Rhetorical Impact: How it *feels* to be the object of a slur, and how to move from there....

[mythyc]

This post is inspired by garthranzz's own rhetorical analysis of Obama's speech today. I orignally started as a response within the thread, but went pretty far with it, so thought it would be good to post it as its own thread.

If you're interested in or intrigued by the deep and resonant impact Obama's rhetoric has on you, and are convinced it's more than 'just words', read on. Hope you enjoy the ride as much as I enjoyed staging and exploring it:



One thing top of my head I noticed him doing a lot throughout the speech was juxtaposing phrases and even sometimes clauses of equal length (called "isocolon"). It's a rhetorical structure that brings things together and magnifies their similarity and/or commonality, something quite important in this speech, and he used them masterfully at key moments. The most masterful one to me came when he juxtaposed not being able to condemn Wright any more than his grandmother. The whole structure merits a closer look:

<snip>
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

...

Notice the two parallel clauses in the first sentence. Besides being of equal length and sharing the same compact rhythm, they unite the two prevailing themes and conditions of the prior paragraph, making them integral to each other as they are (the best rhetoric, and that which is simultaneously most authentic and ethical, is that which mirrors both reality and your thesis on it).

But he doesn't stop there; the same predication structure is then transferred, unexpectedly, to his grandmother. This surprise rhetorical turn is impacted masterfully by further isocola, first by means of (1) opposition in the switch from black to white, reinforced by the intimation of his grandmother's bond to him, and then from there by means of (2) apposition building on this via the long, 2 part, appositive phrase elaborating on the significance of this figure within the frame of the larger idea,, in its two complex associative vs. dissociating dimensions, and then also, for both, by means of (3) stacked adjectival phrases ("who...") which complement our picture of the character (his grandmother) even as they heighten the sense of paradox which typifies this entire situation. Remember, in a paradox two opposite things are true; we try to acknowledge this complexity to if not make peace with it, then to recognize and work with the truth on both sides of the equation----which is why isocolon is so effective here.

Note, for the first associative dimension, how further isocola expand our impression of his grandmother intimating qualities. For this first, warm half of the phrase Obama pulls the syntax together, makes it intimate on the one hand by making himself the syntactic "object" of each transitive verb ("helped raise me", "sacrificed ... for me", and "loves me") and on the other by increasing the length of each successive phrase (in rhetoric called a "crescendo"--you can feel the feeling behind it swell) to emphasize that bond; this he does first with a simple adverbial phrase, itself an isocolon ("again and again") and then with a conjunctive comparative phrase, another isocolon ("loves me as much as she loves..."). In sustaining this syntactic and semantic bond (literally and figuratively), these devices render a compelling impression of her meaning not just to him, but to the greater purpose here.

But, this all turns out to be setting-up the powerful final portion where it all comes together. It starts with the emphatic "BUT" at the center of the entire appositive phrase, almost a 'core' for the core principle and point's greater idea. Whereas the first half accentuated a tight 'subject-verb-object' bond between the speaker and his grandmother, this second half emphasizes the difficulties of the difference between them. Over and above the simple removal of "me" from this second half, Obama continues to use isocolon to build his point. This he makes more complex, so as to represent the complexity of this final "dissociative" dimension of the paradox. This time, instead of building "S-V-O" sentence structures through simple phrasal modification, Obama adds a clause to each point. This parallelism resonates both syntactically and semantically, juxtaposing yet dividing the characters under discussion: first "a women who ... black men who" , then the more complex "who has uttered ... that made me cringe." Now observe the displacement of both thematic and grammatical objects. In the first half of the appositive Obama used intimate, physical verbs ("loved", "sacrificed" etc), verbs which united both in body and spirit. In these dimensions "true, authentic" relationship dominate the idea. Now, verbs of speech *separate* both sense and logic, fear and intent. So she "confesses" and "has uttered", never actually connecting, but dividing. Finally, note how he at last *breaks* the intricate chain of isocola in the coda at the very end by (1) for the first time not repeating "woman" (a sort of anti-emphatic) and then by (2) separating subject ("who") and predicate with the emphatic "on more than one occasion". The parallels, it turns out, halt. This abrupt change in rhythm as well as in syntax and in *effect* makes the impact that much more powerful: we rhetorically *feel* what it likes to be the object of a slur uttered against you. It's not just Obama that's cringing, but the words themselves. Because his own grandmother is the offending party here, we feel the impact that much more acutely, which means that the paradox has entered our system.

...

masterful. some of the most effective rhetoric I've ever analyzed -- if you read my profile and were wondering what I meant about the difference between authentic, ethical rhetoric and vacuous, shifty sophistry: this is it. Remember the end point: EVERYTHING in the above section sets up the actual point of all this:

-------- "These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."

[billbuckhead]

1. Used his grandmother's fear of black men to excuse his minister's bigotry?

Just more racial jujitsu to excuse his 20 year relationship with an obvious bigot.

[Blue_Roses]

2. you don't even make sense

:eyes: you take parts of the speech and try to merge it into one sentiment.

[mythyc]

3. I'll let Obama reply

though you may want to back up your response, with analysis perhaps, or counter-argument, or anything besides dismissive one-liners?

These immediately follow the part of the speech I analyzed. I find it interesting that he anticipates your objection, and deals with it in specific, explanatory, and justified terms.

"Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American."

[parasim]

4. Thanks for the commentary, Phil.

(sorry, I get my "b's" and "ph's" mixed up) and welcome to my ignore list.

[mythyc]

10. interesting wordplay there

;)

[goletian]

5. what was bigoted? care to quote and emphasize specifics? nt

[cali]

8. Do you have anything but hate? Seriously, that's all I've seen you

post here; high octane hate and racially explosive and bigoted crap. It's pathetic- and truly ugly. It would fit right in on Stormfront.

[goclark]

6. K and R

Thank you for your intellectually stimulating post

He made the words flow so smoothly,you helped us to realize that it was a sign of true giftedness.

Please don't trouble your mind one bit by the poster that was not witnessing the same speech we watched.

There is a Care Gene missing up thread. :hug:

[mythyc]

7. thanks goclark =)

i love this stuff....

[goclark]

9. I love it too that's why I'm kicking

again so that others can learn.