Introduction
When it comes to ensuring a high rhetorical value of a particular speech, which is meant to convince people in the validity of the speaker’s line of argumentation, it represents the matter of a crucial importance for the person in question to make sure that the would-be-delivered speech contains the appeals to logos, pathos and ethos (Connors, 1979).
What also appears a ‘must’, in this respect, is that the mentioned appeals are being properly interconnected, in the technical sense of this word (Mshvenieradze, 2013). In my paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length, in regards to the 1789 Abolition speech by William Wilberforce, which is now being considered as such that exemplifies what the notion of a ‘rhetorical integrity’ stands for.
Discussion
One of the speech’s most memorable features is the fact that it begins with the application of the appeal to ethos, on the author’s part: “When I consider the magnitude of the subject which I am to bring before the House, a subject, in which the interests, not of this country, nor of Europe alone, but of the whole world” (Wilberforce, 1789, p. 1).
Apparently, by having started his speech with outlining the sheer magnitude of the problem that he was about to discuss, the author strived to encourage listeners to believe that their willingness to subscribe to his point of view, on the subject of slavery, would deem them intellectually open-minded. This, of course, served as yet additional incentive for listeners to pay close attention to what Wilberforce was going to tell them. The above-stated correlates perfectly well about the role that the appeal to ethos is supposed to serve in the publicly delivered speech – namely, establishing the discursive credibility of the speaker’s argumentative agenda (Thompson, 2006).
In order to win yet another credibility-related favor with listeners, Wilberforce points out to the fact that, while landing his views on the subject matter in question, he will remain thoroughly impartial: “I ask only for their (listeners’) cool and impartial reason; and I wish not to take them by surprise, but to deliberate, point by point, upon every part of this question” (1789, p. 1).
This, of course, can be well interpreted as such that indicates that Wilberforce used to be capable of not only making the circumstantially appropriate appeals to the listeners’ sense of logos, but also of ensuring the emotional attractiveness of the concerned rhetorical device (Hoffmann, 2003).
After all, the above-quoted sentence implies both:
- that the measure of one’s existential virtuousness positively relates to the extent of the concerned person’s ability to think in terms of logic;
- that the audience consists of individuals, fully capable of relying on their sense of rationale, when it comes to addressing a particular cognitive task.
There can indeed be only a few doubts that, after having been exposed to Wilberforce’s assurance, in this respect, listeners will be much more likely to perceive the speaker’s line of argumentation fully plausible.
The manner, in which Wilberforce continues with promoting the cause of abolition, suggests that the speaker never ceased being aware of the fact that the effectiveness of the appeals to ethos and logos can be significantly increased by the mean of interlinking them with the emotionally-charged statements (pathos). The validity of this idea can be illustrated, in regards to how the speaker goes about describing the living conditions on board of slave-carrying vessels: “So much misery condensed in so little room, is more than the human imagination had ever before conceived” (Wilberforce 1789, p. 2).
Apparently, by having exposed listeners to the emotionally intense notion of ‘misery’, the speaker was able to reach out to their own unconscious anxieties, as to what the concerned notion actually stands for (Gross, 2011). The achieved rhetorical effect, in this respect, is quite apparent – even though the audience members never knew what it is like being slaves, their exposure to the description of how miserable slavery really is, would prompt them to give yet an additional thought to the idea that this practice is highly unethical.
In order to strengthen such listeners’ impression even further, Wilberforce proceeded with making graphic references to even the most emotionally disturbing aspects of slavery: “These wretches (slaves) chained two and two, surrounded with every object that is nauseous and disgusting, diseased, and struggling under every kind of wretchedness!” (Wilberforce 1789, p. 2).
It is understood, of course, that this did help the speaker rather considerably in ensuring the emotional soundness of the abolitionist cause. The reason for this is that these references could not result in anything else, but in helping the audience to ‘visualize’ the evils of slavery – hence, causing listeners to decide in favor of siding with the speaker (Der Derian, 2005).
There is a certain pattern to how Wilberforce deploys the mentioned rhetorical devices, throughout the speech’s entirety. This pattern is concerned with the fact that in Wilberforce’s Abolition speech, the appeals to logos are being closely followed by the appeals to ethos/pathos. For example, while striving to objectify its arguments, as thoroughly credible, the speaker states: “The Jamaica report tells you, that not less than 4½ per cent. (of slaves) die on shore before the day of sale” (Wilberforce 1789, p. 4).
Because of the speaker’s self-proclaimed non-biasness, the audience members will be naturally be tempted to regard the speech’s logos-based information, as being thoroughly credible (Baumlin & Baumlin, 1989; Katula, 2009). In its turn, this should make them more emotionally attuned with the manner of how Wilberforce appeals to their sense of ethos: “How then can the House refuse its belief to the multiplied testimonies before the privy council, of the savage treatment of the negroes in the middle passage?” (1789, p. 4).
As the quoted sentence implies, in the aftermath of having been exposed to this speaker’s remark, listeners were expected to begin thinking about Wilberforce’s abolitionist ideas, as such that represent an undisputed truth-value. This can be well regarded as the example of the ethos-based rhetoric at its best – the speaker does not allow the audience to even consider subscribing to any other point of view, but that of his own (Roochnik, 1994).
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier deployed line of reasoning, in defense of the idea that Wilberforce’s Abolition speech is indeed rhetorically powerful, fully correlates with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, there is indeed a good reason to think of this speech as being thoroughly convincing, which in turn is the direct consequence of Wilberforce’s awareness of the foremost principles of a rhetorical argumentation, concerned with the application of the appeals to ethos, pathos and logos.
References
Baumlin, J. & Baumlin, T. (1989). “Psyche/logos: Mapping the terrains of mind and rhetoric. College English, 51 (3), 245-261.
Connors, R. (1979). The differences between speech and writing: Ethos, pathos, and logos. College Composition and Communication, 30 (3), 285-290.
Der Derian, J. (2005). Imaging terror: Logos, pathos and ethos. Third World Quarterly, 26 (1), 23-37.
Gross, D. (2011). Rhetoric, modality, modernity. Rhetorica, 29 (2), 218-220.
Hoffmann, D. (2003). Logos as composition. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 33 (3), 27-53.
Katula, R. (2009). Rational argument in classical rhetoric. The Classical Review, 59 (1), 293-294.
Mshvenieradze, T. (2013). Logos, ethos and pathos in political discourse. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3 (11), 1939-1945.
Roochnik, D. (1994). Is rhetoric an art? Rhetorica: A journal of the history of rhetoric, 12 (2), 127-154.
Thompson, T. (2006). The ethos of rhetoric. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9 (2), 324-325.
Wilberforce, W. (1789). Abolition speech. Web.