SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

The Rhetoric of George Washington's

Farewell Address

Halford Ryan

As the nation's first president, George Washington was nominally the young country's first orator. But Washington was not eloquent in the classical mold of a Demosthenes or a Cicero, he did not use public speaking to foment rebellion for which Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry spoke, and, unlike John Adams, John Hancock, and James Madison, the general did not gain political power through persuasive prowess. Nevertheless, Washington fashioned several archetypal rhetorical contributions to the nation's historical discourse, one of which is the subject of this essay.

President Washington inadvertently invented a national oratorical genre when he decided to deliver an inaugural address in 1789. His First Inaugural Address carved in stone four traditional topics that still inhere in inaugurals, for he reconstituted the people to witness and ratify the inauguration, rehearsed communal values that invigorated the United States, stated the Constitutional principles that would guide the president, and stressed the powers and limitations of the executive office (Campbell and Jamieson, 203-225). Some citizens might wish that contemporary presidents would model their inaugurals after Washington's Second Inaugural Address in 1793, which holds the record for the most laconic (Wolfarth, 124-132).

Although contemporary scholars usually situate the rise of the so-called modern, rhetorical presidency in President Theodore Roosevelt's administration (Ceaser et al., 158-71), Washington was the prototype for the president's giving speeches to persuade the people and Congress. Washington delivered eight Annual Addresses_today's State of the Union speech, which is the only address required of the president by the Constitution_that were modeled after the British monarch's speech from the throne to a new session of parliament and a royal governor's speech to the colonial assembly. Then, as now, the Annual Address or State of the Union was pro forma, but Washington's most famous was his Sixth Annual Address delivered in 1794 when he attacked the Democratic Societies for fomenting the Whisky Rebellion in western Pennsylvania (Lucas and Zaeske, 3-17).

Washington also relied heavily on speech writers_today's pejorative term is "ghostwriter"_to compose his addresses, and the problem of ghostwriters will be addressed in a later section (Einhorn, "The Ghosts Unmasked: A Review of Literature on Speechwriting," 41-47). Two writers figured prominently in helping Washington as word-smiths, particularly so in the production of his Farewell Address, and they had classical educations in the liberal arts. Alexander Hamilton, whose two year education [1773-75] was at King's College, now Columbia University, helped Washington to compose and polish speeches while a general and president

Halford Ryan (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1972) is a professor of public speaking at Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450-0303.

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 38 (2001), 1-15

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

(Aly, 24-51). James Madison received his B.A. degree in 1771 from the College of New Jersey, now Princeton University.

A classical education in the mid-eighteenth century with regard to oratory was in transition. Originally preoccupied only with style and delivery, a revival of classical rhetoric was underway. Students studied Greek and Latin orators, such as Demosthenes and Cicero, and Warren Gutherie observed that "Cicero's De Oratore [55 B.C.] became one of the most popular works on speech in mid-eighteenth century America" and "Quintilian also was in wide circulation" (Gutherie, 54). Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria was published around 95 A.D. With Washington's sparse education, it is doubtful that he read these sources. But Hamilton probably and Madison undoubtedly had, which made them invaluable helpers in matters oratorical. Too, all three men likely heard or read other colonial orators, such as John Hancock, John Adams, and Patrick Henry to name a few, who had something of a classical training in public speaking.

Finally, Washington added the Farewell Address to presidential rhetoric. This address is important for various reasons. James Humes noted that Washington's Farewell Address "is the only speech that an act of Congress requires to be read annually" (Humes, 12). The address was first read to both Houses of Congress on February 22, 1862, the anniversary of Washington's 130^th birthday, to remind lapsed Southerners of their sin of secession; in the 1880s the address was read in regular legislative sessions in the House and Senate; the House stopped reading the address in 1984 but the Senate continues the practice (Washington's Farewell Address, ii). The address also figured prominently in the debate on the Union prior to the Civil War and it served as the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy until the eve of World War II. In the conclusion of this essay, some vestiges of Washington's rhetoric on these issues will be traced in orators who upheld the first president's vision that he articulated in his Farewell Address

In order to treat this important state document in situ, the critic must first ground Washington's speech making in the rhetorical milieu of the eighteenth century. The purpose is to demonstrate Washington's adeptness (1) in organizing a speech for effect and (2) in polishing its language for elegance. Neither of these purposes have been demonstrated heretofore.

Eighteenth-Century Rhetoric

Washington's oratorical practices were grounded in how eighteenth-century practitioners, such as Hamilton and Madison, and Washington by observation, understood classical rhetoric. Broadly conceived, rhetoric was the art of persuasive discourse for effect. The tenets were neo-Aristotelian, which were relayed through Cicero and Quintilian. Colonial speakers practiced Aristotle's three genres of oratory, which still inhere in today's political discourse. Deliberative or legislative rhetoric, such as that spoken in the House and Senate, aimed for expedient action in the future. Forensic or courtroom advocacy sought justice for past actions. Epideictic or ceremonial speaking, such as the 4^th of July oration, praised or blamed in the present.

Washington synthesized deliberative and epideictic rhetoric to change patterns in belief and action in the present and future. For example, his Annual Ad

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

dresses praised American democracy while persuading the legislative branch for the year's political agenda, and the inaugural addresses ceremonially praised American political institutions and practices in the context of political purposes. Too, his Farewell Address fused the deliberative and epideictic genres, for it praised Americanism while subtly detailing a course of expedient, American action.

Neo-Aristotelianism also recognized three modes or means of persuasive proof. Ethos, ethical appeal, denoted what today we would label "character." The idea was that the people more likely would be persuaded by the speaker who possessed the better ethos, which was evidenced by how they perceived the orator's goodwill, good sense, and good moral character. Logos, logical appeal, denoted facts, evidence, and argument that targeted a listener's reasoning or mind. Pathos, emotional appeal, excited the passions, such as fear and hate, in order to move the crowd's emotions or to stir its heart. Washington, like many Enlightenment figures, eschewed emotional appeals and relied instead on logical appeals and his own established ethos to persuade his auditors. Or, as John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of Princeton University, urged his pupils, among whom was Madison, with regard to public address: "Ne'er do ye speak unless ye ha' something to say, and when ye are done, be sure and leave off" (Einhorn, "James Madison," 44).

Eighteenth-century speakers more or less employed a classical model called the Five Canons of Oratory in speech-making. The following Latin terms are Cicero's. Inventio was the first canon and covered the invention or coming-into-being of a speech. Dispositio advised how to organize an address for effect. Classical speeches typically had an introduction, narration, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion. Washington's speeches do not illustrate a classical arrangement; rather, their structure tends to have a perfunctory beginning, middle, and end. Elocutio was the speech's style or word choice. The Romans recognized three kinds of style: the plain, middle, and grand.

Washington's presidential speeches were cast mainly in the grand style. The Latin word is gravis, which can denote "grand," but it also means heavy, weighty, ponderous, which is exactly how one would term Washington's style. Two questions about eighteenth-century elocutio naturally arise. Did other speakers of the late eighteenth century speak that way? Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin are relatively easy to read by today's standards. John Hancock and James Madison are more tedious. Thomas Jefferson's sentences are long but comprehendible. George Washington and John Adams are difficult to read. So, a ponderous style was not so much a function of the era as the person himself. Why, then, did Washington speak in such a heavy style? One suspects that he believed the nation's president should communicate with a ponderous diction, which inferentially reflected the distinction of the office to the president's audiences.

The fourth and fifth canons were actio or delivery, and memoria, which implied that the orator memorized the oration. Washington was not a dynamic speaker. He was aware of his shortcomings and did not like to speak in public. His voice was characterized as undistinguished, he spoke slowly, and he seldom gesticulated for force or emphasis and when he did, his gestures were awkward and stiff (Lucas and Zaeske, "George Washington," 6). Moreover, Washington did not master

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

his speeches, rather he delivered them from manuscript. If one has endured a manuscript speaker, one can draw his or her own conclusions. But at Newburgh, New York, March 15, 1783, facing a threat of mutiny by unpaid officers, Washington delivered a famous speech and then pulled out his glasses_a great thespian gesture_from his pocket to read a Congressman's letter. If one desires a twentieth-century analog to Washington's delivery and mastery of the speech text, General and President Dwight Eisenhower comes immediately to mind. With this brief classical overview in mind, one now has the rhetorical terminology in hand to understand the rhetoric of George Washington's Farewell Address.

Epideictic-Deliberative Rhetoric

At first glance, the Address appears to be epideictic, for it was situated in the present and purported to celebrate Washington's last eight years in office. But such a reading is superficial. What Washington really accomplished, probably unknowingly, was a modification of classical theory to satisfy his specific ends. Whereas epideictic oratory was traditionally praise or blame, Washington creatively transmuted the genre into praise and blame.

Washington had at least three immediate reasons for persuading his national audience. First, he wanted to justify his quitting the presidency after two terms by giving his reasons for doing so. This part of the speech was an apologia, which classicists would define as a speech of defense. His was a pre-emptive apologia, for the address presented a fait accompli as it precluded Congress or the people from asking him to change his mind. A second apologetic reason was to defend his foreign policy of neutrality. In 1793, France had declared war on Great Britain. From 1793-95, American public opinion bifurcated: One was a Jeffersonian Republican who favored France, or a Hamiltonian Federalist who supported England. Washington had proclaimed neutrality in 1793, which riled the pro-British public and rankled the pro-French populace. In this instance, when his concurring with one faction would automatically alienate the other side, Washington sensed that a good defense is often a strong offense, which indicates his last purpose.

His third reason blamed Americans who would favor the French or British as being un-American. This part of the speech was a kategoria, a classical speech of accusation (Ryan, "Kategoria and Apologia: On Their Rhetorical Criticism as a Speech Set," 254-261). He attacked the rampant sectionalism of New England, British, Capitalism versus Southern, French, Agrarianism. He condemned both extremes, for this sectionalism threatened to divide the country, which must remain neutral in order to develop its own national character that was neither British nor French but American.

Thus, Washington fused in the speech two kinds of speeches and two classical forms. As an epideictic address, he judiciously combined apology with attack. The president's assault on the sectionalists illustrated Washington's sagacity or ethos in defending his policy of neutrality, which cleverly implicated through logos the sectionalists as supporters of an un-American policy. Washington also astutely combined epideictic rhetoric to deliberative oratory by praising American unity and blaming the incipient rise of political parties. This remarkable melding of the two genres established the groundwork for Washington to address the future expe

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

diency of no political parties, which he subdivided into domestic and foreign issues. All of these means and ends were generated in a canonical sequence.

Washington's Actio and Memoria

Although they are the fourth and fifth canons, the critic should here dispense with delivery and memory. Washington's Farewell Address was not a speech, so it was not delivered nor did Washington have to master its oral presentation. Since the president could not speak to the nation, he instead sought an efficient means of reaching the mass audience. He chose to have his address printed in newspapers and it first appeared in David C. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser, no. 5444, on September 19, 1796, in Philadelphia (Paltsits, 55-56). In handling the publication of his address, one senses Washington's rhetorical resourcefulness, for in a modern sense he wanted his message distributed to the whole people, whom Madison thought were Washington's "only constituency" (Wills, 88). Note Madison's early sense of the rhetorical presidency. Madison had also suggested to the president, when he determined not to run in 1792, that Washington should deliver a valedictory address in September, 1792. This timing would allow candidates enough time to present their candidacies to the Electoral College. The timing of the 1796 address followed the same logic (Humes, 3).

Washington's Inventio

The first canon of invention, how the speech came-into-being, has already been treated extensively, so only a brief overview is in order (Paltsits, 25-54). In 1792 when Washington considered not running for a second term, James Madison composed a first draft that was based on Washington's dictation. The 1792 draft attacked sectionalism and division, which converged on domestic issues. This draft was not used and lay dormant until Washington turned to it again in 1797 when he determined not to run for a third term. With Madison's 1792 draft as a departure, Washington incorporated Madison's draft into his own speech written in the president's hand. The president asked Alexander Hamilton to look at the draft and Hamilton obliged. Hamilton made a list of Washington's "Sentiments" and recast the address. This draft became known as Hamilton's major draft. It was amended by Washington as it passed back and forth between ghost and author. Finally, Washington took Madison's draft and Hamilton's major draft, and composed anew a speech in his hand. Washington emended this handwritten draft and eventually sent it to the printers for the final text of the address.

Washington's Dispositio

The second classical canon of disposition recognized that content, to be effective, could not be listed wily-nilly but rather had to be presented in some cogent, reasonable form for persuasive effect. Hamilton had recast Washington's speech in what Hamilton thought was a better order. Paltsits did not discuss the address's arrangement, which was Washington's handiwork.

The Greek term for the Latin dispositio is taxis. Taxis originally indicated how the military commander deployed the troops for battle. The term was adapted by rhetoricians to denote how the orator arrayed the parts of a speech for effect.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

The militarism of taxis is relevant to Washington, for he evidently understood how the communicator should marshal language for persuasive triumph. The commander-in-chief's taxis had a strategy and tactics.

The president's organizational strategy was not a frontal assault but more like guerilla attacks that had worked so well against the British in the Revolutionary War. Rather than engaging the enemy straightaway, he captured persuasive ground in unfolding forays. The tactic was to gain acquiescence in small degrees rather than with one massive strike. His taxis unfolded in four phases. [The labeling of the underlined phases below is mine, not Washington's.]

1. Will Not Run Washington's gambit was innocent enough, as it did not divulge his strategy or tactics. Washington used the opening salvo of his address to announce and defend his decision not to stand for a third term. The persuasive function of this opening section, other than to announce his decision, was to demonstrate to his audience his ethos or goodwill, for he no longer had a persuasive or political axe to grind. Concomitantly, he also had to entice his audience to listen to his advice because he would no longer be president.

2. The Union Washington next sought common ground with his audience by praising the union in an epideictic fashion. But this posture quickly turned to deliberative overtones, for he encouraged his readers to maintain union over sectionalism at all costs. The preservation of the union, an important part of Madison's 1792 draft, figured even more prominently in 1797. This second section on the union revealed Washington's ethos of good sense, for thoughtful Americans would perceive the rationale for maintaining union in order to preserve their liberty. This was also a logos argument, as Washington demonstrated that liberty could not exist without union. For Washington, liberty and union were inextricably bound. Thus far, Washington really had said nothing to which most Americans could take exception to or, said in another way, he had not yet alienated his enemies. But the ground was now prepared for a new advance.

3. Attack on Sectionalism Washington finally confronted his enemies, but even here, the tactic was not so much a frontal charge as an oblique attack. Assuming that he had the audience's acquiescence on union, he cleverly used antithesis to polarize the people. The antithesis of union was sectionalism. Washington blamed the rise of political parties on sectionalism. Hence, he forced his listeners to conclude that because they valued union, they must abhor sectionalism. At this juncture, Washington wisely fused his attack to deliberative actions. His logos was clear. Since Americans should be committed to union, they should constrain factions. Washington adduced additional logical proof through practicing what he preached. By inviting Madison and Hamilton to contribute to his address, Washington demonstrated that political enemies, such as Hamilton versus Madison, could play a propitious part in advising the president. Washington himself had constrained factions for the greater good of union. His rhetoric also displayed his ethos of good sense and good will toward both men by optimizing their talents for the greater good.

4. Neutrality Having stigmatized the minority, Washington charged his audience to side with him and union versus the enemy and sectionalism. In a clearly deliberative fashion, the president urged courses of action that were cleverly de

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

signed to bolster unity and to minimize divisiveness. He urged the unifying goals of prosperity, religion, and morality. The president deftly invited his audience to use its logos to infer that sectionalists would sabotage these goals for regional ends whereas union implied national benefits. He recommended "institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge" that would benefit all Americans;¹ he advocated taxation: "towards the payment of debt there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant"; and he entreated neutrality in thought and action toward foreign powers: "Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world" (Washington's Farewell Address, 21, 21-22, 27. Hereafter, citations for the speech text will be given as WFA.). Contemporary readers would have had little trouble in inferring Washington's side-swipe of the "Democratic Societies he held accountable for the [Whiskey] rebellion" and "an implicit rebuke of Democratic-Republican leaders in the House of Representatives for their conduct in the battle over the Jay Treaty"(Lucas and Zaeske, 14).

Washington's logos on the goal of neutrality deserves special mention. Washington propounded the general, deductive premise that the United States should "steer clear of permanent alliances" with foreign powers. Then, in an inductive fashion, he defended his policy of neutrality by demonstrating that it flowed logically from the general proposition. Lest listeners object to his reasoning, or did not assent to his universal principle, Washington offered concrete evidence to support his argument. Whereas the rest of the speech had been general assertions without specific examples to warrant his points, Washington marshaled precise proofs as logos. The president reminded his listeners that all quarters supported his plan of neutrality:

Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. . . I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all (WFA, 30-31).

The famous phrase of avoiding "entangling alliances," which is often and wrongly attributed to Washington's Farewell Address, was coined in Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address. However, the third president could easily have appropriated the thought from Washington's rhetoric: "Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle [my emphasis] our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" (WFA, 30-31).

The persuasive organizational strategy was Washington's. If one examines the four sections of the speech, one will perceive his optimal order. Had he presented the section entitled 1. Will Not Run later in the address, his other sections would have seemed self-serving and hence easily dismissed as partisan. Likewise, he could not have broached the section called 3. Attack on Sectionalism without

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

first placing the section designated 2. The Union as the preferred hierarchical goal. Likewise, he logically saved 4. Neutrality until last, as this would have been politically out of place any earlier in the address.

Washington's Elocutio

The rationale of the classical stylistic devices was to polish a speech, to make it distinctive, and to give it an air of elegance and eloquence. These devices ornamented a speech, which was certainly not every man's style, and demarcated its language according to the station of the speaker. Washington fielded a force of elocutio devices that merits discussion. The purpose is not to itemize every one, but to highlight representative examples that illustrate Washington's expertise in elocutio.

In a letter_May 15, 1796_to Hamilton on how he should help the president's draft, Washington advised Hamilton that "My wish is, that the whole may appear in a plain stile [sic];_and be handed to the public in an honest;_unaffected;_simple garb. . . ." (Paltsits, 33). One cannot determine what kind of a style or elocutio that Washington conceived as "plain" or "simple," but the rhetorical reality remains that the address's style was not plain, but was in fact quite sophisticated and polished. The reason was Hamilton's diction. Indeed, Humes held that "The wording of the address was more ornate than Washington's" but that "the president expected a literary man to produce a document more fashionably in tune with the language of the current English essayists" (Humes, 10). How Washington used the following classical elocutio devices will demonstrate the point.

Apophasis is defined as affirmation by denial wherein the speaker actually affirms a point by ostensibly denying it, as in "I shall not talk about how he stole the election." Thus, apophasis allows the speaker to make a point without actually stating it. Washington used apophasis effectively in three passages. The first instance occurred in 2. Union where he used apophasis to mask his persuasive intent: "These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel" (WFA, 5. This was Hamilton's apophasis, Paltsits, 182). The sophisticated listener, who understands Washington's apophasis, would cleverly perceive that the president was NOT "disinterested" and that he DID have a "personal motive" in delivering the speech, else why would he bother to offer his sentiments at all? Later in 3. Attack on Sectionalism when he discussed the evils that can arise from rampant sectionalism, he detailed the bleak future, and then cleverly concluded with an apophasis: "Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which, nevertheless, ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it" (WFA, 17. This was Hamilton's apophasis, Paltsits, 190). Washington invited his audience to contemplate a future beset with party factions without actually asking them to do so and without actually proving with logos that such a scenario was forthcoming. The last instance, located in 4. Neutrality, is a textbook example of apophasis, which, by now, needs no explanation: "In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not to hope they will

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

make the strong and lasting impression I could wish . . . ." (WFA, 29. The apophasis was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 198).

Washington deployed rhetorical questions throughout the speech. Many definitions of a rhetorical question abound, but the one employed here is classical: A rhetorical question is a question so phrased that it elicits from the audience the desired response, which may be vocal or quiet assent to oneself. When discussing Western versus Atlantic sectionalism, Washington concluded his argument with two rhetorical questions that cinched his logos: "Will it not be their wisdom to rely, for the presentation of these advantages, on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them to aliens?" (WFA,12. The rhetorical question was Hamilton's, Paltsits,187).² When contending that religion and morality were "indispensable supports," Washington cut to the core of the issue by beseeching: "Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" (WFA, 20. The rhetorical question was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 192.).³ The last instance is several rhetorical questions that he strung together, and the technical name is plurium interrogationum or many questions:

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own, to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? (WFA, 27. The plurium interrogationum was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 196).

The ability to coin a metaphor has always been prized in oratory, for metaphors invite audiences to perceive new relationships and to attribute to the speaker a sharp intellect. Washington did not disappoint. He likened political parties to a fire, and graphically portrayed the metaphorical outcome: "A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume" (WFAdress,18. The metaphor was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 191). The metaphor of slavery/freedom was a particularly apt image in the eighteenth century, for the institution was ubiquitous in the new nation. For instance, Halford Ryan noted that the "master/slave metaphor made preeminent good sense" to the Richmond, Virginia audience for Patrick Henry's famous Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech on March 23, 1775 (Ryan, Classical Communication for the Contemporary Communicator, 126). In one of the very few instances in which he stirred the audience's pathos, Washington effectively played on the emotions of his white audience. He metaphorically alleged they would be like black slaves to England or France: "The nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave" (WFA, 23. The metaphor was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 194). The metaphor was also a logos argument. Since whites would not be slaves, they would eschew a figurative bondage to foreign states.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

The president took pains to polish his address with alliteration, but it was not overdone. A few obvious examples are: "Profoundly penetrated with this idea," "Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state," and "diffusing and diversifying" (WFA, 4, 15, 28. All of the alliterations were Hamilton's, Paltsits, 181, 188, 197).

Tricola is the placing of phrases, clauses, words, in a unit of threes. Why three seems to work so well has never been established, but two seems not enough and more than three seems too much. Washington interspersed tricolas throughout his Farewell. In one instance, he combined tricola with alliteration: "to the applause, the affection, and adoption" (WFA, 5. The tricola and alliteration were Madison's, Paltsits,162). Other examples were regular tricolas_"common dangers, sufferings, and successes," "stifled, controlled, or repressed," "recommended by policy, humanity, and interest," "moderation, perseverance, and firmness," and his very last words, which were cast in tricola, "mutual cares, labors, and dangers" (WFA, 7, 16, 28, 30, 32. All, except one, of the tricolas were Hamilton's, Paltsits, 183, 189, 197, 181. Washington added the tricola_"moderation, perseverance, and firmness"_Paltsits, 157).⁴

"Maxims," Aristotle noted, "make one great contribution to speeches because of the uncultivated mind of the audience; for people are pleased if someone in a general observation hits upon opinions that they themselves have about a particular instance" (Aristotle, 186). Indeed, Washington twice in his speech identified his wise sayings as maxims (WFA, 18. The maxim was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 190). President Washington's adages were grounded in the belief that isolationism best suited the new nation, which he pithily stated in several memorable maxims:

• Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another (WFA, 18. The maxim was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 190).

• It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government (WFA, 20. The maxim was Hamilton's, Paltsits,192).

• Such an attachment of a small or weak nation, toward a great and powerful one, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter (WFA, 25. The maxim was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 195).

• There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation (WFA, 29. The maxim was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 198).

The Address's most famous maxim, "Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world," began as Hamilton's—"Tis our true policy as a general principle to avoid permanent or close alliances"; Washington himself added the famous nautical metaphor and a concrete prepositional phrase: "Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world" (WFA, 27. For Hamilton, see Paltsits, 197, and for Washington, see Paltsits, 156).

How the critic accounts for Washington's elocutio devices is a matter of taste.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

He did not overdo them as the devices did not detour his message and unadorned diction seemed unfit for such an address. He was a prototype for polished presidential persuasions, such as those by Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy. Washington created expectations that the chief executive should not address the nation as every man would, but neither should the message's diction distract the audience from its core communication.

The Problem of "Ghosts" in the Address

The close reader of the bibliographic citations for the previous section would naturally observe that almost all of the elocutio devices were Hamilton's inventions. How, in any meaningful sense, can one attribute them to Washington?

The president's handwritten draft of the final address is the sticking point. Its existence can imply that Washington meant to deceive posterity. A furor arose in the 1820s when it became known that the authorship of the address was certainly not attributable to Washington alone and especially was at least some of Hamilton's handiwork (Paltsits, 75-94). An analogous example in the twentieth century is Franklin Roosevelt's famous First Inaugural Address. FDR wrote out in long hand a so-called first draft, when in fact he copied out Raymond Moley's draft, as Washington did with Hamilton's draft. This copying led Kenneth Davis to conclude that the procedure "was done with deliberate intent [emphasis in original] to deceive posterity" (Davis, 102). Hence, one could infer analogously that Washington meant to deceive.

Yet, exculpatory evidence exists. With regard to FDR's First Inaugural Address, the president made his own emendations as he copied Moley's draft (Ryan, "Roosevelt's First Inaugural: A Study of Technique," 138-39). Washington did so with Hamilton's draft, in fact, significantly more so. Moley told the president-elect, after FDR had finished copying Moley's draft, "This is your speech now" (Moley, 114). Much the same transpired between Hamilton and Washington, for Hamilton wrote the president: [I]n short if there be anything further in the matter in which I can be of any [service], I will with great pleasure obey your commands" (Paltsits, 53). James Flexner held that "[T]he Farewell Address was a much Washington's as any Presidential paper is likely to be that has been drafted by an intimate aide" (Flexner, 307). Hence, Washington's final, handwritten manuscript was definitely the president's:

In the last analysis he was his own editor; and the Farewell Address, in the final form for publication, was all in his own handwriting. It was then in content and form what he had chosen to make it by the process of adoption and adaption in fulfillment of what he desired. By this procedure every idea became his own without equivocation" (Paltsits 54. Emphasis is in the original).

Ghostwriters were from the start and continue to be a political given in presidential persuasions. However troubling that fact might be for the ultimate answer of whether Washington's speeches were his or his ghostwriters, an expedient maxim was coined by Arthur Larson_a speech writer for Dwight Eisenhower, another

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

general-turned-president: "[T]he President's speech is the President's speech" (Larson, 150).

The Persuasiveness of Washington's Address

Washington's rhetoric in the Farewell Address achieved divers results (Paltsits, 56-74, inventories eighteenth-century newspaper reactions to Washington's Address). The short-run effect of his defending 1. Will Not Run was successful. Immediately after he announced, contenders started to position themselves for the presidency. Democratic newspapers denounced Washington for quitting, because, they scurrilously claimed, he could not be re-elected. Although not a direct result of this address, Washington set the precedent for two terms that Franklin Roosevelt broke in 1940 when he ran for a third term.

Washington's military experiences equipped him to deal on terms of future expediency with regard to 4. Neutrality. He realized that the United States should not be a pawn of any European power, that it had to stand militarily on its own, and that therefore the nation would need considerable time to reach a par with England or France. It is tenuous to suggest that Washington's address had a direct effect on American neutrality or isolationism that remained strong until World War I, that surfaced again in the peace movement of the 1930s, and that lasted until Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, Washington's address empowered several orators. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge [R-MA] argued that the United States should eschew the League of Nations in a speech on August 12, 1919, by appealing to "Washington's declaration against our interfering in European questions" (Lodge, 3778-3784). Lodge's partner in the eventual defeat of the League was Senator William Borah [R-ID] who waxed eloquently in the Senate by entreating fellow senators to remember Washington's Farewell Address: "The puny demagogue, the barren editor, the sterile professor now vie with each other in apologizing for the temporary and commonplace expedients which the Father of our Country felt constrained to adopt in building a republic!" (Borah, 8784). In a speech entitled the Menace of the World Court, January 27, 1935, Father Charles Coughlin, the Radio Priest, implored "the fatherly admonitions of Washington and Jefferson which still ring in our ears" and "let us bow our heads in shame for desecrating the final words bequeathed to us by the Father of our Country_`no European entanglements' [emphasis in original]" (Carpenter, 158, 169).⁵ Even as late as 1939, Washington's neutrality figured prominently in President Franklin Roosevelt's rhetoric. In FDR's Fireside Chat on war in Europe, September 3, 1939, the thirty-second president echoed the first president's dictum on neutrality : "This nation will remain a neutral nation" (The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1939, 463).

Washington's domestic prowess was less prescient with regard to 3. Attack on Sectionalism and political parties. His plea against them was still-born and naive. Political parties were a fact of life late in his administration, witness his address that attacked them, and they would not die. Parties thrived under John Adams's presidency and were solidified by the time of Thomas Jefferson.

Washington's stance on 2. The Union was used by slavers and anti-slavers before the Civil War. In the famous Senatorial debates in the Compromise of 1850, Northerners appealed to Southerners to remember Washington's plea for

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

national unity. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina caustically reminded Northerners that Washington was a Southerner and a slaveholder: "Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the illustrious Southerner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the Potomac. He was one of us a slaveholder and a planter" (Calhoun, 454).⁶

Conclusion

Perhaps the lasting legacy of George Washington's Farewell Address was its prescient sagacity. President Dwight Eisenhower, in his famous Farewell Address, January 17, 1961, detailed the perils of the military-industrial complex: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. . . . We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."⁷ The first president presaged the thirty-fourth president's wise words: "Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican government" (WFA,10).

Washington perceived and communicated the great maxim of the United States: Americans cannot have liberty without union. Senator Daniel Webster perorated the maxim most memorably in his Second Reply to Hayne, January 26-27, 1830, when the Massachusetts senator ended his oration: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable" (Webster, 80). The first president's rhetoric was the prototype: "In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other" (WFA, 10. The maxim was Hamilton's, Paltsits, 144).

Endnotes

¹ As he was retiring from the presidency and putting his words into action, Washington gave 100 shares of James River Company stock, valued around $50,000, to Liberty Hall Academy in Lexington, Virginia; grateful trustees changed the school's name to Washington Academy, which eventually became Washington and Lee Unviersity.

² Did the reader perceive Washington's, really Hamilton's, apophasis about "advisers, if such there are, who would sever. . . ."? He affirmed this point by appearing to deny it.

³ Incidentally, this passage also illustrates asyndeton, which is leaving out the connective, and tricola, which is casting a grammatical member in threes: "for property, for reputation, for life."

⁴ It is interesting to note, with regard to dispositio, that Washington lined out the tricola of "mutual cares, labors, and dangers" on Hamilton's draft, Paltsits, 140, and replaced the tricola at the very end of his address, Paltsits, 159.

⁵ The keen reader will observe that Father Coughlin misquoted Washington, but the padre did manage to present the gist of the first president's maxim.

⁶ Of all the Virginia slaveholding dynasty of presidents, Washington was the only one to emancipate his slaves upon his death.

⁷ The term "military-industrial complex" was not Eisenhower's but Malcolm

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Moos's, a speech writer for President Eisenhower (Crable, 119).

Works Cited

Aly, Bower. "Alexander Hamilton." History and Criticism of American Public Address. Ed. Marie Kathryn Hochmuth. Vol. 3. New York: Russell and Russell, 1955.

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Borah, William. Congressional Record, 66^th Cong., 1^st Sess., vol 58, pt. 9, 8784.

Calhoun, John C. "Constitution and Union." Congressional Globe, 31 Cong., 1^st Sess., vol. XXI, pt. 4. Washington, D.C.: John C. Rives.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. "Inaugurating the Presidency." Form, Genre, and the Study of Political Discourse. Ed. Herbert W. Simons and Aram A. Aghazarian Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press, 1986. An earlier version of this essay was published in Presidential Studies Quarterly 15 (1985): 394-411.

Carpenter, Ronald H. Father Charles E. Coughlin: Surrogate Spokesman for the Disaffected. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998.

Crable, Richard E. "Dwight David Eisenhower." American Orators of the Twentieth Century: Critical Studies and Sources. Ed. Bernard K. Duffy and Halford R. Ryan. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1987.

Davis, Kenneth S. "FDR as a Biographers Problem." American Scholar 53 (Winter 1983-84): 100-108.

Einhorn, Lois J. "The Ghosts Unmasked: A Review of Literature on Speechwriting." Communication Quarterly 30 (1981): 41-47.

Einhorn, Lois J. "James Madison." U. S. Presidents as Orators. Ed. Halford Ryan. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Flexner, James Thomas. George Washington: Anguish and Farewell (1793-1799). Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1969.

Humes, James C. My Fellow Americans: Presidential Addresses that Shaped History. New York: Praeger, 1992.

Larson, Arthur. The President Nobody Knew. New York: Scribner's, 1968.

Lodge, Henry Cabot. "In Opposition to the Proposed League of Nations." United States Senate, August 12, 1919, Congressional Record, 66^th Cong., 1^st Sess., vol. 58, pt. 4, 3778-3784.

Lucas, Stephen E. and Zaeske, Susan. "George Washington." U. S. Presidents as Orators. Ed. Halford Ryan. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Moley, Raymond. The First New Deal. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1966.

Paltsits, Victor Hugo. Washington's Farewell Address. New York: New York Public Library, 1935.

The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1939. "Fireside Chat on War," September 3, 1939. Ed. Samuel I. Rosenman. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1941).

Ryan, Halford. Classical Communication for the Contemporary Communicator. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1991.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Ryan, Halford Ross. "Kategoria and Apologia: On Their Rhetorical Criticism as a Speech Set." Quarterly Journal of Speech 68 (1982): 254-261.

Ryan, Halford Ross. "Roosevelt's First Inaugural: A Study of Technique." Quarterly Journal of Speech 65 (April 1979): 137-149.

Washington's Farewell Address. 105^th Congress, 2^nd Session, Senate Document No. 105-22. Washington: GPO, 1998.

Webster, Daniel Webster. "Second Reply to Hayne." Register of Debates in Congress. Vol. VI, Part I. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1830.

Wills, Garry. Cincinnatus: George Washington and the Enlightenment. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984.

Wolfarth, Donald L. "John F. Kennedy in the Tradition of Inaugural Speeches." Quarterly Journal of Speech 47 (1961): 124-132.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Inside and Outside the Bubble:

Forensic and Non-Forensic Views of Acceptable Humor Forms

Andrew C. Billings

Everyone claims to have a sense of humor; yet, much like a fingerprint, no two senses of humor are alike. Nonetheless, armed with an individualized cognitive taxonomy of what is and is not funny, people regularly assess the humor levels of a joke, comment, or television show. While no one can seem to agree on someone or something that is universally funny, we increasingly try to do so, creating cognitive dissonance not only for the people attempting to assess the humor but also for the people attempting to be funny. Within the realm of this humor debate, a smaller nebulous area remains: what makes a certain form of humor offensive? Both in forensics and in everyday social interactions, decisions regarding acceptable humor are murky at best, making communication apprehension regarding humor a common phenomenon. This paper attempts to explicate the issue of potentially offensive humor in both the speech and non-speech worlds. In doing so, both people within and outside the forensic community can gain a better understanding as to where many people mentally "draw the line." Moreover, comparisons between acceptable humor within the two venues can be illuminated.

Related Literature

Discerning acceptable humor has been an issue scholars have attempted to explicate for years. Young and Frye (1966) note that "laughter is one of a few universal forms of emotional expression" but that it has rarely been addressed in communication literature. Over three decades later, the research has improved, but still be sparse when compared to the importance of analyzing humor. O'Connell (1960) was the first to categorize and define three broad humor genres: humor, wit, and nonsense. Young and Frye (1966) added a fourth dimension: sex humor. The researchers found marked differences between the way a group responded to sexual humor as compared to the other three genres.

Categories of humor were deconstructed into smaller categories, with Winick (1976) using eighteen genres of humor for his analysis. Winick noted that while sexual and ethnic humor dominated culture, many other forms of humor were emerging. A quarter-century later, these forms of humor have been sub-divided into even more distinct categories. More topics have become subject to jokes that were considered off-limits previously. The result is that while humor is designed to skewer societal norms, more humor is found to offend and demoralize culture. The need to analyze offensiveness ratings of humor forms has never been more needed.

Andrew C. Billings (Ph.D., Indiana University, 1999) is an Assistant Professor and the Director of Forensics, Clemson University. His forensic research focus often examines after-dinner speaking and identity issues within individual events.

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 38 (2001), 16-26

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

McGhee (1979) argues that there is both a cognitive and symbolic nature of humor, while Lorenz (1963) views humor as a risky yet valuable rhetorical tool that can have a highly persuasive function. In his seminal speaker evaluation studies of humor effects, Gruner (1967, 1978) found that speaker credibility can alter greatly dependent on the type of humor and the perceived wit of the of person performing it.

Yet, little research has addressed perceptions of what is considered to be obscene. Most of the literature is more than two decades old, but potentially offensive humor has been analyzed in terms of race (LaFave & Mannell, 1976), gender (Chapman & Gadfield, 1976; Cantor, 1976), and social context (Winick, 1976). Fine (1976) did actually conduct a study addressing obscene jokes, but focused on the role of in-group and out-group status across cultures. Still, Fine's work yielded an important finding for this particular study in noting that the demographic make-up of the audience can significantly impact the potential offensiveness of the humor. One can logically follow this finding through making a sample comparison of a White speaker espousing racist humor and a Black speaker espousing racist humor—the way the audience responds to the humor could fluctuate greatly depending on the in-group status of the speaker and the audience.

In arguing for a four-function humor model, Meyer (2000) refers to the dilemma as a "double-edged sword" as he claims that humor often serves as both a unifier and a divider (p. 310). The uniting functions of humor, according to Meyer are identification and clarification; the divisive functions are enforcement and differentiation. Because this study focuses on the humor that divides (labeling as "offensive" or "non-offensive"), focus on the latter two facets of the model is warranted.

The first of these two divisive functions of humor is labeled as enforcement. Meyer used the example of Ronald Reagan to explain this concept, as Reagan was often able to make jokes about issues he did not agree with to persuade people to his side of a social or political cause. In doing so, Reagan not only got some laughs, but also avoided being seen as the angry, disillusioned critic (Meyer, 1990).

The second function of humor that often divides an audience is what Meyer terms "differentiation" (p. 321). Meyer argues that this form of humor invokes both alliances and distinctions. Using Bob Dole's humorous rhetoric in the 1996 presidential campaign as exemplar, this function of humor attempts to contrast differences. For instance, Bob Dole claimed that President Clinton was attempting to be a good Republican, but then showed differences between himself and his Democratic opponent. In essence, Dole used humor to show just how different the presidential candidates were, fulfilling a function of differentiation.

The Forensic Laboratory

One of the basic justifications for forensic research postulates that, as an entity, the forensic environment can be used to study real-life communication. Proponents of this mindset argue that findings we learn in competitive forensics can be applied to the outside world—a forensic laboratory, so to say. Yet, over the past few decades, the concept of the forensic laboratory seems to have disintegrated, in what Swanson (1992) terms a "disturbing trend…to become more isolated from

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

the mainstream speech communication curriculum" (p. 49).

Many have argued that forensics can be a much-improved educational environment if the laboratory concept took root again today. Friedley (1992) applied forensics to interpersonal communication, arguing that situations such as the coach/competitor dyad could speak volumes within the discipline. Zeuschner (1992) used the forensics as laboratory mindset to explore small group communication, analyzing the forensic discipline through the application of Mills' (1967) six models of small group communication. Swanson (1992) argued for the organizational communication realm, arguing that issues such as organizational skills training and organizational climate directly related to the skills and climate in which a forensic competitor must live at a given tournament. Dreibelbis and Gullifor (1992) implemented the mass media mindset to incorporate their view of forensics as laboratory. In doing so, they found that students learn audience analysis and speech writing skills that would directly benefit them in mass media. The parallels between the skills learned in forensics and their application to career and societal skills are endless.

Standards and Assessment

In determining the formula for acceptable after-dinner humor, one must first understand the struggle to define a formula for after-dinner speaking as a whole. No individual event struggles for definition in the same manner as after-dinner speaking. The ideal balance between research and humor has been the discussion of debate for years. Andrews, Andrews, and Williams (1999) indicate that the purposes of after-dinner speaking should be to stimulate enjoyment, use humor effectively, deliver in an engaging style, and convey a meaningful message. However, anyone within the forensic community can notice that the after-dinner speaking textbook and competitive definitions are indelibly different. Scholars have attempted to find a representative criteria for after-dinner speaking (Swanson & Zeuschner, 1983; Mills, 1984; Dreibelbis & Redmon, 1987; Hanson, 1988; Holm, 1993, Billings, 1997). The studies offered insight into the variables judges claim to employ when judging a competitive after-dinner speech, yet underscored the problem inherent in contemporary after-dinner speaking: the evaluation criteria judges use for after-dinner speaking is more inconsistent than the criteria for any other individual event. Students have countered this problem by trying to be all things to all people; the prospect of such an achievement is nearly impossible.

Within the attempt to fulfill increasingly broadened judging criteria, after-dinner speeches have suffered in many ways—none more than humor. In a pair of papers exacting the problems with being funny in an after-dinner speech, Richardson (1999) and Hall (1999) argued that the implied after-dinner success formula was too stringent and placed humor and originality low on a relative scale of importance. Richardson (1999) writes that after-dinner speaking should offer creativity that no other event can match:

It is forensics outside the box, ideally. Unfortunately, current trends in the event threaten to stifle the very creativity that makes after-dinner unique. Narrow judging paradigms and paint-by-number, cookie cutter approaches re

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

ward imitation over imagination. Forensic convention is forcing ADS inside the box. (p.1)

Also noting humor-related problems in after-dinner speaking, Hall (1999) notes that irony and other more subtle forms of humor are undervalued. Writes Hall:

Although we vehemently deny that after-dinner speaking resembles stand-up comedy, we do little to encourage the distinction. We call it whatever we want to…but the only real difference between this year's national ADS champion and Denis Leary is that one uses biting, driven humor and one cites the Wall Street Journal. (p. 1)

Clearly, part of the reduced humor in after-dinner speeches can be attributed to an increasingly sensitive public, monitoring what is or is not acceptable humor. The age of political correctness alters the way students construct speeches, opting for safe humor over edgy humor, impeding creativity and the no-holds-barred nature of humor itself. As Richardson (1999) argues, "We don't necessarily tell the same jokes year after year. We tell the same kind of jokes" (p. 6).

Pinpointing what goes into a model after-dinner speech has been the focus of scholars for years. Many researchers have made attempts to ascertain so-called after-dinner speaking "formulas". Mills (1984) notes content and style as the main categories of judging criteria that should be employed. The fact that Anderson and Martin (1983) argue that the implied definition of competitive after-dinner speaking was a speech that makes a humorous point implies that the overall purpose of the speech should be persuasive in nature. Yet, these scholars differed as to what the added criteria should be for the ideal after-dinner speech.

Billings (1997) conducted the most recent survey of attitudes regarding after-dinner speaking. Using the responses from 115 coaches and students, Billings noted several important findings. First, humor and research were found to be almost equally important in constructing the proper after-dinner speech balance. Thirty-five percent of all students and coaches surveyed noted humor is the most important element for success; 28% argued that research is more important; 37% argued they are equally important. Additionally, Billings found that overdone topics were a significant concern of 96% of all respondents. The study also found students particularly concerned with the lack of uniform judging criteria; 35% of all students surveyed listed it as the biggest problem facing after-dinner speaking. Billings concluded that attention should be paid to noting the difference between a set of event criteria and a judges' formula for a successful speech, arguing that the guideline of "a speech that makes a point through the use of humor" should be a common criteria, but that judges should abstain from invoking their own success formulas on each after-dinner speaking contestant. Writes Billings:

One of the strengths of after-dinner speaking is its lack of a "success formula." A final round can witness a speech with two sources followed by a speech with twenty. Speeches can employ different types of humor, from slapstick to deadpan. While preferences for certain humor formats will always be a matter of taste, this diversity makes the event stronger. (p. 48)

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Billings, in a future study, examines the concept of humor within the success formula, finding that countless forms of humor could result in a lowered score from an offended judge. Billings (in press) writes:

After-dinner speaking does have a responsibility to the "thought police" to discern what is decent and what truly offends. However, when so many forms of humor become potential pitfalls that drop students to the bottom of a round, entertainment becomes a secondary function of after-dinner speaking—a prospect that should never come to fruition. (n.p.)

Because of findings such as these, the analysis of acceptable humor both within and outside of the forensic community must be examined. Billings (in press) noted that the way to assess such humor genres is in terms of two terms: offensiveness and tolerance. Billings argues that for the sake of clarity within such analyses, these terms should be viewed as one, because both serve as measuring sticks that determine where a person cognitively draws "the line."

Research Questions

While several studies within the communication discipline have addressed various forms of offensive humor (see Fine, 1976; Lafave and Mannell, 1976; Chapman & Gadfield, 1976). Additionally, Meyer (2000) recently argued that humor can serve two broad dimensions, one of which was devisiveness—a concept strongly related to offensive humor as well. Still, no study has examined differences between the forensic audience and the non-forensic audience when assessing potentially offensive humor genres Through comparing humor evaluations of both forensic judges and people not involved in forensics, conclusions can be drawn as to the similarity between the forensic (lab) scores and the non-forensic ("real world") scores. Thus, two key research questions must be postulated for this study:

RQ1: Will ratings of potentially offensive humor forms differ significantly between forensic judges and people not involved in forensics?

RQ2: Will the amount of agreement on each humor form (as determined by standard deviations) differ significantly between forensic judges and people not involved in forensics?

Method

As reported in Billings (in press) focus groups were used to determine forms of humor potentially judged to be intolerable by segments of the forensics judging community. Three groups with four persons each brainstormed humor genres used in after-dinner speaking. These groups then narrowed the list of humor genres by determining which forms of humor fit most closely with questions of potential offensiveness. Based on the findings of these groups, a total of 14 humor genres were deemed to be valid areas for measurement of potential offensiveness. Two humor genres (forensic-related humor and tangential humor) were eliminated from

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

the sample because they lacked a non-forensic equivalent. One additional item (pertaining to humor related to people in the "audience" was adapted to become humor about people "in the room"). In all, fourteen items (found in Appendix A) were placed into semantic differential format, with two different sentences being used. Forensic respondents were given the items as they fit into the sentence: "I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of _______ humor in after-dinner speeches." Non-forensic respondents were given the items as they fit into the sentence: "I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of _______ humor." Semantic scales ranged from (1) agree (tolerant), to (7) disagree (not tolerant).

Forensic-oriented surveys were distributed to judges at three prominent individual events tournaments in the 1999-2000 academic year. Surveys that were geared toward non-forensic participants were distributed to students at a large southeastern university in the spring and fall of 2000. Because many of the judges were in their twenties, and the large majority of students were in their twenties, these two groups provided an accurate comparison for analysis. After surveys were completed, results were calculated using SPSS for Windows 9.0 (1999). The items were tested for reliability; a relatively high alpha (.8081) calculated. Consequently, no items were deleted from the analysis.

Results

A total of 140 surveys were completed for use in the study. 71 were forensic judges; 69 were people not involved in forensics at all. The gender of the respondents was fairly balanced: 67 men; 73 women. Ethnically, Caucasians represented the majority of the sample (111/79%). Eleven of the respondents indicated they were African-American; four self-identified as Hispanic; four more indicated Asian descent. Respondents were asked to rate their tolerance of a given after-dinner speaking humor genre on a seven-point semantic differential scale. Table 1 indicates the overall means and standard deviations derived from the humor tolerance scales of both forensic and non-forensic respondents.

Table 1 indicates large differences between the two respondent groups. Because 4.00 was a statistical center for the items, any averages of 4.01 or higher were deemed intolerable to a significant segment of judges. Almost the same number of humor forms were found to be offensive by both groups (Forensics = 7; Non-forensics = 6). However, the differences on a single-item basis indicated significant differences between the groups. Forensic respondents were significantly more offended than were the non-forensic respondents on five of the items. These items included homophobia (+1.27), profanity (+1.18), slapstick (+.92), sexism (+.85), and sexually explicit humor (+.68). However, two forms of humor were deemed to be significantly more offensive for the non-forensic respondents. These included humor about people in the room (-.47) and especially humor related to diseases and/or disorders (-1.29). In fact, while diseases and/or disorders was the sixth most offensive humor genre for the forensic group, it became the most offensive humor genre in the non-forensic group. The other major difference in the rank-ordering of offensiveness was jokes pertaining to the audience/people in the room. Forensic respondents found that form of humor to be fairly mild (ranking 12^th), while non-forensic respondents were more likely to be offended by

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

the genre (ranking 6^th). Because half of the scales yielded significant differences between forensic and non-forensic respondents, research question #1 is answered by saying that forensic respondents were more offended in five key areas, while non-forensic respondents were more offended in two key areas.

Research question #2 pertained to the amount of agreement within each of the two study groups. There was significantly less agreement within the forensic

Table 1

Overall means of humor-genre tolerance scales by condition

Forensics Non-Forensic

Humor Genre Mean St. Dev. Rank Mean St. Dev. Rank Net Diff

Age 2.87 1.81 (13) 2.76 1.61 (12) +.11

People in

Room/Audienc 3.67 2.42 (12) 4.14 1.87 (6) -.47*

Diseases/

Disorders 4.26 1.61 (6) 5.55 1.51 (1) -1.29*

Gender 4.24 2.09 (7) 3.39 1.75 (7) +.85*

Homophobic 4.61 2.10 (4) 3.34 1.81 (8) +1.27*

Mentally

Handicapped 5.09 1.96 (1) 5.29 1.60 (3) -.20

Physically

Handicapped 5.05 2.08 (2) 5.42 1.60 (2) -.37

Political 1.98 1.23 (14) 1.63 0.98 (14) +.35

Profanity 3.99 1.87 (8) 2.81 1.99 (11) +1.18*

Racist 4.87 2.04 (3) 4.88 1.85 (4) -.01

Religious 3.36 1.81 (11) 3.27 1.97 (9) +.09

Sexually

Explicit 3.85 2.11 (9) 3.17 1.97 (10) +.68*

Slapstick 3.09 2.00 (12) 2.17 1.50 (13) +.92*

Violence 4.38 1.65 (5) 4.64 1.64 (5) -.26

* = Significant difference at .05 level.

Rankings: From most offensive (1) to least offensive (14)

1.0 = Highly Tolerant

7.0 = Not Tolerant

respondents than there was within the non-forensic respondents. Half of the items for the forensic group resulted in high standard deviations of 2.00 or larger. None of the items for the non-forensic group yielded a standard deviation as high as 2.00. As a result, research question #2 is answered in the fact that the forensic community has very little agreement on acceptable humor in after-dinner speeches, while the non-forensic community appears to have more consistent standards for tolerable and intolerable humor.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Discussion

Contributions to the communication discipline and the concept of the forensic laboratory can be explicated from the findings in the study. First, this study confirms the work of Winick (1976) who found that the social context of a situation can alter whether dialogue is assessed as humorous or not humorous. Additionally, the findings fit Meyer's (2000) model closely, as the categories show that humor in inherently divisive in its nature. The high standard deviations within the study indicate that most all of the humor formats, while yielding significantly different overall ratings, still can be seen as a hit-or-miss proposal.

Second, the results indicate that levels of humor tolerance are clearly not the same in the lab (after-dinner speaking round) as they are in the field (outside community). Five forms of humor were considerably more likely to offend if told in competition, indicating that either forensic judges were much more touchy about these issues, or that there are certain forms of humor that may not be acceptable for formal competition, but which may be acceptable in a less formal environment. The fact that these genres of humor that were considerably more offensive included identity issues such as homophobia and sexism lead one to conclude that identity issues are the largest potential minefield for a person attempting to be funny. The fact that profanity was considerably less accepted in formal competition may be the best example of how formal and informal humor can vary considerably.

The two forms of humor that inversely were more offensive to the general population than to the forensic community were the issues of humor directed at someone in the room and jokes pertaining to disorders and diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. The forensic community's willingness to award the use of jokes about people in the room because they indicate a higher level of audience adaptation could explain the former finding. The latter, on the other hand, requires future investigation. While forensic respondents clearly did have some problems with jokes about diseases and disorders (4.26 rating), it clearly did not offend nearly as much as for the general population (5.55 rating). Future research should explore how such a large inequity in taste could exist.

The second research question pertained to the standard deviations as they relate to perceived agreement on these fourteen humor formats. Significant differences existed again within this measure. As many after-dinner speakers could guess, constructing a speech in which all judges find the humor to be acceptable must be a monumental task, as tolerable humor ranges much more greatly from judge to judge than it does from person to person in the general population. One reason why the general population is in more agreement on acceptable humor forms could be that there have simply been more opportunities for checking the standards. The general population discerns where the rest of the society draws the line in everyday interaction; the forensic community usually cannot discern what is acceptable humor within the activity unless they are at the tournament itself. Still, future research must strive to uncover the reason for this lack of judging consistency. If it were only a matter of taste, the ratings should vary just as much as they do for the general population. Because this is not the case, some other variable must also interacting in this humor equation.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Finally, it is important to address the limitations within the current study. First, this study only analyzed sixteen genres of humor. Obviously, one could concoct a list of over a hundred different forms of humor to test, making the results of this study limited only to the humor forms in question. Additionally, subjects were not exposed to the text of actual jokes; rather, they were asked how they felt about the humor genre in its entirety. This obviously could alter ratings, as one person could be mentally imagining much harsher jokes within a genre than another person would. Future research needs to examine more genres of humor and also needs to take the next step in the forensic laboratory process by providing respondents with actual humor stimuli to assess. This study can provide an appropriate heuristic for such an analysis.

Conclusion

While the forensic laboratory is intended to provide real-world applications of issues, this study found that telling a joke within the competitive environment is quite different from telling a joke in other forms of the public domain. Forensics as laboratory is an important concept, if for no other reason than for "checks" such as this study. If the pedagogical goal of forensics is in the laboratory aspect, students and coaches alike should embrace these results as an important learning tool. We now know that humor tastes differ within the forensic community. We should all now pursue the more interesting question of why they exist. If we, as a community, can uncover the answer, surely the pedagogical process is alive and well in competitive forensics.

Appendix A

1.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of religious humor (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

2.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of racist humor (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

3.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of political humor (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

4.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of sexually explicit humor (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

5.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of humor that disparages men or women (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE:____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

6.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of slapstick humor (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

7.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant humor pertaining to violent acts (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

8.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of humor using obscene or profane language (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

9.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of homophobic humor (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

10.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of humor pertaining to the mentally handicapped (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGRE

11.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of humor pertaining to the physically handicapped (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

12.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of humor pertaining to diseases/disorders such as Alzheimer's or Epilepsy or (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

13.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of humor pertaining to age (Forensic: in after-dinner speeches).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

14.) I would say that, on the whole, I am tolerant of humor that makes fun of (Forensic: audience members/fellow contestants in after-dinner speeches) (Non-forensic: people in the room).

AGREE :____:____:____:____:____:____:_____: DISAGREE

References

Andrews, J.R., Andrews, P.H., and Williams, G. (1999). Public speaking: Connecting you and your audience. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin, 1^st edition.

Anderson, D. & Martin, P. (1983). After dinner speaking: a descriptive analysis of evaluation criteria. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, DC.

Billings, A.C. (in press). Offending none, entertaining none: acceptable humor in after-dinner speeches. National Forensic Journal.

Billings, A.C. (1997). When criteria becomes formula: The search for standardization within competitive after-dinner speeches. National Forensic Journal, 39-50.

Cantor, J.R. (1976). What is funny to whom? The role of gender. Journal of Communication, 26, 164-172.

Chapman, A.J. & Gadfield, N.J. (1976). Is sexual humor sexist? Journal of Communication, 26, 141-153

Dreibelbis, G.C. & Gullifor, P. (1992). Forensics as a laboratory experience in mass media. National Forensic Journal, 10, 77-82.

Dreibelbis, G. & Redmon, K. (1987). But seriously folks…suggestions and considerations for writing the competitive after-dinner speech. National Forensic

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Journal, 5, 78-95.

Fine, G.A. (1976). Obscene joking across cultures. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 134-140.

Freidley, S.A. (1992). Forensics as a laboratory experience in interpersonal communication. National Forensic Journal, 10, 51-56.

Gruner, C.R. (1978). Understanding laughter: The working of wit and humor. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Gruner, C.R. (1967). Effect of humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain. Journal of Communication, 17(3), 228-233.

Hall, B. (1999). Funny, but not `ha, ha' funny: The lack of irony in competitive after dinner speaking. Paper presented at the National Communication Association convention, Chicago, IL.

Hanson, C. (1988). Judging after-dinner speaking, identifying the criteria for evaluation, National Forensic Journal, 6, p. 29.

Holm, T.T. (1993). Hey coach, I want to do A.D.S.: What do I do? Paper presented at the A.F.A. workshop, Largo, MD.

LaFave, L. & Mannell, R.(1976). Does ethnic humor serve prejudice? Journal of Communication, 26, 116-123.

Lorenz, K. (1963). On aggression. New York: Harcourt.

McGhee, P.E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Meyer, J.C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communications. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310-331.

Meyer, J.C. (1990). Ronald Reagan and humor: A politician's velvet weapon. Communication Studies, 41, 76-88.

Mills, N. (1984, Spring). Judging after dinner speaking competitor style and content, National Forensic Journal, 2, p. 12.

Mills, T. (1967). The Sociology of Small Groups. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

O'Connell, W. (1960). The adaptive functions of wit and humor. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 61, 263-270.

Richardson, R.R. (1999). Problems in after-dinner speaking: Ranting into a new millennium. Paper presented at the National Communication Association convention, Chicago, IL.

Suls, J.M. (1977). Cognitive and disparagement theories of humor: A theoretical and empirical synthesis. In Chapman, A.J. & Foot, H.C. (Eds.), It's a funny thing,humor. Oxford: Pergamon.

Swanson, D.R. (1992). Forensics as a laboratory in communication studies: Introduction. National Forensic Journal, 10, 49-50.

Winick, C. (1976). The social contexts of humor. Journal of Communication, 26, 124-128.

Young, R.D. & Frye, M. (1966). Some are laughing; some are not—Why? Psychological Reports, 18, 747-754.

Zeuschner, R.B. (1992). Forensics as a laboratory experience in small group communication. National Forensic Journal, 10, 57-64.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

Identification: Celebrating People with HIV

Kittie Grace

Abstract

The "Life Masks: The Many Faces of HIV/AIDS" is an exhibit created by Michelle Milne to celebrate the lives of individuals with HIV. The exhibit consists of stories, pictures, and plaster masks of individuals who are living with HIV. These stories and images are designed to create identification with the HIV community and with other observers of the exhibit. Through looking at Burke's concept of identification one can see how this exhibit works to unify and faction the audience in order to promote identification.

Introduction

I encourage anyone with HIV/AIDS or any other terrible disease, negative health affliction or handicap to live each day to the fullest. God gave EACH of us in our lives 24 hours in a day no more, no less. We can either choose to sit and mope about our sorrows in life, or we can choose to make each day count with a positive attitude and gratefulness of all the good things we do have in life _Anonymous. (Milne, 1999, p. 2)

In 1993 we discovered that our entire family had AIDS. My husband whom I had been with for seven years, our four-month-old son and myself. `But we had never been sick, how could we have AIDS?' We were and are devastated _The Shavers: Ted, Barb, and Logan. (Milne, 1999, p. 6)

Dear friend, as you look at my face and wonder, `Who is this person?' know that I am a man, a spouse, a son, a brother, a nephew, an uncle, and a friend. I love, and am loved in return. My name is Chuck Comstock. I was born on June 22, 1962. I have celebrated over ten years of knowing I am HIV positive, and now have AIDS. I thank God for each day that I awaken, and for the angels surrounding me in the forms of family, friends, and strangers who listen. (Milne, 1999, p. 7)

The previous quotations embody the purpose of the "Life Masks: The Many Faces of HIV/AIDS" exhibit. This exhibit of plaster masks allows individuals to identify with the stories of people living, and who have died with AIDS. Unlike the AIDS quilt, the masks expose the observer to not only the stories and the pain, but to the person himself or herself captured in a plaster mask for eternity. As Americans become more saturated with the word "AIDS," the virus loses media attention (Waggoner, 2000). People start to think that AIDS is a disease of the past due to new drug treatments. Individuals become apathetic, and the disease strikes

Kittie Grace (BA, Hastings College, 2000) is a master's student in the Department of Speech Communication and Theatre at Kansas State University.

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 38 (2001), 27-36

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2001

more Americans when least expected. The overall number of people living with HIV/AIDS continues to grow annually (Smith, 2001). In America, almost 3 million people have AIDS, and it is unknown how many Americans are HIV positive (Clark, 2000). The number of AIDS deaths by the end of 1998 was 410,900, the equivalent of over seven Vietnam War Memorials, a wall that would stretch on for two-thirds of a mile (Smith, 2000). Over 391,000 men, women, and children have died of AIDS in the United States since 1982 and over 50% of all new HIV infections occur in 13-24 year-olds (Office of National AIDS Policy, 2000). These statistics alone make the "Life Masks" exhibit worthy of analysis. In this essay I argue that the "Life Masks: The Many Faces of HIV/AIDS" exhibit is designed to create identification between the AIDS community and the public. To understand how this exhibit intends to create identification, I will introduce the exhibit and develop a methodology from Kenneth Burke's theory of identification. I will then apply Burke's theory to the "Life Masks" exhibit, and offer conclusions in order to answer the research question: Does the design of "Life Masks" help to create identification for individuals dealing directly and indirectly with HIV/AIDS?

The Exhibit

The "Life Masks" exhibit came to life December of 1998 (Davis, 1998). Michelle Milne (2001), the artist behind the masks, is a thirty one-year-old woman who has a degree in psychology from the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire. After obtaining her degree, Milne moved to Tempe, Arizona and took art classes at Mesa Community College. With her background in psychology and interest in art, Milne came up with the idea of using plaster life masks to spotlight those who are HIV positive or suffering from AIDS (Davis, 1998). Milne's (2001) interest in those people suffering from HIV was intensified during a Peace Corps mission in the African nation of Zambia. While in Zambia, Milne watched men, women, and children dying of AIDS. In Africa alone, over 23 million people have been diagnosed with AIDS and over 13.7 million have died (Dowell, 2000). In a school in Lusaka, Zambia, over half of the 250 pupils are AIDS orphans (Whitelaw, 2000).

When Milne returned to the states, she continued to experience the pain of this disease as she watched a relative died from complications due to AIDS. With all of the death around her, Milne decided to show the many faces of the disease (Davis, 1998). She proposed this idea to her ceramics professor at Mesa Community College, Professor Linda Speranza. Speranza favored the idea and the two women set out to acquire funding for the project. Their quest was productive, as they received a $25,000 grant from Maricopa Community College District. Milne is in charge of the volunteer-run project and is finally seeing her idea come to life. Milne says of the project, "I wanted to do something more interactive that would combine art and service together, and then there is the disease" (Davis, 1998, p. 6).

The "art" of the artifact takes a fairly small amount of time to accomplish. The mask molding process takes approximately one hour. Milne first rubs a seaweed derivative onto the participant's face. She then places plaster bandages on top of the derivative. Once the mold hardens, Milne removes the bandages and plaster is poured into the mold where it stiffens. She finally removes the mold to