Politics: Opportune moments & catered words

Just as several fellow classmates found a correlation between this week’s readings and the institution of politics, so too did I. Specifically, I thought John Poulakos’ “Toward a Specific Definition of Rhetoric,” and Edward Schiappa’s “Neo-Sophistic Rhetorical Criticism or the Historical Reconstruction of Sophistic Doctrines,” were highly relevant to the examples below, as the essays focused on the presence of the audience, the rhetors’ catered speech for that audience, and perhaps even the “linguistic craftsmen,” (Schiappa, 203) at particular, or “opportune” time.

Take for example the following two clips of President Barack Obama: 

The first video documents Obama’s sophisticated address to the union regarding race and politics; the second documents his brief speech to a crowd in Louisville, Kentucky. Although these two speeches vary in their allotted time, they both, however, “take into account and [are] guided by the temporality of the situation in which [they] occur[s]” (Poulakos, 39). In the first video, Obama speaks to a broad and incredibly diverse audience as he delivers an address via national television. In the second video, his audience is narrowed, targeted.

Before even discussing the content of the included videos, Poulakos’ following words ring true: “Some of the factors contributing to one’s sense of the timely and the appropriate are one’s discretionary powers, the cultural norms in which he participates, his reading of the situation he wants to address, his image of his audience, and his prediction of the potential effects of his words on his listeners” (Poulakos 42). In his differing speeches, his opportune moments, Obama craftily delivers his prepared speeches to appeal to his current audience.

Aside from the overall tone and aura of the speeches, the most profound difference is that related to linguistics, a field Schiappa touches on in his essay. When viewing the two videos, note the absence (or presence) of –ing suffixes in Obama’s speech. In the first speech, Obama uses 88 of these –ing suffixes and drops his ‘g’ (e.g., saying talkin’ rather than talking) in only two instances; in the second speech, he includes his ‘g’ in only two of the 15 instances.

Why this drastic change in presentation and tone? What is rhetoric’s role in these two prepared speeches? How are these roles impacting the stance of each audience? Let’s discuss.

Throughout the first speech, Obama speaks clearly and crisply. He articulates his words and provides listeners with an easy-to-follow speech. I find it particularly interesting that in the only two instances during which Obama drops his ‘g,’ he does so with the same word, “morning.” I propose that Obama is g-dropping within these two instances because of what he is discussing. At this point, Obama is twenty minutes into his speech and has had substantial time to establish a sense of rapport or distinguishable highness to him; thus, on one hand, he may feel acquainted with his audience, and he may have purposefully dropped his ‘g’ in hopes of better capturing the words (and their story) and better relating to the audience. On the other hand, due to its context, Obama may have unconsciously dropped his ‘g’ solely due to the topic he is discussing. Due to his background—which he establishes within the beginning of his speech—Obama may be unconsciously g-dropping as he gets into the rhythm of his text. But why this word, why this “opportune moment?”

In either or both of the two cases, Obama’s g-dropping can either make or break his speech. It can 1) shed some light on who he is, what he stands for, etc. and be a breath of fresh air for some listeners, as they get a piece of Obama’s culture, or it can 2) detract from his overall, well-written, well-executed, highly articulated speech. It is also important to note the audience’s reaction at this moment in his speech; they are in a roar of claps and are expressing enthusiasm and great support for Obama and his words. Perhaps these chants reflect the sophisitic “’definition’” of rhetoric that Poulakos puts forth in his work (and that is reiterated in Schiappa’s): “’Rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible’” (Schiappa 201). Perhaps the audience unconsciously took note of the g-dropping too, and showed their reaction through claps and shouts. Or, maybe they noticed Obama’s shift in articulation and pronunciation, and for that, they expressed enthusiasm. If the audience saw a bit of Obama’s “roots” shining through his speech, this could have impacted their feelings in regards to the speech as a whole. They, the audience that is, could also be taking advantage of this opportune moment.

Let’s move to the second speech: The most interesting idea I would like to present is in reference to the content of the speech and the location in which it was read. This speech mentions nothing of racism, as the first did, and instead focuses on issues related to war, poverty, and money. I found it interesting that Obama chose to address this particular audience (individuals in Louisville, Kentucky, and as a whole, the state, which would likely vote for the other party) with this particular speech. Within this speech, Obama avoided references to racism and/or religion—the main topics found within the first speech. Did he find these topics irrelevant to this targeted audience, or did he fear their mentioning would be detrimental (and/or not as effective) to his speech? In sum, Obama is truly describing everyday situations of which many Americans have experienced or witnessed during their lives. So, perhaps though his g-dropping, Obama hopes to make known he is still an average American with the same hopes and dreams as its other patriots, and he is well aware of its most common issues.

These examples adhere to Poulakos’ opening words on rhetoric. He writes, “The definition I wish to advance is: Rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible… this definition intimates that rhetoric is an artistic undertaking which concerns itself with the how, the when, and the what of expression and understands the why of purpose” (Poulakos 36). Is this not the tactic with which Obama delivers his two speeches?

Although the two speeches differ in their formality, content, and length of time, they both share the element of approaching a specific targeted audience and capturing the power of the opportune moment. We end with this: “What is said, then, must be both appropriate to time, or timely, and appropriate to the audience and the occasion” (Poulakos 42).