"Election" and the Definition of Rhetoric

                The reading by John Poulakos on the sophistic definition of rhetoric, explained a rhetorical theory that I believe is well represented in the student speeches from the movie “Election.” Originally, when I watched the movie, I recognized the good and bad speeches. But after reading John Poulakos’s article, it helped me realize why they were either a success or a failure. Edward Schiappa explains in his article that Poulakos fails to give an accurate, historical reconstructed view of a generalized sophistic definition.  Poulakos does, however, utilize sophistic thinking in order to create a modern theory of rhetoric that I believe is important and prevalent today.

                The clip below is from the movie Election, in which Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon), Paul Metzler (Chris Klein), and Tammy Metzler (Jessica Campbell) run for Study Body President. Tracy and Paul give their speeches first but both fail to arouse the audience. Tammy, on the other hand, receives overwhelming support from the student body at the end of her speech even though she was booed at the beginning. Poulakos’s sophistic definition helps explain why Tracy and Paul fail while Tammy succeeds. Poulakos’s defines rhetoric as “the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible.”  (36) The four elements within this definition that embody the speeches are: style, timeliness, appropriateness, and the possible.

Poulakos quotes Aristotle to emphasize the importance of style – “it is not sufficient to know what one ought to say, but it is necessary also to know how one ought to say it.” (37) All three candidates give well thought out speeches, but each has a distinct style attached to it. Tracy’s speech is formal and detached, and Paul’s speech, which literally very good, is read directly from his note cards with no pauses or emphasis. Poulakos states that it is the speaker’s style which illustrates their personality. Audiences want to know who their speaker is, and their style is often how that is accomplished. Paul is revered by the students but is actually revealed to be very boring and bland through the delivery of his speech. He completely loses his audience because there is no style, no personality. Tammy’s speech is bold, direct, and controversial. Her attitude shines through her speech and the audience is hooked by it. Style (or lack of it) can determine the success of a speech because words alone can’t sway an audience; the speaker needs to show personality as well.

Poulakos also emphasizes timeliness or, kairos, as an important element in rhetoric. What is said must be said at the right moment in order for it to be persuasive. Obviously all three candidates are asked to speak because they are trying to persuade the students to vote for them. But only Tammy proves to have the courage to speak in the moment without any prepared speeches. Gorgias is stated to have believed that a true speaker should have no reference materials and that the speech should arise from the moment. Tracy and Paul both hold note-cards, proving to the audience that their speeches are prefabricated and detached. Tammy speaks last and uses this to her advantage. She uses the power of that moment in time to arouse and persuade her audience.

Appropriateness or to prepon is another element that must be considered. Poulakos cites Gorgias as emphasizing the importance of the audience in crafting one’s speech. Different audiences should illicit different speeches. If the speech is appropriate, it “is perfectly compatible with the audience and the occasion it affirms…and evokes the audience’s gratitude.” (41) Tracy’s speech is too formal and structured. She also reveals embarrassing facts about audience members, which further detaches her from her listeners. This shows that she doesn’t understand the norms that dictate her peers. Tammy’s speech however, relates directly to the audience. She realizes that her audience doesn’t care who wins or loses and states that she understands their true concern – having to sit through these assemblies. The audience grants her a standing ovation at the conclusion of her speech because she addressed their true concerns.

The last element Poulakos explains is the possible – that man desires to be in another place and another time. All three candidates try to use the element of the possible in their speeches. They recognize that people are preoccupied with what could be and the candidates use this fascination to tell them what their future could hold. Each of them even go so far as telling them how to achieve this future – to vote for them. But Tracy and Paul seem to only tell them what they have already heard before. Gorgias affirms this by stating, “to tell the knowing what they know has credibility but brings no delight.” (44) What Tammy does however, is present the audience with a new possibility, one that has not previously been exposed to them before. This new, unperceived future, would bring them more joy than the others presented and they cheer Tammy for her words. The elements within Poulakos’s definition, though perhaps not historically accurate, are relevant within a modern interpretation of rhetorical theory demonstrated through the speeches of Tracy, Paul and Tammy.

(The clip below is only of Tammy’s speech, I couldn’t find one that includes all three. But I have the DVD and will bring it to class in case it wants to be shown.)