Tuesday, September 30, 2014
the power of speeches
We discussed how there are themes of lawlessness and honor in Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War. The US constitution details that the president needs to "give to Congress information of the State of the Union...as he shall judge necessary and expedient." (article II). However, it does not say anywhere that the address need be given in a specific form; as radio and television gained popularity much later on, it was only then that State of the Union addresses were given as broadcasted speeches. Before this, they were often just a written address to Congress. Today, if a president were to not give the State of the Union address as a speech it is likely that the American people would feel thrown off or maybe even uncomfortable due to the lack of its presence. Perikles gives a speech in The Peloponnesian War after the plague to try and calm the people and restore a sense of order. "For one who has ideas and does not instruct clearly is on the same level as if he had not thought of them," (II, 60) he says, which indicates his loyalty to helping his people through and out of such a difficult time of war and sickness. Perikles' speech boosts morale and allows him to reach the people on a more personal and comforting level. Are there other examples of speeches (possibly even ones more current) that act in the way Perikles' speech did?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that parts of Perikles's speeches not only appeal to pathos, but are at times quite calculated and logical. He explains to his soldiers how, "a city that is on the right coarse benefits individuals more than one that is prospering as far as each individual…but failing collectively" (II, 60). A successful city-state yields successful citizens, while individuals do not necessarily equate to a successful city-state. He is attempting to get the men to cooperate by persuading them that defending the city-state would ultimately benefit them more than going off and worrying about their own personal problems (such as a loved one dying of the plague).
ReplyDeleteSorry, that didn't really answer your question. An example of another speech that boosted moral was Queen Elizabeth I's speech to her troops in 1588 at Tilbury before the invasion of the Spanish Armada. In this speech, Elizabeth says, "Let tyrants fear...I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you…" Elizabeth tells her troops that she has so much faith in them that she would be prepared to lay down her life on the battlefield with them.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, reading this book so far for me has been like reading hieroglyphics backwards. But I did get the general gist of Perikles' speech about boosting his warriors morale in times of crisis. I feel like speeches main purpose throughout time are to persuade their audience in a formal and powerful manor. In all of those political speeches (won't name any 'cause I'm not good with current events... Or past events) the speaker is always carefully displaying their point, using strong and sophisticated vocabulary to give their point across. Even in marketing or business speeches, like the one's Apple does every year for their new products --- they're always talking not in a way people would normally have a conversation, but in a way to get you enamored with what they are saying.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also really important how the speeches are delivered, and I agree that they are usually formal. The speaker shows ethos, or his credentials, therefore they always make eye contact with the audience and remove any boundaries. It is simply the speaker and the people. Speeches were so common at the time because that was the main form of communication, especially during wartime or a depression. For example, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president, the American morale was extremely low and he needed to gain their trust. He says, “This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” This is a famous quote from his First Inaugural Address which was necessary for the people to hear in an attempt to comfort them.
ReplyDeleteSpeeches are interesting because they are usually used to communicate with masses of people rather than a few specific ones. Today, when a press release put on the internet could reach the same amount of people ( or more) we still rely on speeches for politics and announcements. There’s something different about seeing the President give a speech or even watching someone give a ted talk than reading their thoughts in an article. Maybe because you can see someone’s emotions come through on their face or their voice and body language helps to back up their words? Speeches in politics benefit from this especially because the public needs to connect with their leader to put their trust in them. If a leader never speaks directly to the public, letting them know what is going on, with some semblance of equality to them, then the people will never connect with the leader and never trust their leadership. Like Raffaella said, speeches can be used as comfort to the people, that their leader believes in them and shares their sentiments.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with you all that speeches are a very important and extremely effective way for a leader to connect with his or her people, I can't help but feel as though speeches were a better, more essential form of communication back in the time when not everyone knew how to write. I think a well written essay or article is just as effective as a speech in today's world, but I think back during the time of the ancient greeks, speeches were more effective because they were basically the only form of information that the people were getting from their leaders. Today, we read and hear about the news through almost any source, including social media. So though speeches may be effective, we can afford not to pay attention or attend them as often because we have so many other ways to access what our world leaders are saying. I also think that's why leaders like Perikles had an easier time convincing the Athenians about his leadership during the war even though they doubted him at times during the plague.
ReplyDeleteI find that speeches are effective because they allow the speaker the opportunity to address a group, without any response. It is difficult to interrupt a speech without looking rude. For example, during President Obama's 2009 State of the Union address, Representative Wilson shouted "You Lie!" and received a lot of negative press. Had it been a written address, it would have been a lot easier for opponents to take parts and dissect it and discuss it. The speech allows the speaker to get his or her point across without interruption, which is why it is a favored and effective form of communication.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brian's example of Apple and the way they make us fall in love with their products, which segues into the power of the media in general. Although speeches are typically saved for special occasions, which is why they have such power, we are constantly influenced by the information we take in through articles, the news, etc. It's this exposure to media, and all these little bits and pieces of information that we take in, that form us and encourage us to do things, whether it be buying products or putting war efforts together. The power of speeches lies in their rarity; we don't need a big speech to sell everything anymore. A simple Tweet from a company can inform whoever follows its followers of what is happening, so when a speech is given (as was the case for the iPhone 6), people give it more importance. Back in the time of Thucydedes, poets and politicians had to give speeches because they had no other way to really communicate with the masses as we do now. Seeing this, I believe that back then, speeches were given power depending on the status of those who said them; the poet would be taken as an entertainer, the politician as having something big and important to say, etc. It is interesting to note that in the past, especially in Greece, politics and the arts were extremely intertwined, so poets could very well be politicians, if not have power comparable to them.
ReplyDelete