it was the first time they'd seen a black person in real life.
Just kidding.
As an aspiring rhetorician, I found Rice's lecture interesting for a number of reasons:
- She's funny. No, scratch that--she's hilarious. Considering she came out of the Bush administration, one expected more of a miasma of malapropisms rather than carefully timed and executed black jokes.
- Despite no longer having official ties to the United States government, her patriotic rhetoric was such that while I agreed with much of her address, I also felt myself grow uncomfortable in the presence of such fervid patriotism. Perhaps it's just deeply one-sided discourses that I'm suspicious of, but being told that America is truly the only nation that idealizes freedom and truth above all others made me question her argument. Aren't essentially all industrialized nations striving for these same goals? The notion of American being represented by the log cabin was also problematic. On the one hand, you've got the connotation of Abraham Lincoln's log cabin: a baby born in such humble circumstances can grow up to the be the president of the United States. On the other hand, you've got Uncle Tom's Cabin and all the images and feelings of slavery attached to that same log cabin.
- The visual accompaniment of watching her speak added another dimension into consideration. Before she began speaking, the camera caught her face for a few seconds as she listened to President Tanner's introduction. She looked stern, pensive, and utterly unfriendly. However, as soon as she mounted the podium, her face broke into a gracious and welcoming smile that completely threw me off my balance. I had expected a rather austere lecture on the importance of an education and subsequent active American citizenship. Who was this smiling anecdote-sharing woman who just seconds before had looked like your mean first grade teacher? Without having the visual component of her address, there wouldn't have been any way to read her bearing, body language, etc. Stage presence has a ton to do with rhetoric.
However, as I now know that there are actual questions to answer, I'll go about answering those instead!
1. What means of persuasion are used in the forum?
As I mentioned, she used a massively successful pathic tactic by invoking humor. Her comical anecdotes helped her connect to the audience in a way that the other material in her address simply wouldn't have allowed. She also made frequent mention of her credibility on matters of state and international relations by dropping her previous Secretary of State title, experiences from school (including earning her PhD), and all the important shoulders she rubbed during her terms with the Bush administration.
2. What is her argument?
While she argued a number of different points (like American superiority and the importance of a rounded college education), she strongly emphasized the point that gaffs or unexplainable actions today rarely color a person's entire history. What seems dire today won't seem nearly as traumatic 50 years from now. In essence, keep your focus on making your time on this planet useful as a whole rather than getting flustered every time one unfortunate thing happens.
3. How does she support her claims?
*Her experiences as Secretary of State
*Examination of history
*Appeals to institutions (like family and education)
*Name dropping
*Anecdotes
*Pathic appeals by invoking nationalistic ideals
*Humor
4. Does she use visuals? Does she use them effectively?
As I mentioned before, her presence on stage was a very impactful visual that added a compelling dimension to her address that simply isn't there when dealing with, for example, radio personalities.
(The final questions about interest level and how convincing her argument was have already been answered in my semi-rambling above.)
No comments:
Post a Comment