Introduction
The paper is going to be centered on researching the themes of peace and conflict through a prism of rhetoric in a film adaptation of a book series Hunger Games. Hunger Games were written by Suzanne Collins. The series consists of three books, The Hunger Games (2008), Catching Fire (2009), and Mockingjay (2010) complemented with films with identical names (McEvoy-Levy 185). This particular example of cinematography (and literature) is fascinating due to its dystopian setting, in which the narrative gradually develops from a status quo situation and relative peace to a declaration of war.
In the imagined state of Panem people experience severe class division and physical separation. While the few enjoy the pleasures of civilization and lead a joyful life, the many have to suffer and endure the hardships of daily work. In addition to that, there is an annual event held for the pleasure of the royal citizens where each group of the ‘working’ class sacrifices a child to be a part of a fight-to-death game. The president of this imaginary country is a man named Snow, who seems to be an eloquent speaker. Yet, in the end, he fails, which raises the topic for investigation. In particular, it is of interest to trace the rhetoric of war and peace and the manipulation of the topics in the speeches of President Snow.
It is noteworthy to mention that the author of the books was influenced by her father’s involvement with the Vietnam campaign. She recollected reaping the spoils of the war in the form of his nightmares, constant feeling of his absence and helplessness when he was deployed. Such groundedness in actual consequences and the correlation of war and peace in the mind of an author makes the book and its main characters rather interesting to analyze from the standpoint of perception of those constructs. In addition, both sides of the conflict use the power of persuasion, lies, fact changing, and a variety of other tactics to manipulate public opinion and influence, people, into either hostility or tranquility.
This research will be focused on identifying the rhetoric that led dictator president Snow to the downfall of his empire through the consecutive analysis of his speeches throughout his appearance as a public speaker. For example, the use of plural pronouns of the first or third person, ‘us’ or ‘them’ could give a clue on the meaning of juxtaposition in the speeches of politicians. The informed use of linguistic means such as these might contribute to the success of persuasion or its failure. The rhetoric significance of the research is dictated by the high relevance of the strategies and tactics to successfully manage unrest in a country. President Snow’s speeches present an excellent negative case, which presents an opportunity to learn and project the findings to real-world situations.
Literature Review
Mor (1) reviews the concept of public diplomacy in the environment of a foreign audience. The author argues that propaganda can be effective if proper tactics are used. His main claim is that an established image is a significant factor that influences the success of one’s rhetoric. Applied to this research, the findings can help evaluate the value of the image that Snow had before the conflict and how it helps him convince the audience of his idea.
Ben‐Porath (183) studied three presidents’ rhetoric styles to identify tactics that help leverage public opinion when needed. He states that demonizing the enemy is an effective tactic to gain an advantage of the political opponent and the trust of voters. In the film, Snow uses this tactic in his third speech, which makes the study relevant to research the peculiarities of its use and effectiveness.
Hajo and Brett (47) explore the dependence of the negotiation’s success on anger. The researchers found out that no greater effect is produced by anger as compared to anger-free talks. President Snow in his last address shows the signs of anger to instigate fear into his enemies in the last attempt to win the war. This makes the research helpful in analyzing new data and gaining further insight into the topic.
Reeves and May (623) analyzed president Obama’s Nobel lecture he gave in 2009 to analyze the patterns of contracting war rhetoric that would win the support of electors. They argue that changing the harsh war-related lexicon into a more inclusive one Obama created an even bigger platform for violence. The key takeaway for the present research here is the precise use of wording that one could use to fuel war while retaining a positive image.
McEvoy-Levy in chapter six analyze the peace and resistance rhetoric in the Hunger Games trilogy. The author conducts a textual analysis of the character’s speeches to comprehend the nature of the conflict and grasp each party’s psychological tactics to win the war. The research uncovered that harsh punitive measures such as hunger games were measures to retain control but were presented in the words of the ruling minority as a peace-keeping and justice-enforcing. This research is paramount to learn about analysis measures, and deeper understand the problems occurring in the world of Panem, which in the context of Snow’s speeches under analysis.
Arizona State University’s guide to rhetoric analysis seems to provide a comprehensive model for evaluation and in-depth understanding of any speech (Rhetorical Analysis). It could help this research establish a solid methodology for rhetorical speech analysis. This is why the audience-message-speaker paradigm will be used to analyze Snow’s speeches.
Method
The research will specifically focus on the character of President Snow and his addresses to the ‘nation.’ Throughout the movies, he addressed the people three times in which he consistently followed the same narrative and techniques such as repetition of keywords, the use of logical stress, pauses, etc. All of the three addresses will be analyzed from the standpoint of rhetoric. The speeches will be analyzed from the side of the speaker, the audience and the message (Rhetorical Analysis). The following items will be analyzed: purpose, intended audience, idea quantity, idea arrangement, diction, repetition of key terms, sentence structure, use of pauses, and effect on the audience, etc.
Thesis statement
Due to the lack of Snow’s flexibility and naive understanding of the needs of the audience, through his addresses, he failed to communicate the message and produce the anticipated effect.
Argument
The key argument will be that the class division or background has the most influence on the rhetorical failure of Snow. The underlying cause for Snow’s rigidity as a leader and, consequently, as a speaker, is his belonging to another class. The continuous repetition of the word ‘unity’ fails to deliver the effect because of the misunderstanding of his audience and a lack of alignment with them. Another key flexibility issue is the treatment of the audiences’ disagreement. The changing situation requires new speech tactics to adapt and assert control of the situation through addressing the root of the problem. Snow through his speeches seems to demonstrate a strong resistance to change. With the lack of adaptability and will to admit that the old fear-inspiring techniques will not work in the new reality, he continues to apply the old logic to new issues.
Conclusion
Poor usage of negotiation tools and anger seemed to have driven Snow from the productive dialogue and brought him nothing but defeat. He kept repeating the word ‘unity’ while no unity existed in the first place. The poor and the rich of Panem were by default living different lives and the latter always exploited the former. The attempts to keep peace president Snow used were non-negotiate in nature. Therefore, no dialogue could happen between the resistance and the rulers. Snow failed to realize that the new age required change and all he offered was ‘stability’ in working as pieces of the whole, parts of the body. The problem with Snow’s peace rhetoric, in this case, is that they were based on the old data. The war became a threat but not imminent had Snow changed his rhetoric of punishment and old methods. For instance, in the first address, he used the metaphor in which he compared the district people with the body and the capital with the heart. He also used it in his third address when the war had already begun.
Works Cited
Ben‐Porath, Eran N. “Rhetoric of Atrocities: The Place of Horrific Human Rights Abuses in Presidential Persuasion Efforts.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 2, 2007, pp. 181–202.
Hajo, Adam, and Jeanne M. Brett. “Context Matters: The Social Effects of Anger in Cooperative, Balanced, and Competitive Negotiation Situations.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 61, 2015, pp. 44–58.
McEvoy-Levy, Siobhan. Peace and Resistance in Youth Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Mor, Ben D. “The Rhetoric of Public Diplomacy and Propaganda Wars: A View from Self-Presentation Theory.” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 46, no. 5, 2007, pp. 661–83.
Reeves, Joshua, and Matthew S. May. “The Peace Rhetoric of a War President: Barack Obama and the Just War Legacy.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 16, no. 4, 2013, pp. 623-650.
Rhetorical Analysis. 2018. Web.