Rhetorical Analysis - Essay Example

?Rhetorical Analysis {full number} Martin Luther King and Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi represented hope for millions of oppressed people. The circumstances surrounding the lives of these great men were similar – their race was being subjugated at the hands of masters from another race. Given the daily coercion and abuse of human freedom present around these men, both chose to forego violence in order to struggle for their rights. The non-violent struggle of Gandhi (better known as Satyagraha) was later adopted as a model for struggle around the globe. In a similar manner, the resilient attitude of Martin Luther King was able to fortify the position of the African Americans until they were able to claim complete civil liberties. The adoption of non-violent norms meant that Gandhi and King both relied on their words to convince people to action. This stood in contrast to the use of violence by the forces opposed to both Gandhi and King. Effective communication was able to afford both Gandhi and King large audiences that later allowed them to change the fate of their nations. Words publicly spoken by Gandhi and King became their strongest tools for change. If the speeches made by Gandhi and King are looked into detail, it becomes clear that both use some common techniques such as repetition, the use of metaphors, advocating non violence and creating a strong sense of moral authority. However, there are certain rhetorical elements that are unique to Gandhi and King’s manner of speaking. This paper will look into various rhetorical techniques used by Gandhi and King to induce a sense of moral authority and why this development is important. In order to carry out this analysis, this paper will focus on “Gandhi Defends His Beliefs” and “Martin Luther Addresses the Diet of Worms”. When Gandhi’s social circumstances are looked at, it becomes clear that Gandhi had risen to a challenge that seemed impossible to deal with. Gandhi was struggling for freedom against the British Empire – the longest running empire in modern history. In Gandhi’s day, the British had enslaved the Indian Subcontinent and were using dilatory political tactics in order to delay providing Indians with greater social and political freedom. In the start, Gandhi looked for greater political autonomy to provide greater freedoms in the current system of governance. However, the actions of the British and their intolerant political attitude soon convinced Gandhi that the current system was nothing more than eyewash. Gandhi took up arms in the form of his words to claim complete freedom from the British Empire. In his speech, Gandhi expresses his rage at the current system of governance by saying (Safire 363): “I have no desire whatsoever to conceal from this court the fact that to preach disaffection toward the existing system of government has become almost a passion with me.” Gandhi’s words clearly indicate that he is not fond of the government’s actions. However, Gandhi coats his words to create a moral authority which stands against the government but is still justified. In choosing his words, Gandhi ensures that his words do not hint at violence of any kind. He specifically chooses the word “disaffection” to express his reaction towards the government. This choice of words ensures that the recipient audience are not pushed towards violence while they develop a certain distance from the government. Gandhi also uses the word “passion” in order to express his fondness of hating the current system of governance. Although, it can be seen as an exaggeration but it cannot be denied that this combination of words has a significant effect. To provide his words with greater moral strength, Gandhi tends to repeat his idea of non-violence in his speech. Gandhi expressed this in the following words (Safire 364): “I wanted to avoid violence, I want to avoid violence – Nonviolence is the first article of my faith – It is also the last article of my creed – But I had to make my choice.” Gandhi has chosen to rely on repetition in order to convey the idea that non-violence is his central doctrine. The avoidance of violence and non-violence has been repeated by Gandhi to convey the importance of non-violence in dealing with the current government. This kind of repetition is also noticeable in the speech made by Martin Luther King. While Gandhi chooses to repeat his words in one sentence, King chooses to repeat similar themes throughout the course of his speech. Using this kind of repetition allows King to leave a lasting impact on the audience while hammering a concept into their conscious streams of thought. Another major difference in the repetition of King and Gandhi is the use of religious ideas for repetition. King has been compared to Baptist ministers due to his use of religious ideas in order to create a higher moral ground. This kind of repetition of religious ideas is absent altogether from the speech by Gandhi. King’s use of religious ideas and his use of metaphors can be witnessed in his speech in the following words (Safire 345): “My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” King relates God and emphasizes that his conscience is “captive to the Word of God” in order to highlight that his words and actions are derived from higher ideals of right and wrong. The largely religious composition of King’s audiences meant that such forms of rhetoric devices were highly popular with them. This presented another reason why King chose to use such forms of symbolism in his speeches. The use of religious symbols especially their manipulation by King helped to ensure that his words could allow the audience to connect to a higher sense of Being. It must be related here that King’s speech is actually about objection against the current theological system where King goes as far as rejecting the pope’s authority. This choice of words on the part of King is adventurous and rather dangerous given that King could have been declared a heretic based on these words. King’s basic contention is to allow people to move out of the realm of clergy to realize that a greater Conscience exists. Additionally, King’s words project that he chooses to accept the greater Conscience rather than take the clergy’s words for granted. He expresses his ideas using the following words (Safire 345): “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other ... I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” In expressing himself using these words, King establishes a higher moral authority that uplifts his audiences from the ideas of the clergy to more just causes. Another thing that must be related is the rebellious attitude of both King and Gandhi in their choice of words. Though the overall appearance of King’s speech and Gandhi’s speech is non conformist but it does not hint to the adoption of violence as a solution. Both leaders can be seen as resilient to the current norms and King expresses his outrage with the current status quo by declaring (Safire 344): “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise”. Overall, it can be said that both Gandhi and King were great leaders hailing from times where they were highly required. The social oppression and injustice surrounding these great men forced them to use their words in order to stir up the masses for action. The method of using words is similar in large part for both men especially in their use of rhetorical devices. Additionally, both Gandhi and King tend to create moral authority in order to inspire their audiences. The use of repetition to fortify ideas, metaphors to elucidate ideas and other such rhetorical techniques are visible throughout the speeches made by both Gandhi and King. Works Cited Safire, William. Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches In History. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print. Read More