What makes a good speech?
Related Content
Angelina Yick
May 18, 2010
Filed under Editorials
Most of the election speeches we hear at school have some sort (or a whole lot) of comedy, whether it’s in the topic, in the speaker’s inflection, or both. I admit I like comedy, a lot; heck, that’s why I even vote nowadays, because whoever has the funniest speech wins my attention and my vote.
Wait, what? I said I vote for the candidates who make me laugh the most. After all, comedy shows the candidates’ creativity and willingness to bring new ideas to the school, right?
Not exactly, though I partially agree with that logic. Comedy shows that a candidate possibly has a lighthearted disposition, but as for the candidate’s dedication (especially if the entire speech is nothing but laughs) to the position and everything else, I’m still in the dark, laughing my head off.
Well, election results are in (actually they were in a long time ago, but that’s beside the point). This article isn’t going to cover the reaction to those results, though. It won’t even describe what a “good speech” is; it’d be hard to include everything that’s supposedly makes a speech “good” anyways. That’s what Google’s for. Instead, I’m just leaving the question up in the air for you to ponder about and mainly focus on Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion in rhetoric.
A long time ago, Aristotle came up with three aspects in which speakers could appeal to their audiences. They are: ethos, logos, and pathos. “Ethos” refers to the speakers’ credibility: are they even qualified to speak in the first place? A professor with a degree in astrophysics would probably have a difficult time lecturing his audience on economics because his expertise is quite clearly in astrophysics and not so much in economics. Not to say that the professor won’t convince anyone; if it turns out that he knows quite a lot about economics, then the audience, after validating his reliability, would be inclined to believe his words.
Similarly, if candidates decide to run for president despite having absolutely no leadership experience in any of the council positions, voters would doubt their credibility. Then there’s the occasional person who says: “I know the candidate; he’s my best friend, and he does have leadership skills, even if he hasn’t run before.” That’s great, I’m glad he does! But what about the hundreds of other people who don’t know that, who still need to be convinced of the person’s capabilities? This brings me to the two other modes of persuasion: logos and pathos.
“Logos” comes from the same root as the word “logic.” Logos refers to the facts that support the speakers’ topic. When speakers have evidence, they appear to be more prepared and knowledgeable in the eyes of the audience members and thus, the speakers improve their credibility, their ethos. However, logos can be esoteric to the audience or even inaccurate. Let’s say the astrophysics professor’s economics lecture consisted mainly of economics jargon that only a few economic experts in the audience understand. The rest of the audience would be confused. On the other hand, if support is inaccurate, the speakers lose their audience’s trust, either permanently or temporarily depending on the severity of the inaccuracy.
The last mode of persuasion, “pathos,” involves appeal to an individual’s emotions. Speakers can also enhance their ethos by using strong and passionate rhetoric to evoke compassion from the audience.
So what mode is “making people laugh their heads off”? I’m not inclined to believe it’s logos or ethos, perhaps because it triggers an outburst of laughter from the audience. But given what you know about the three modes, what are your thoughts on the way school election speeches are set up nowadays? Are they “good”? Do you think they need to be less funny and actually more serious? Vice versa, if they’re not funny enough? We welcome your comments below.
Loading ...
I love that you wrote this article to open up a discussion about good speaches, good people, and honesty. I only began to focus on the three appeals in a college course, but really, as Aristotle would have hoped, we use them whether or not we realize it and put a name to them. Unlike many would like to assume, Aristotle’s philosophy (“love of wisdom”)derives from useful everyday observations and inqueries–although his ideas and conclusions about the way of the world, life, body and soul, man and animal, friendship, virtue, poetry, and happiness (and more) are affected by his place, time, teachers, and community in history, his love of wisdom is universal human nature (as many everyday people, theologians, philosophers, and psychologists have tried to argue and understand).
For the three modes of persuasion–ethos is very important. Ethos was described to me in a theology class as “one’s reasoning and belief of the way the world should be”, as compared to a worldview, described as “one’s description of the way the world is”. In rhetoric, ethos is more than a way to persuade–it should be worn on a speaker’s sleeve as an honest and forthright characteristic or corps of values. A speaker should be able to embody his ethos, and the audience will then react to it as they will–ethos should never be contrived, but it can be aimed to preach to the choir or be trustworthy before a dissenting audience. Jim Jones’ (Jonestown, Guyana; People’s Temple; mass murder by cyanide-poisoned Flavor Aid) story is a testament to the danger of a contrived ethos. From what I understand, the effect of ethos on an audience should depend on the audience, not on the speaker (whose “credibility” and integrity and intent should be honest and clear). Ethos is a person’s character, not just a set of ethics.
As for logos, it can go deeper than just knowing much–it can mean reasoning skills. Socrates had excellent logic skills, as he taught his students (including Plato!) by engaging in conversations with them, taking their questions and arguments (on the nature of justice, for example) and being able to lead them down lines of thought that revealed to them their contradicting beliefs or faulty assertions. His final definition of justice, reached by inquiry, proposed definitions, and conversation with friends, ended the conversation. (But of course, there were many more!) Syllogisms and enthymemes are forms of deductive reasoning that aim to establish clear and valid (and hopefully meaningful) conclusions by first asserting two “premises” that lend truth to one another and thus to the conclusion. Someone who reasons well with deductive arguments has a power of logos, as well as the researcher who is sharing her new knowedge on a disease.
Pathos can be the strongest or weakest attempt at persuasion–again, if a writer or speaker or teacher or any leader tries ostensibly to woo an audience or disarm them for an unworthy cause, he sullies his name and his ethos has lost him the fight. However, a kidnapper asking for ransom has a strong hold on the family he threatens, and love and fear are enough leverage for him to get his way. But most often, the case to make is not this serious, and pathos on its own is not enough to win an argument, prove a point, or turn the tide. The emotions stirred in the audience often come from evocation of deep convictions, introdicing new knowledge about third world injustices, and other ethos-logos related appeals.
But always, in a speech, knowing whom you are addressing is the first step in addressing them well. Just like you, I did latch onto the ethos (character) of the humorous proconsul candidates or other officer candidates, but it was easy to compare those who only made us laugh to those whose serious goals of service to the students were laced with humor. It was the ethos, apparent from what I knew of the candidate around school and the speech, that made the strongest appeal to me. I would rather have a well-meaning student (who would be greatly challenged in this new council role) to serve my class or school than a student whose goal is first to pad her resume, then come up with some way to do her job as a leader as she goes.
Thank you for broaching the discussion! I hope more give their two cents!
[Reply]
im with the cleveland chronicle and i want to say nice ad but its to many article on one page but besides that i enjoy reading your articles.and not trying to be rude but i think it would be better if you broke your paragraphs up into smaller sections. but come and check us out on our website and leave some ideas and comments were pretty new to this website and article thing.
chimarri miles,
reporter,cleveland chronicle
[Reply]