speech. He said that Britain had never been truly free from the danger of an invasion, reminded the British people of Napoleon’s planned invasion, and said that, just as their navy protected them before, it would protect them again. Finally, he compared the military, particularly the RAF, to medieval knights and crusaders defending civilization, implying that they were carrying on the tradition of those who had gone before. He also emphasized important issues such as forming a unified front against the impending German invasion. But he didn’t fail to remind his listeners what the main issue was; he told his listeners the main issue was the conflict between good and evil and freedom and tyranny. Churchill used phronesis very effectively.
Bush used phronesis in the comparison of the September 11th attacks to the Pearl Harbor attacks. He reminds Americans that we have been through similar situations before, but that this one is worse because this attack hit us at home, killing thousands of civilians.4 He compared Islamic jihadists to the opponents the U.S. had faced before including Nazis and fascists. He stressed the fact that, while the U.S. needed to respond to this threat as it had to past threats, this war would be drawn out unlike any war Americans had yet seen. He, like Churchill, in stating
the important issues made the claim that this too would be a war of good against evil and freedom against tyranny. He identified the enemy and explained why they hate Americans. He, as Weaver wrote a speaker should, appealed to the underlying values and principles most American’s have and stated that they were the reasons the terrorists hate and fear America. Bush and Churchill used phronesis almost in the exact same way, with great ease and perfection.Arete is the demonstration of a good moral character, demonstrating personal virtue. Both Churchill and Bush had the credibility and trust at those times to gain this aspect from their audience. In addition, both claimed that their country had the moral high-ground in the struggle. This reflects back to the idea that both struggles were for freedom against tyranny. Britain stepped in to defend Belgian neutrality and France against an aggressor. The U.S. was attacked for its stance for freedom and against tyranny and its support of Israel. Arete played an important role, especially in Bush’s speech, of justifying the actions the audiences are called to fulfill.
Pathos is defined by Quintillion as passionate or emotional appeals. Churchill uses style to effectively communicate pathos as suggested by Francis Bacon. He uses phrases like, “the German eruption swept like a sharp scythe”, “dull brute mass of ordinary German Army and German people”, “ignominious and starving captivity”, and, “great trial of strength.” He appealed to Britain’s history of heroes, knights, and crusaders. He mentioned the typical British duties to king and country and gave the hope that the commonwealth would support them. He employed metaphor, “this armored scythe-stroke [German army]”, alliteration, irony,
and hyperbole. His use of anaphora, “we shall fight… we shall fight... we shall fight”5, is especially motivating and effective. He fulfilled Quintillion “essential for stirring the emotions” by first feeling the emotions he wanted his audience to feel. Winston Churchill was extremely patriotic and unashamedly thought his country the best and the last European bulwark of freedom in the face of Nazi tyranny. The main method George Bush used to employ pathos was introducing or mentioning people involved in the terrorist attacks. He introduced Lisa Beamer whose husband died in an airplane preventing terrorists from taking control of the plane. He introduced New York City’s mayor Rudy Giuliani and Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, saying, “America has no truer friend than Great Britain.” He told the nation of the people all around the world who were praying and feeling their grief. He spoke of rescuers, firemen, and policemen who gave their lives. He made their sacrifice come alive to his listeners by showing George Howard’s police badge; George Howard was killed at the World Trade Center site. He appealed to the human desire for justice by saying that, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” He appealed to his listeners love for and desire to protect American values like freedom, faith, heroism, equality, religious freedom, and sacrifice. He blatantly stated the reason for the terrorists’ hate of America, “They stand against us, because we stand in their way.”
He, like Churchill, also included some stylistically catchy phrases, “[terrorists] will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies”, “we are in a fight for our principles”, “this will not be an age of terror, this will be an age of liberty”, etc. He explained the evil of the terrorists and the justice of America’s cause, and called on the world to join the U.S. in that cause, thereby reinforcing the arete of America. He also had a memorable phrase very similar to Churchill’s famous string, “we will come together … we will come together … we will come together.” Churchill and Bush seem to have equally employed pathos, though in different methods. It would seem that their speeches were tailored to their specific audiences, Churchill utilizing great verbiage and Bush introducing heroes. They both realized the importance of incorporating emotion into their speeches, as Richard Weaver would say, they “move men’s feelings in the direction of a goal.”
Kairos is the practice of giving a speech at the best time. It is very interesting that both Bush and Churchill waited nine days before delivering their speeches. Bush’s waiting was good, because it gave time for investigations to be made, for wounds to begin to heal, and for grief to begin to abate. On September 13th Bush proclaimed a “National Day of Prayer and Remembrance”, and the next day from the ash and twisted metal of the Twin Towers offered comfort and security to Americans. By the time he was in front of Congress ready to give his speech, Americans were angry and ready to hear fighting words. On September 20th Americans were ready to hear who had attacked us and how they would be punished. By September 20th the time was right; as Bush said so powerfully, “Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.”
Churchill’s speech was also aptly timed. Nine days before he gave his speech the bulk of the British army was trapped at the French seaport of Dunkirk. They had no safe way of escape and it was estimated that only about fifteen percent would make it back to Britain. In a miraculous turn of events all the British soldiers were rescued, and so were most of the French soldiers. Churchill waited until all the soldiers were home before he gave the speech. Britain had faced one of the direst calamities ever, and if Churchill had given the speech any earlier he would have given it in a time when people were holding their breaths to see what would happen and its effect would have been lost and his appeals would have been lost. Both Bush and Churchill accurately gauged the appropriate time in deciding when to speak.
To prepon is the practice of having one’s speeches fit for the occasion. Churchill gauged the public mood, and, rather than give a speech that simply rejoiced in the deliverance of the soldiers, he spent most of the time telling his listeners what the next few years would entail. The mood of Britain at this time was one of euphoria and relief and Churchill realized that he needed to sober them up to the realities of what the war would bring. He then gave them a realistic analysis of the struggles and hardships that they were going to face and prepares them for the road ahead. He asked them to make the necessary sacrifices to help with national security.
Bush’s speech also made effective use of to prepon. He realized that it was no longer the time for extreme public grief, and, after thanking rescue workers, heroes, and our allies, proceeded to tell the nation who their enemy was and what
the government was going to do about it. His speech was stirring in that it is unabashedly pro-American and anti-terrorism. It is the equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s calling the U.S.S.R. the “Evil Empire”. In his speech he helped Americans turn their grief into a productive resolution. Another aspect he employed in making his speech fit for the occasion was emphasizing America’s arete. He emphasized America’s just cause and moral responsibility to bring the terrorist groups to justice. Finally, Bush, like Churchill, asked Americans to patiently make the new sacrifices needed to bolster national security. Both speeches were perfect for their occasions, but in different ways since the occasions were different. Churchill used his speech to prepare his country for the long and troubled road ahead; his speech is more sobering. Bush used his speech to help Americans feel safe and secure as well as to prepare them for an almost unending war; his speech is more comforting and martial.
Both speeches are masterpieces and had the desired effect. The British populace rallied, prepared for war, fought through the bombings, and pushed the Nazis back into Germany. America rallied around its president and troops and sent them to Afghanistan. The speeches were so effective because of Churchill and Bush’s impressive use of rhetorical technique gave them the necessary powers of persuasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment