SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Volume 40 / 2003

Speaker and Gavel

Race and Civility:

The Problems of Taking it Personally

Michael Janas

Michael Edmonds

Metaphorical Vision in Winston Churchill's

"Be Ye Men of Valour"

Kristin Fortin

Michael Casey

Clinton's Address to the Nation: A Case Study of Apologetic Goals

Robert A.Vartabedian

Laurel Vartabedian

Risk Communication as Argument: Analyzing Student Perceptions of Responsible Drinking

Steven J. Venette

Patricia A. Lang,

Kathleen Coyle

Fetching Good out of Evil:

George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Rhetoric

Shane M. Semmler

Guest Editor's Essay

To Rule or Not to Rule

These are (Just Some of) the Questions

Robb Del Casale

Journal of

DELTA SIGMA RHO—TAU KAPPA ALPHA

www.dsr-tka.org/

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Speaker and Gavel

Delta Sigma Rho—Tau Kappa Alpha

National Honorary Forensic Society

www.dsr-tka.org/

EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor Daniel Cronn-Mills

Minnesota State University, Mankato

daniel.cronn-mills@mnsu.edu

Office Kathy Steiner

Editor's Note:

S&G is going to an entire online format with volume 41/2004 of the journal. The journal will be available online at: www.dsr-tka.org/ The layout and design of the journal will not change in the online format. The journal will be available online as a pdf document. A pdf document is identical to a traditional hardcopyjournal. We hope enjoy and utliize the new format.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Speaker and Gavel

www.dsr-tka.org/ Volume 40 / 2003

Table of Contents

Race and Civility: 5

The Problems of Taking it Personally

Michael Janas

Michael Edmonds

Metaphorical Vision in Winston Churchill's 19

"Be Ye Men of Valour"

Kristin Fortin

Michael Casey

Clinton's Address to the Nation: 28

A Case Study of Apologetic Goals

Robert A.Vartabedian

Laurel Vartabedian

Risk Communication as Argument: 47

Analyzing Student Perceptions of Responsible Drinking

Steven J. Venette

Patricia A. Lang

Kathleen Coyle

Fetching Good out of Evil: 67

George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Rhetoric

Shane M. Semmler

Guest Editor's Essay

To Rule or Not to Rule 91

These are (Just Some of) the Questions

Robb Del Casale

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Speaker and Gavel

Published by Delta Sigma Rho—Tau Kappa Alpha

National Honorary Forensic Society

www.dsr-tka.org/

EDITOR

Daniel Cronn-Mills

230 Armstrong Hall

Minnesota State University

Mankato, MN 56001

507.389.2213

daniel.cronn-mills@mnsu.edu

EDITORIAL BOARD

Susan J. Balther, DePauw U Jon Bruschke, California St. U, Fullerton

Ann Burnett, North Dakota State U James Dittus, Highland CC

Lisa Flores, Arizona State U David Gaer, Laramie County CC

JanieM. Harden Fritz, Duquesne U Karla Leeper, Baylor U

Allan Louden, Wake Forest U Mark Meister, North Dakota State U

Edward Panetta, U of Georgia Jeff Pierson, Bridgewater C

Kimberely Powell, Luther C David Williams, Texas Tech U

Editor's Note: S&G is going to an entire online format with the 2004 issue of the journal. The journal will be available online at: www.dsr-tka.org/ The layout and design of the journal will not change in the online format. The journal will be available online as a pdf document. A pdf document is identical to a traditional hardcopyjournal. We hope enjoy and utliize the new format.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

S&G publishes refereed articles addressing all aspects of communication theory and practice. Authors should submit three copies of their manuscript prepared according to the latest edition of MLA or APA guidelines. Use minimal endnotes only for exposition or explanation, not as bibliographic citations. Include a cover letter identifying author(s) and affiliation(s). Remove all references in the manuscript to author and affiliation to facilitate blind review. S&G encourages and promotes undergraduate and graduate research. Submissions from undergraduate and graduate students should be identified as such on the cover letter. Enclose a computer disk with an accurate copy of your manuscript. Clearly label the the disk with OS platform (e.g., Macintosh, Windows 3.1) and word processing software.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Race and Civility

The Problems of Taking it Personally

Michael Janas

Michael Edmonds

Abstract

Increasingly, Americans think of civility as a private virtue often tied to issues of personal identity. Here we argue that this conceptualization reflects the confluence of several social trends that generally point toward a decline in the public sphere in favor of an increasingly privatized and balkanized notion of public participation. In this new world, all public discussions hold the potential for personal slight and ultimately silence. This seems especially the case in regard to discussions about race. Here we have identified four ways that the privatization of civility and then race has undercut our ability to maintain a civil discourse on race. Together, these threats point toward the eventual death of civility as a politically or rhetorically useful concept.

Introduction

We have some things in common. We are both named Michael—but we go by Mike. We both hold Ph.D.s and teach at universities. We are both religious. We both profess our appreciation for the sublimity of the spoken word—although we are drawn to examine different aspects of it. We both love the taste of smoked meat and neither of us is likely to be caught in the near future climbing a mountain or camping. On paper we appear very similar—except for on thing: one of us is African-American and the other is White. Ideally, we might be led (based on media reports and descriptions) to think that this does not make a difference——but it really makes all of the difference in the world. From the way that we talk about things and the churches we attend to the politics we espouse, we have been informed and constituted by our race.

This does not prevent us from being friends, although sometimes the differences are trying. Instead, it makes our friendship and our collaboration all the more interesting. Like most friends, there are issues that we discuss freely (politics), issues that we discuss with reserve (our families), and issues that we discuss with only the greatest of care and respect (our attitudes on race). Our reticence in regard to race is odd and awkward because between the two of us, our race is probably the point at which we would have the greatest potential for education, disagreement and discussion (although we differ almost as much on

Michael Janas, Ph.D., Samford Forensic Institute, Department of Speech Communication and Theatre, Samford University; Michael Edmonds, Ph.D., Dean of Students and Assistant Professor of Drama and Dance, Colorado College.

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 40 (2003), 5-18 www.dsr-tka.org/

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

issues of politics). Race is also the point at which we probably are the most ignorant about the place of the other.

Paradoxically, while the idea of race is a hard point, it is still an important one to us—more so because we find ourselves outside of our native communities. One of us is from the largely-white North, and now lives in a predominately- black community in the South and the other is from the South and now lives in a predominately-white community in the North. We are both, in short, fish out of water. This liminality, however, is a point at which we can begin an investigation of our relative positions, what we want to know, and what remains unknowable to us. In particular, we are interested in the reasons why we, as most Americans, find it so difficult to conduct frank discussion of race outside of our own race-community? Why do discussions of race so often end in silence and hurt feelings?

The paradigmatic moment of modern America race relations is the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. Then, the battle necessitated clearly demarcated sides. However, while times have changed, the paradigm remains firmly engrained. One of the implications of this model is that we tend to think or and represent race in binary terms; as a series of oppositions discursively represented in the marches of racist Kluxers and angry black activists or oppressed black victims. Most often, we tend to imagine our opposition in this binary context; "I am not a racist, so they must be a member of the Klan."

This essay seeks to examine the nexus of race and civility beyond the context of mere appropriateness or politeness, but as a constitutive element of communal participation. Many of the ideas are derived from a conference hosted by Colorado College on issues of race and civility. Our examination happens in three movements. First, we will begin by laying out a working definition of civility. In the second part we will examine how people think about the ideas of race and civility. In a final section we will tease out some implications for the place of civility in public discussions of race and identify some risks to the future of civility.

Defining Civility

Civility has become a popular catch-word in recent days. Legal forums, government hearings, and newspaper columns have all examined a seeming loss of civility or have sought to recover the notion as a means of reinvigorating political culture (Carter 1998, Horowitz, Jamieson 1998, Sapiro, Tannen).

The word, if not the concept, is of Roman origin and points towards the qualities inherent to a good citizen. The Oxford English Dictionary defines civility variously as "the art of civil government": which derives from a translation of the Latin word civilitas; which is a translation of a Greek word, politike which is the skill of participating in the affairs of a city or polis. As a secondary consideration, the OED also defines civility as "politeness." In modern use, the word engages both of these meanings. It is either a reference to one's politeness and good breeding, the state of being civilized,¹ or, it has connotations of citizenship or participatory politics.² In either case, the general feeling seems to be that civility is a type of politeness associated with a place in a democratic or

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

civil order (Kessler 60-62). It is "the culturally ingrained willingness to tolerate behavior that is in some degree offensive"(Banfield xii).

Academics, who are often more interested in the management of states than with politeness, have used the term in different ways. Political philosopher Burton Zweibach identified civility as "related to a vision of a society in which social conflicts are resolved through a process of non-violent accommodation—a process inconsistent with uncompromisable attachment to passionately-held ideas. . . Civility, in this view, presupposes commitment to lawfulness and to the stability of democratic institutions" (Zwiebach 3; Shils 1-15). Historically, some identify the growth of the idea of civility as a means to supplant, on the one hand, Christian notions of charity (which require a judgment of others) and classical notions of citizenship (where people express themselves vociferously). Civility, as a variety of toleration, represents the middle ground between self-expression and a complete integration of the self with the community (Orwin 90-94). Others have identified the expeditious need for integration of collective and individual wills as the spring from which civility and incivility flow (Freud). Political scientist Hans Eulau has noted that the civil person enjoys a maturity found in "the habitually exercised capacity to respond to others and events without the demand of self constituting the sole criterion according to which to behave or to make judgments." The civil person recognizes that the self and situation outside the self are distinct. Patterns of civility include acts of "persuading, soliciting, consulting, advising, bargaining, compromising, coalition building and so on" and not actions such as "coercing, confronting, deceiving, manipulating," etc (qtd. in Barrett 147).

These meanings aside for a moment, in popular literature, the term usually points toward the need to be polite to others. While Stephen Carter attempts to integrate notions of citizenship into his idea of civility, he ends up speaking of civility as a variety of politeness to which he has attached a religious warrant.³ He builds his case for greater civility around examples that are close to home: people who drive recklessly, a woman that welcomed him to a new neighborhood, a fast food employee. His discussions of politics, the abortion controversy, judicial decorum, and negative campaigning, do not ring as clearly, nor are they as simple to explain. The only exception is his discussion of civility in the context of the civil rights movement, where the forces of civility and incivility are easy to find, even if civil disobedience seems oxymoronic in the context of his discussion of civility.

Studies that link civility and politeness are easy to find. A1996 U.S. News and World Report study found that eighty-nine percent of Americans see incivility as a "serious problem" and seventy-eight percent believed that incivility is more prevalent than a decade ago. More ominously, seventy-six percent of the respondents identified a lack of parental "control" as the culprit—which means, if accurate, that the problem will only continue to get worse (Marks 66). Likewise, examples abound of rude behavior by drivers, waiters, airport passengers. In fact, the calls for more civility are so ubiquitous that George W. Bush's inaugural address called for a "new commitment to live our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character. America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility."

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Here, we are not concerned with civility as a type of politeness or good manners. In fact, we believe that such an equation confuses issues and leads to non-productive notions of civility. Instead, we are more interested in civility only as a political expedience.

One of American's greatest civil weaknesses is our complete inability to talk about problems of race in anything but the most uncivil manner. From Senator Sumter's beating at the hands of a Southern colleague, to the sharp divisions of race encountered at the reading of the O.J. Simpson verdict, race has been one of our culture's greatest sticking points in our attempts to ward off incivility (Boyd vi). While we are bombarded with public images of whites and blacks side-by-side —publicly denying any sense of difference, periodic outbursts point all-to-clearly to differences with and between America's race communities (DeMott B-1). This so-called balkanization (a word that has grown richer in meaning over the last few years) undercuts our sense of common purpose and sets back the causes of civility and race relations.

A Particular Experience

We begin our examination of the nexus of civility and race relations at a college orientation. One of the traditions of Colorado College, a small liberal arts college in Colorado Springs, is that new students engage in one-day forum on a current event. Recent forums have been dedicated to discussing issues as diverse as cloning and the vitality of the American political system. Representatives of different points of view are invited to offer their positions in a forum, students attend discussion groups, and are invited to see speakers talk about various points of view.

On the occasion of Colorado College's 125th anniversary and the orientation of the class of 2002, Colorado College dedicated itself to a discussion of the topic of "Race, Culture, and Civility." While the prospect of a discussion of race seemed simple, the panel participants represented a variety of positions and points of view so that the idea of civility proved more elusive. All seemed to feel that civility had to do with a sense of politeness and the ways that race made itself into public argument. Using the form of the jeremiad, all were concerned with the way that race was discussed, or more often, not discussed. One participant, Patricia Zavella from the University of California at Santa Cruz noted that American culture (and California in particular) seemed to be "at a place where civility had been eroded with regard to racial issues. . . where it had recently become socially acceptable to say things that a few years ago were unheard." Panelist Evelyn Hu-DeHart from the University of Colorado at Boulder defined civility as related to the use of "behavior, language, respect and politeness." She, as did panelist and CBS correspondent Randall Pinkston, noted that civility served as a cultural carrot that foiled, traditionally, for the stick of potential incivility, a strategy that had become part of the effectiveness of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

When students broke out into small groups, they engaged with a subtly different concept of civility. Variously, they defined it as being nice, honest, polite, respectful, cultural rules, an attitude of non-condemnation, and as a form

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

of social chilling where people were not allowed to say what they really meant. The vagaries of these definitions seemed to match the original discussants' lack of clarity regarding the concept. For most, civility had a very personal quality. Rather than related to notions of citizenship and tolerance, civility seemed more appropriately a type of politeness, an attitude of live and let live combined with a sense of "holding one's tongue" when it might be offensive to others (Carter 366-371).

Missing from this was the sense of citizenship and the relation of the individual in a larger cultural circumstance. Others have noted this same privatization of the term. For example, political philosopher Michael Walzer notes:

We expect citizens to obey the law and to maintain a certain decorum of behavior—a decorum that is commonly called civility. That word once had to do more directly with the political virtues of citizenship: one of its obsolescent meanings is "civil righteousness." But is has come increasingly to denote only social virtues; orderliness, politeness, seemingly are the synonyms the dictionary suggests, and these terms, though it is no doubt desirable that they describe our public life, orient us quite decisively toward the private realm. Perhaps this shift in meaning is a sign of our declining dedication to republican values, but it actually occurred some time ago and does not reflect on ourselves and our contemporaries. For some time, we have thought that good behavior is what we could rightly expect from a citizen, and the crucial form of good behavior is everyday law-abidance. Has this expectation been disappointed? Certainly many people write as if it has been. (86)

Walzer continues his argument by referencing Americans' increased commitment to notions of law and order over the course of the last few centuries.

In the instance of race, however, we attend to a different dyanmic. The move to privatize civility, to define it as part of the realm of private or voluntary rather than public life, is an ominous move. As one panelist noted, like politics and religion, "talking about race seems rude. . . it violates some American ideal." Former Mississippi governor William Winter noted, similarly, that our "greatest weakness was our tendency to become balkanized on the basis of race." These sentiments are reflected elsewhere. For example, columnist William Raspberry worried that, "Dishonesty, of course, seldom gets us far. But unbridled . . . seems to want could conceivable take us backward. There is something to be said for people who care enough about the issues revolving around race to show up at a public forum and who also care enough about civility to try to express their opinions in ways that aren't needlessly offensive" (Raspberry J-5).

The move to place substantive discussions of race to the margins of public life and civility reflect popular use. The terms "race" and "civility" are often paired. However, their coupling is odd and reflects the desires for social amity and constructive dialogue. The roots of the pairing find themselves in the Civil Rights era where "civil disobedience" was characterized as an extreme form of

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

incivility. Although the winners write the history, the pairing seems indelible. Now, some African-American leaders (once at the forefront of the civil disobedience movement) call for a new commitment to "civility" on the part of their followers. Julian Bond, upon assuming leadership of the NAACP, noted that the organization needed to return to "integrity and civility"(ctd. in Olesker 1B). Louisville Courier-Journal columnist Bob Hill, opposes civility with debate. He writes, "It isn't easy. We're not comfortable talking about race; we don't know how. Strong passions lurk just beneath the surface of our civilities; honest debate requires a difference of opinion. All too often these groups are just preaching to the choir. People who are willing to join them already offer at least the appearance of tolerance" (S-3).

In this context, civility and honesty oppose one another. Honesty, or too much honesty, seems to be a means to breaking down the bonds of civility that ensure common ground. Civility in this instance comes from the outside; it is an imposed series of rules or general principles that come to us often without our consent. One member of the discussion panel noted the opposition, identifying civility as an act of power. For example, Benjamin wrote in the Nation that: "when you're in an argument with a thug, there are things much more important than civility" (11). Hu-DeHart noted that the "disproportionate burdens of civility were placed on the shoulders of minorities." Her many examples were well taken. Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy, likewise, has warned against "civilitarianism," writing:

[T]he civility movement is deeply at odds with what an invigorated liberalism requires: intellectual clarity; an insistence upon grappling with the substance of controversies; and a willingness to fight loudly, openly, militantly, even rudely for policies and values that will increase freedom, equality, and happiness in America and around the world.

Civility and the Problem of Common Ground

Each of the Colorado College panelists took a progressive view of American race relations. Although they were all quick to point toward a slowing (and sometimes regression) in the rate of inclusion, there still seemed to be some appreciation for the continuing success of the civil rights movement and its general liberation of the nation from oppression. This theme of progress going hand in hand with emancipation and inclusion is a theme common to much American historical representation. Often called the Whig interpretation of history, it represents a vision of the past offered by the eyes of the present and provides a handy rule of thumb for selecting what gets included in our past and what gets excluded (Butterfield 10-11). With liberalism's contemporary dominance, it can be found in our weakness for stories that demonstrate the growing persuasiveness of this ideology (Fukyama; Burns). Thus, American history can be said to be progressive to the extent that it demonstrates a growing control by citizens at the expense of Monarchic or other Tory considerations.

The ideological embrace of Whiggism, and the agreement that empowerment of more and more people is part of our destiny, does not sit well with the increasing

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

use of civility to refer to private virtues. In fact, the two would seem to be at odds with one another. The privatization of virtue appears more consistent with a project that would place power in the hands of a few elites than the Whiggish project that would depend on honesty and candor for its benefits (Hariman 160). In this sense we would see civility as a type of civic virtue rather than a personal one—more akin to logos than ethos. It is here, also, where we must reexamine the critique of civility as a disempowering discourse.

There is ample evidence that the Whig project (although it is an ideal and not a reality) is in jeopardy. Despite inclusion of more people, it is not hard to see a decline in civic activism. Whether we judge by voting behaviors or by people's attempts to segregate their private lives from their ever-growing public lives of work, the promises of civic engagement have come up short (Bellah; Reisman; Meyrowitz).

When we attempt to explain how it is that this has happened, it is probably best to borrow a metaphor. G. Thomas Goodnight has written extensively about the public sphere (214-227). His concern is that the public sphere, a place of public deliberation, has been overwhelmed by what he calls the technical sphere, the realm of expert knowledge. Goodnight argues that increasingly Americans feel less able to speak on matters of public policy and increasingly turn toward experts to tell them what to think or feel. While Goodnight's original work was performed in the context of the Cold War, his ideas seem equally, or perhaps more, true today. The rise of the soundbite, simplistic explanations of public policy, the general cynicism of all political discourse as spin and a general decline in the quality of engaging public deliberation, all point toward a continuing decline in the vitality of the public sphere (Jamieson 1992, 203-236). In its place, however, we find not only increased deference to technical expertise, but also a decline in engaging public discourse. Additionally, we increasingly find retreat to the personal sphere, where personal experience trumps public articulations. When speaking of the decline of civility, we reference the private nature of disclosures and judgments as much as rudeness. In many ways, the public sphere of engagement and cooperation has surrendered to the private sphere of catharsis and experience.

Our experience of civility as a form of rudeness finds kinship with efforts to retreat from the public sphere. Our assumptions that uncivil behavior finds roots in personal conduct or habit fits with our assumption that acts are personal. In this sense, incivility finds the civil portion (the portion that inheres in citizenship) exorcised. In the context of race, the retreat to a sense of personal rather than civil experience endangers our ability to continue an inclusive project.

So What? I'm a Little Uncivil

There are opportunities and dangers inherent in the collapse of the public and private spheres. On the one hand, the feminist cry that the private is the public has opened the way for a variety of laws and norms protecting women from harassment within the context of the family. No longer is it civil (or, civilly protected) for a husband to physically "discipline" his wife. In regards to civility, the positive benefits of our escape has been that even the most recalcitrant racist

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

or sexist preface, when among friends, their private comments with the phrase, "I don't want to sound racist or sexist. . . .but,. . . " While they generally do proceed to utter their remarks, the caveat at least points toward the intrusion of public standards of civility into private conversations. Overt racista or sexista do not change their mind, but they do have a sense that not everyone wants to hear it—or, at least, hear it in the manner that the speaker finds most comfortable. Progress evidently moves quite slowly.

However, while there are some benefits to the conflation of private and public standards of politeness under the banner of civility, there also lurk dangers. The first danger is very abstract, but real. The concept that civility as politeness begs the question of what standards constitute politeness. If, by civility/politeness, we mean that we do all that we can to spare others' feelings, which is the sense that the Colorado College students used it, then we come up against the liberal project (Kronman 742). For, if our goal is to open the process to a greater number and variety of voices so that the decisions of this inclusive process will be better, more representative, legitimate and informed, then the idea that one should keep their mouth shut would be inimical to our expectations regarding good citizenship and civil virtue. Inherent in this lies the idea of participation. Here, civility would seem at odds with our traditional political goals of maximizing public legitimacy for well-thought out plans. Such a limited notion of civility should be an anathema to a liberal democracy (Schmidt 419-427; Kasson 34).

One side effect of this collapse is that it jeopardizes the political viability of civic discourse. That is, when civility becomes a personal rather than a corporate virtue, it loses much of its governing power. In this sense, calls for more civility do little more than effect a variety of therapeutic discourse that helps maintain the sense of community of a wronged group (one that has been treated uncivilly) but does not increase or magnify their political power or accomplish their political goals (Cloud).

Here the concepts of civil disobedience and incivility part ways. One gains its power by its redefinition of citizenship, while the other gains its power by negating the concept (Carter 20-37). Sociologist Edward Shils attempted to get at this point when he defined civility as "the virtue of civil society. It is the readiness to moderate particular, individual or parochial interests and to give precedence to the common good" (16-17). Moderation within the context of the common good combines the virtues of politeness with notions of citizenship. This move to embrace the common good, or to even propose that such a thing exists, is as rhetorical as anything else. In practicality, it means that civility seeks to create coalitions that are as large, and legitimating as possible. This is a legitimacy that does not discount any potential ally, but seeks their consent. While it does not discount that there are significant differences and alienations between groups of people, it does recognize that these are sectoral, contingent and overdetermined.

A second danger lies with balkanization. On the one hand, the separation of groups into separate tribal entities denies the value of the democratic project while doing damage to the groups themselves. The creation of a tribe is an act of overdetermination. For the sake of membership, individuals supplant their differences in order to create a unified front. This is where concerns for politeness,

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

such as concerns about airing dirty-laundry before outsiders, becomes a problem. Additionally, differences within the group become problematic. Differences between individuals on the basis of class, for example, get appropriated as a part of difference inherent to the group as a consequence of race. In this instance, one form of difference overwhelms and suppresses all others.

For example, there is not, in any real sense, a unified white race. Several scholars have noted that it is an "uninterrogated space" (Nakayama and Krizek 292). While it is rarely invoked reflexively, it often interpolates a group—there are whites that possess certain qualities. Such a representation is overdetermined—diminishing in the process attempts to gain insights from a variety of viewpoints. Likewise, other race communities also underplay the effects of intersections of race with other dimensions for fear that they may undercut the clarity of the race distinction or that they demonstrate a lack of organization or resolve.

Such overdetermination is part and parcel to identity politics, or any attempt to reduce our infinite complexity. In the context of civility, the use of the term seems clear—do not rock the boat or air dirty laundry because it will reflect back on all of us, or make us look incoherent. In this instance, the use of civility as a means of imposing discipline seems incompatible with generalized notions of citizenship since it depends on predetermined coalitions rather than the rhetorical demands of creating new ones.

Calls for civility often silence real opportunities for interchange. For example, The counter-reformation claims on talk radio and elsewhere that the forces of multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness and, the liberal use of the term "racist", particularly by white liberals, are both attempts to claim the high ground of victimage at the hands of the uncivil. The popular idea that we are engaged in a culture war, or, that the future will be marked by an inevitable clash of cultures, portends a future where we will have to defend our identities (Gailey D-3; Huntington). At the same time, however, it prevents us from taking seriously any effort to preserve or respect our differences for fear that we will lose something in the meantime.

A third problem with the growth of a private notion of civility is that the application of the concept to every individual and attempts to impose civil discipline to save civic virtue effectively trivialize the very idea. Colorado College panelists noted that civility and incivility work together. The social status that we afford civility gives meaning to the concept of incivility. They work together as a social carrot and stick. Threats of incivility often provoke us to act more inclusively and civilly. If culture-wide incivility threatens to overtake us, there no longer is a reason to cooperate, sacrifice or seek more legitimate coalitions because future action seems improbable. There is no longer a reason to be civil. Especially in the area of race, threats of incivility are a powerful motivation to negotiate. For example, the civil rights movement benefited greatly from first Martin Luther King's threats of incivility with his work with the SCLC, which promoted large scale public events—usually captured by cameras—and later, he benefited from the explosive rhetoric of Malcolm X and the Black Power

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

movement. The idea that incivility could break out often promotes a re-evaluation of what counts as civil.

Where incivility rules, there is little motivation to cooperate because there is no hope of some future benefit. The idea that races can not know one another, or that one race is seeking to dominate another, or the claim that all of a group are inherently racist, or the claims of talk radio that in defense of their identity they must make no concessions to "political correctness" (a claim akin to noting that they should be immune to all attempts at civility or symbolic concession), all frustrate cooperative enterprises and entrench contingent and overdetermined identities. In classical argumentation, they represent the fallacy of "ad hominem" where what is said is overwhelmed by an evaluation of who does the saying. This seems to be the problem with race relations.

A fourth problem has to do with the roots of civility. Stephen Carter rightly notes that any act of law is both an act of violence and an act of incivility (223). By this he means that the law, ultimately, has to be backed up by the force of the state. Even simple laws, like traffic tickets, require armed officers to enforce them. Opposed to this threat of violence lies civility. This is why civil rights protesters could use civility as a carrot—using threats of violence or anarchy as their foil. Yet, civility has to do with more than simply lawfulness; although the use of the term is easily confused—because civil disobedience is a variety of lawlessness. Instead, civility relates more with the folk-ways of people that live together. We can say that America as a civil culture that is inclusive in the same way that we can say that we share a civil religion (which respects most religions without regard to a particular one).

One of the problems of civil discussions of race deals with the different ways that we come at the problem. Without a unified sense of what is appropriate to the running of our system and what is not, we have difficulty finding common ground. Conflating civic virtue with personal politeness has converse consequences. On the one hand, slights take on a personal quality—reflecting less a sense of civil duty than an attempt at personal insult (rather than reflecting one's ignorance of the facts). On the other hand, conflating private and civil virtues opens civility to codification. We fear that rather than coming to reflect the confluence of personal and civil values that allow our system to work or at least demonstrate one's commitment to the project, that codification, in the form of speech codes, hate speech laws, and other forms of official humiliation, actually undercut the motivation to participate. Just as DeMott's example of civility as something that masters use to keep down their slaves, the use of codified official civility now strikes many conservative Americans as equally limiting. Rather than embracing the sensitivity that multiculturalism promised, the move toward official multiculturalism has sparked a counter-revolution. Bumper stickers and talk shows proclaim their "political incorrectness." In fact, Liberty University, for whom the conservative Reverend Jerry Fallwell serves as President, used to post at its gates a sign proclaiming that it is not a "politically correct" campus.

The odd thing about this revolution is that it is so often proclaimed by those frequently espouse a significant Christian commitmentwhich would seem to embrace catholic virtues of inclusion and sympathy. In fact, if asked, those that

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

declare their "incorrectness" would also probably claim to be more-civil-than-average and greater-than-average commitment to the gals of the Whig project. Why do the two points of view seem so incommensurable?

The binding glue of civility is a commitment to a project larger than the self and is rooted in the desire for public legitimacy. For many, this binding appears to come at the expense of a commitment to one's own reference groups. The ideas of identity and community seem to be at odds with one another and the concept of pluralism has been rejected as an attempt at assimilation (another silencing term). Many argue that any attempt to commit to a larger community requires a sacrifice of personal history and identity. Therefore, attempts at vigorous civil participation are met with silencing accusation of not being __________ enough, of being a sell-out, of being a liberal, or of assimilating.

This should not be the case. Instead, personal identity is part and parcel the Whig ideology. It requires differences of opinion. The idea that the state is the only validation for an identity, that Southern states need to fly the Confederate Battle flag, or that ethnic studies programs are an essential part of any college campus, obscures the strength of the identity which lies with the contributions of those who subscribe or are interpolated by it (anything that the state needs to sustain will probably not survive anyway). The confluence of personal identity as the sole determiner of political identity corrupts and displaces civility and civil government.

Conclusions

The concept of civility is much used and much abused. Recent theorists seem split on the issue. On the one hand, some argue that civility is in decline. Popular studies note that people appear less and less polite and that this politeness inhibits our ability to return to an ideal sense of American community. On the other hand, some theorists criticize the concept as an act of power that seeks to silence, through a coercive social network of rules—the weight of which is disproportionately borne by minority populations. While seemingly at odds, both contribute to a common notion that civility is a private virtue. When we view civility as a private virtue, not only do many folks find themselves frustrated by what they are unable to say, but they are licensed to feel nearly constantly hurt by the incivility of others.

We have argued that this recent manifestation of the concept of civility reflects the confluence of several social trends that generally point toward a decline in the public sphere in favor of an increasingly privatized and balkanized notion of public participation. In this new world, all public discussions hold the potential for personal slight and ultimately silence (for personalized opinions are thought to defy public reason). Increasingly, discussions of the place of race in public life, and even the idea that race matters, become increasingly difficult because of the binds create by a privatized civility. Here we have identified four ways that the privatization of civility and then race has undercut our ability to maintain a civil government. The privatization of race diminishes the strength of arguments to progress in the Whig tradition, promotes balkanization, undercuts the strength of our commitment to order, promoting chaos as the norm, and weakens our civil

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

strength by increasingly pointing toward official channels to promote personal conduct. Together, these threats point toward the eventual death of civility as a politically or rhetorically useful concept.

Endnotes

¹ Courteous or politeness #2, Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, J.A. Simpson and E.S.C Weiner (eds.) vol 2 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989): sv civility

² "senses, connectied with citizenship and civil polity; the art of civil government, politics." Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, J.A. Simpson and E.S.C Weiner (eds.) vol 2 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989): sv civility.

³ In his preface Carter notes: "I do not consider civility synonymous with manners (although I do think manners matter). I have in mind and attitude of respect, even love, for our fellow citizens, an attitude , as we shall see, that has important political and social implications. Moreover, civility is a moral issue, not just a matter of habit or convention: it is morally better to be civil than to be uncivil." (xii).

Works Cited

Banfield, Edward (Ed.). "Introductory Note." Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies (New York: Paragon House, 1992): i-xv.

Barrett, Harold. Rhetoric and Civility (Albany: SUNY Press, 1991).

Bellah, Robert et. al. Habits of the Heart: Individual and Commitment in American Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1985).

Boyd, Todd. Am I Black Enough For You: Popular Culture From the Hood and Beyond (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1997).

Burns, Timothy (Ed.). After History: Francis Fukuyama and His Critics (Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield, 1994).

Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpretation of History (New York: WW Norton, 1965).

Carter, Stephen. Civility: Manners, Morals and the Etiquette of Democracy (New York: Basic Books, 1998).

Carter, Stephen. "The Etiquette of Democracy." Christian Century 115 (8 April 1998): 366-371.

Cloud, Dana. Control and Consolation in American Politics: The Rhetoric of Therapy (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998).

DeMott, Benjamin. "Seduced by Civility: Political Manners and the Crisis of Democrtic Values." The Nation (9 December 1996): 11.

DeMott, Benjamin. "Sure, We're All Just One big Happy Family." The New York Times (7 January 1996): B-1.

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Trans. James Strachey (New York: WW Norton, 1961).

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).

Gailey, Paul. "Revisionist Fail to Make a Case Against the Bomb." St. Petersburg Times (5 August 1995): D-3.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Goodnight, G. Thomas. "The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation." The Journal of the American Forensic Association 18 (1982): 214-227.

Hariman, Robert. "Decorum, Power, and the Courtley Style." The Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (May, 1992): 149-172.

Hill, Bob. "Our Racial Divide can be Reduced with Honor, Dignity and Lowered Voices." The Louisville Courier-Journal (18 January 1997): S-3.

Horowitz, David. Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Repreations for Slavery. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002).

Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).

Jamieson, Kthleen Hall and Erica Falk. Civility in the House of Representatives: An Update. (Philadelphia: Annenberg School of Communication, 1998).

Jamieson, Kathleen. Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy (New York: Oxford UP, 1992).

Kasson, John. Rudeness and Civility: Manners in Nineteenth-century Urban America (New York: Hill and Wang).

Kennedy, Randall. "The Case Against Civility." The American Prospect 41 (December 1998).

Kessler, Charles. "Civility and Citizenship in the American Founding." In Edward Banfield (Ed.) Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies (New York: Paragon House, 1992): 60+.

Kronman, Anthony. "Civility." Cumberland Law Review 26 (Winter 1996): 726-749.

Marks, John. "The American Uncivil Wars." US News and World Report (22 April 1996): 66.

Meyerowitz, Joshua. No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior (New York: Oxford UP, 1986).

Nakayama, Thomas and Robert Krizek. "Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric." The Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (August, 1995): 291-309.

Olesker, Michael. "Bond's Voice for NAACP both Assuring, Troubling." The Baltimore Sun (24 February 1998): 1-B.

Orwin, Clifford. "Citizenship and Civility as Components of Liberal Democracy." In Edward Banfield (Ed.) Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies (New York: Paragon House, 1992: 90-110.

Raspberry, William. "Unbridled Candor Could Hurt National Conversation on Race." The Dallas Morning News (28 December 1997): J-5.

Reisman, David et. al. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1950).

Schmidt, James. "Civility, Enlightenment and Society: Conceptions, Confusions and Kantian Remedies." American Political Science Review 92 (June, 1998): 419-427.

Sapiro, Virginia. "Considering Political Civility Historically: A Case Study of the United States" July, 1999: www.polisci.wisc.edu/users/sapiro/papers/civility .

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Shils, Edward. "Civility and Civil Society." In Edward Banfield (Ed.) Civility and Citizenship in Liberal Democratic Societies (New York: Paragon House, 1992): 1-15.

Shils, Edward. The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society. Steve Grosby (Ed.). (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1997).

Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture (New York : Random House, 1998).

Walzer, Michael. What it Means to Be an American (Lawrence, KS: U Kansas P, 1992.

Zwiebach, Burton. Civility and Disobedience (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1975).

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Metaphorical Vision in Winston Churchill's "Be Ye Men of Valour"

Kristin Fortin

Michael Casey

Winston Churchill has been described as one of the greatest rhetors in British history, so why was he so effective at inspiring spirit, passion and cause in his audience? By analyzing Churchill's use of metaphor in his first broadcast to the alarmed public of 1940, the critic is able to deduce the effects his rhetoric had on a war-concerned audience; furthermore, those effects had a significant impact by changing people's attitudes and conceptions about their position in the war, the war itself and the vision of victory. As evidenced in this analysis of "Be Ye Men of Valour," Churchill's use of metaphors produced four basic effects in establishing a reality for the British audience, including a unifying, an instilling, a restoring and a legitimizing effect.

Description of the Artifact

John Colville, a close friend and associate of Churchill's, reflected the common sentiment held about Churchill's ability to lead a nation in the midst of serious turmoil by indicating, "At this point in history one of the greatest administrations which has ever governed the United Kingdom was in the process of formation" (124). As Field-Marshal Lord Alanbrooke further recognized, "The wartime dictatorship entrusted by Parliament to Churchill was the answer for which Britain and the free world had been waiting" (Bryant 14).

Following the devastating overrun of Norway by German tanks, the House of Commons acknowledged a parliamentary crisis and thus called for a debate about the state of government leadership in the upcoming war situation. Speakers from both the Conservative and the Labour Parties expressed great concern over whether Prime Minister Chamberlain and his administration had the tenacity, the will and the support to see this war effort to the bitter end. The Opposition Party (the Labour Party) called for a vote of censure. Leo Amery, a parliamentary representative, made the poignant case: "We must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory" (Qtd. in Oliver 197). Churchill, described the situation as a house divided in a "…violent manifestation of want of confidence in Mr. Chamberlain and his Administration" (Gathering 660).

Friday, May 10, 1940 marked the long-feared blow to the Western Front, as the Germans invaded Holland and Belgium, demanding quick action from Britain's government (Gathering 662). The dissatisfaction of the public and Parliament forced Prime Minister Chamberlain to concede his power to the

Kristin Fortin, Communication Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263; Michael Casey, Communication Division, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 40 (2003), 19-27 www.dsr-tka.org/

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

stronger leadership of Churchill. "The institutions of political freedom had justified their right to be defended by summoning as their leader a man fit to wrestle victory out of adversity" (Schoenfeld 11). After a conference with Chamberlain, the King of England, Edward VIII, asked Churchill to form a national government, which he resolutely set out to create as the new Prime Minister of England (Gathering 665). As Lord Moran acknowledged, "He [Churchill] was indeed made for the hour. In the extraordinary circumstances of 1940, with the hopeless inequality of Germany and Britain, we [Britain] needed an unreasonable man at the top" (Qtd. in Oliver 198). This transition of government was significant in that it marked the first triumph for Britain in the war because she found a leader equal to the gravest of challenges. Churchill was the only choice because the new government depended ultimately on Churchill's positive relationship with the people (Schoenfeld 10). This positive relationship resulted from his honest interaction with the people, always stating the facts of every situation, no matter how unpleasant, and trusting the people, while, at the same time, guiding them with strong, positive leadership ("Churchill's Concept" 80).

Without hesitation, Churchill began creating his national government by securing the opposition Labour Party's support. Along with being Prime Minister, he appointed himself as the Minister of Defense with no definition of scope or power. He exuded confidence in his knowledge of the tactics and strategies of war, convinced that he and Britain would result as victors. Colville confirmed: "He always retained unanswering independence of thought…unusual capacity for affection and intense loyalty…great compassion…combined with personal generosity…[and an] ability to assimilate quickly the main points in a complicated story" (125-6). Churchill accomplished what Chamberlain could not in establishing a united government backed by Parliament and the people because, as Lord Alanbrooke recognized, he possessed "…unbounded genius, unrelenting energy, dogged determination, a refusal to accept defeat in any shape or form, vast personal courage, a deep sense of humour, and an uncanny faculty of inspiring respect, admiration, loyalty and deep affection…" (Bryant 25). He succeeded because he confronted people with the truth about the circumstances they were facing, which led them to entrust him with their future and have confidence in his vision of eventual victory (Thompson 37-8). Churchill governed events not by military or legal force, but by guiding minds and stirring spirits. He did not merely describe the ongoing war, "…he translated it; replacing literal circumstance with metaphorical condition" (Rickert 106).

On May 13, 1940, Churchill addressed an eager House of Commons asking for a vote of confidence in the new, united administration (Finest 25). He alerted the House of the "crisis" Britain faced, recognized the long months ahead that would see great struggle, and, finally, he offered the government his tenacious leadership through "…blood, toil, tears and sweat" (Blood 276). Churchill designed a vision of victory and a strategy of waging an unrelentlous war by sea, land and air, and thus the House unanimously accepted Churchill and his new government (Finest 26). Most importantly, the people had great confidence that

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Churchill was a leader who understood exactly what risks should be taken and how to enact effective strategies in dealing with the enemy (Panter 56).

While the British people felt much safer with Churchill as their leader, their living conditions slowly declined as the threat of German invasion increased. As Downes Mollie Panter described, "…London itself seemed much the same except that everyone carried a paper and…a gas mask…" (54). The people quickly realized that they were in battle for their lives, their country and to prevent the extinction of the free world.

By May 16^th, the Germans invaded French soil at Sedan jeopardizing not only Paris, but also the whole French army, which led many to become skeptical about the famed French army. Even the French government was appalled at the incapability of their "invincible" French army to hold back the German forces (Colville 133). Consequently, Churchill had to make the fateful decision whether British troops would leave their defenses in Belgium in order to form a line of defense in France. Furthermore, Churchill and the Cabinet had to decide whether to send the majority of the British military in the hope of turning defeat to victory on the Western Front or to maintain a strong defense in Britain, on the assumption that even if France was overcome, Britain could carry on defense of the Western Front from home. Churchill hesitantly chose to send ten fighter squadrons to aid the French. This action characterized a huge risk because, if Britain lost these fighters, her defenseless position against a German air raid would lead to her quick destruction.

On the eve of the nineteenth of May, the press published the devastating news that German forces defeated the French army south of the B.E.F., opening a vast gap on the British right (Colville 135). As the British Commander-in-Chief reported, "The picture [is] now no longer that of a line bent or temporarily broken, but of a besieged fortress" (Finest 54). In Churchill's first broadcast address, "Be Ye Men of Valour," he attempted to alleviate society's fear of German advancement into Britain because of the defeated French army. General Sir Edmund Ironside described the context leading into Churchill's address: "It seems hard to think we are up against the crashing of the Empire. And yet we are most surely" (316). Churchill's long career in politics had been a grand preparation for his climatic petition to the public in order to "…convert the fear of defeat into an expectation of victory" (Oliver 198). He realized that what was needed most was the preservation and enhancement of the nation's and the free world's morale.

Speaker

Through his position as the Prime Minister of a country in the midst of war, Churchill faced the difficult activity of arousing the wartime fervor and awakening the sentiment of the British people through superior oration. Churchill "…communicated `his very soul' to the…people `and they mutually inspired each other'" ("Churchill as Orator" 221). According to Charles Lomas, Churchill reached the highest level of ethical appeal by achieving the complete identification of speaker and listener through his wartime speeches ("Churchill's Concept" 81). The public initially listened to Churchill because he possessed high credibility, following from his position as Prime Minister and the recurring

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

fulfillment of his prophetic ideas about war, strategies and events. As an editor of The Historian describes, "[Churchill was]…one of the most articulate of all statesmen, the spokesman for his age. No public figure since Lincoln has found so invariably the right word for the right occasion" (Qtd. in Churchill's Rhetoric 1).

Churchill possessed a special type of oratorical style where he was able to use his voice like an organ with "…the power to touch chords in men's hearts…" (Bryant 12). In "The Scaffolding of Rhetoric," Churchill defined oratory as one of the most precious gifts of humankind, where the orator existed as " …an independent force in the world" (Qtd. in "Churchill as Orator" 218). Churchill further confirmed that the great orator must believe in all he/she says, project the audience's passions, act sincerely with good will, and present a commanding physical presence and a striking voice. As Manfred Weidhorn, a rhetorical critic, recognized, Churchill held to a sophistic view of oratory, where Churchill argued that the orator's task was to "…allay critical faculties by presenting a series of vivid impressions, each of which is replaced before being too closely examined" (Qt. in "Churchill as Orator" 219). Furthermore, Churchill agreed that rhetorical talent was given only to a few and was not attainable through training. However, Churchill's humble spirit led him to continually deny his position as a great orator. He reasoned that he was not of the caliber of great orators of the past because he precomposed and memorized his speeches, as opposed to using the dramatic art of spontaneous words and guiding feelings ("Churchill as Orator" 219, 222).

Description of the Unit of Analysis

Churchill's careful preparation of each address, his sense of history and his ability to inspire an entire country to share a vision of victory justify the use of metaphoric criticism in the examination of his first public broadcast as Prime Minister. Weidhorn emphasized Churchill's careful study in his examination of Churchill's five principle elements of rhetorical proficiency, including correct diction, rhythm and the balance of phrases, the accumulation of arguments, analogy and extravagance and exaggeration ("Churchill as Orator" 219). Churchill defined the use of analogy as a tool to feed the human need to understand the unknown through the known. He often employed analogies by recalling past figures and dates people would recognize, identify with and take pride in remembering ("Churchill as Orator" 221). He used these historical references to either prove a point through a historical parallel or to provide inspiration to his listeners. Churchill sought to apply the lessons of the past to the problems of the present ("Winston Churchill" 155). Fundamentally, Churchill used metaphor "…to move [the audience] and perhaps to alter the world" (Churchill's Rhetoric 61).

Churchill possessed an inspired impulse for the right word and was fascinated by the eloquent embodiment of the right ideas, the right words and the right rhythm (Oliver 191). The success of his wartime speeches resulted from his "…deliberate, recurring use of simple, vivid words" in, as Harold Nicholson describes, a "…combination of great flights of oratory with sudden

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

swoops into the intimate and conversational" (Churchill's Rhetoric 32). Churchill's words were not spoken for mere oratorical flowering, but they possessed the gusto of power and resolve of the man speaking them (Oliver 205). His speeches were carefully prepared, formal and stylistically ornate. He spoke to, rather than with, his audience and saw himself as a father figure, bestowing wisdom, strength and courage on "his" people. Furthermore, Churchill possessed the skill to simplify complex issues so people might understand them in terms of their long-term historical significance (Oliver 191-2).

Finally, Michael Osborn emphasizes the importance of metaphors in a moment of crisis when all other forms of symbolic cultural identity are swept away. It is then the speaker's duty to reassure people that, despite surface commotion, an individual still remains important as an entity unto him/herself (341). Metaphors serve as structuring principles, enlightening people to one reality, while hiding another, granting each metaphor the ability to produce a different perspective on the same reality. Fundamentally, metaphor may be defined as a way of knowing (Foss 359-60). Churchill used the great power of metaphors in "Be Ye Men of Valour" in order to enliven the human heart and penetrate the human will to strive forward with gallant effort. Following interaction theory that holds metaphors are a placing of two terms side by side: a subject or tenor that is viewed through the lens of a frame or vehicle, we now turn to examining the key metaphors of Churchill's speech.

Analysis

Churchill constructed a symbolic reality where the British people took comfort in looking to the future to frame the present, overlooking present obstacles in light of future victory. He acknowledged the "gravity of the hour," but encouraged the audience to not be easily discouraged by the present condition, but to "…look with confidence to the stabilisation of the Front in France" (Be 210). Churchill focused on what Britain could and would accomplish through "dogged endurance" (Be 210). As language creates reality, Britain would be victorious, and Churchill acknowledged that if she fought to the end, "…it can only be glorious" (Be 211).

Churchill presented an abundance of convincing metaphors in "Be Ye Men of Valour." He used descriptive vehicles to frame each tenor in order to enliven the spirit and determination of the British people.

Churchill framed Germany as the evil enemy who had constructed an "intruding wedge" on the Western Front that the British must aid the French in taking out (Be 209). His dark description of these foes reinforced Britain's justification to exact total warfare on the enemy. He characterized Germany as the "powerfully armed enemy" with "raiding mechanised vehicles," void of the heart and stamina the British possessed (Be 211, 210). Churchill warned Britain to prepare to face this "hideous apparatus of aggression." The British soldiers must protect their families and fellow countrymen from these ravagers of the defenseless (Be 209). Finally, every man and woman must rise up to defend mankind against these "soul-destroying," tyrannical barbarians (Be 212).

While the Germans acted as evil tyrants exacting punishment on the world, the British and French armies were courageous victors seeking to restore righteous

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

ruling in Europe. In a more inspirational description, Churchill depicted the French and British armies as the rescuers of mankind from the dark evil of Germany's "soul-destroying" tyranny (Be 212). Churchill described the only means to victory as actively fighting, doggedly enduring and clawing down the enemy. The armies were capable of these tasks because they were "well-trained, well-equipped armies" possessing magnificent genius to contribute worthily to the end result (Be 210). While the British and French were naturally solid fighting powers, Churchill capitalized on praiseworthy terms to dispel the dark shadow of discouragement at the present condition and color the future with a vision of attainable victory.

While the armies were already engaged and encouraged in battle, the masses feared the bleak present condition of war. Churchill acknowledged the "gravity of the hour," but he maintained, "…it would be foolish to lose heart and courage…" because the magnificent British and French armies could not fail (Be 210). However, in order to be victorious, Churchill required a new state of mind from the people. He urged every man and woman to stand as resistors of intimidation, as strong-willed and faithful servants to the war cause, and as pridefully engaged in this moral battle over control of the spirit (Be 211).

Yet, the most important task for Churchill was to frame the tremendous battle as one where the British had the chance to emerge victorious. He framed this tenor as a battle against evil to restore righteousness, which replaced people's superficial idea of fighting with the concept of battle as spiritual warfare for the world's soul. Would Britain still stand helpless and uninspired, allowing evil to conquer? Of course not, which was why Churchill employed this metaphor- to invoke godly truths and duty. Churchill encouraged people to perform their God-given duty by acting out against evil and restoring righteousness: "As the Will of God is in Heaven," let men of valor serve Truth and Justice by defending the outrage of the nation against the barbaric forces that seek to "darken and stain the pages of history" (Be 212). Not only was this a far-reaching battle to halt world domination, but it was a battle close to home. It was a "…battle for our island- for all that Britain is, and all that Britain means" (Be 211). The people could not stand to loose their freedom and history to such a maniacal and materialistic force, so they had to fight this battle to save their ancestry, their heritage, and the life of their country. Thus, Churchill successfully reframed the term battle to mean much more than mere combat; instead, battle embodied the struggle to protect life, honor, rights and freedom (Be 211).

Not only did Churchill have to describe the battle, but he had to frame his vision of victory for the people to share. Victory was not a vain conquering, but an uniting bond and a glorious vision of rescuing the world from the domination of evil. In the hope for "a sudden transformation of the scene," Churchill invoked each man and woman's sense of duty to act to bring about the future hope of victory (Be 210). In being able to visualize what they were chasing, the people were better equipped to "wage war until victory is won" (Be 211). Without a shared concept of what victory stood for, the people would not be inspired to so doggedly endure and fight because they would have no idea what they were exhaustively seeking.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Finally, Churchill employed the use of spiritual metaphors, using vehicles to frame the tenors of God, Altar and Trinity Sunday. Churchill framed this sudden engagement in world war as more than another succession of battles; instead, he relayed that it was each countryman's duty to carry out the will of God on earth and protect His people from the barbaric hand of evil tyranny encroaching on Western Europe. God was calling the British to restore His righteousness on earth and revive the heavenly altar, symbolizing safety, sanctity, and God's graciousness. The altar would stand as the symbol of victory, where Britain was able to overcome its own destruction and prevent the destruction of the heavenly altar. Churchill displayed his great sense of history and identification with the ideals of the British culture by inviting the people to remember that "To-day is Trinity Sunday," the first Sunday after Pentecost honoring the Holy Trinity (Be 212). Churchill's allusion enabled the audience to restructure their thinking and align themselves with the reverence of this day, which Churchill used to spur the "faithful servants of Truth and Justice" to be ready to defend the nation (Be 212). He encouraged everyone to arm themselves with valor, truth and courage and prepare for the brewing conflict.

What were the consequences of Churchill's use of metaphors on the British audience? We argue that there were four main effects: a unifying effect, an instilling effect, a restoring effect and a legitimizing effect. In order to accomplish such positive effects on the audience, Churchill highlighted the ideas of "we can do it" and "let us move past the present obstacles and march into battle with a shared vision of victory." He recognized that Britain did not need a strategic plan, but an inflamed spirit. She did not need anything to stand in the way of her unharnessed confidence. Churchill's rhetoric worked to unify, instill, restore and legitimize the British people.

Churchill unified the audience in their vision of victory and their willingness to fight against a common, evil enemy to ensure victory. Churchill united all men and women fighting to save democratic ideals in order to show their striking contrast with the German warriors of tyranny and barbarism. By seeing themselves as completely different than the enemy, the British people were more likely to assimilate with each other and take active resistance against those trying to destroy their united front. As Michael Osborn notes, "Churchill utilizes symbolism to strengthen their [British] commitment to this virtue, first by conceptualizing a reward…second by specifying even more vividly a punishment" (342). The reward of following the ideal model for future action, fighting for Britain, was victory, whereas the punishment of apathetic indifference or opposition was servitude and shame. By following the course of action Churchill proposed, "…[we] will never surrender ourselves to servitude and shame, whatever the cost and the agony may be" (Be 211). Churchill illustrated this unity by inspiring the people:

Side by side, unaided except by their kith and kin in the great Dominions and by the wide Empires which rest beneath their shield- side by side, the British and French peoples have advanced to rescue not only Europe but

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

also mankind from the foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny which has ever darkened and stained the pages of history. (Be 212)

Second, Churchill instilled in the audience a metaphorical vision of victory in a grave hour. He required confidence in that vision by assuring that nothing other than victory would result from the strong fighting power of the British and French armies. If "…the French retain that genius for recovery and counter-attack for which they have so long been famous; and if the British Army shows the dogged endurance and solid fighting power of which there have been so many examples in the past- then a sudden transformation of the scene might spring into being" (Be 210). By examining the trail of past victories and the present magnificence of the armies, Churchill led the audience to believe there was no other alternative except to fight for and secure victory with confidence.

Additionally, Churchill restored courage in the British people, convincing them that they could conquer the enemy and halt Hitler's world domination effort. He restored confidence and willingness to engage in unrelentlous battle during a critical moment in history. Churchill began his speech as a confident plea for the people to see the importance of their participation in this revival from a solemn hour to an hour of glorious victory: "I speak to you for the first time as Prime Minister in a solemn hour for the life of our country, of our Empire, of our Allies, and, above all, of the cause of Freedom" (Be 209). Churchill restored the importance of the moment and the necessity of the "general engagement of the masses" (Be 210). Additionally, Churchill convinced the people, "…we are ready to face it [German invasion]; to endure it; and to retaliate against it" (Be 211). Lastly, Churchill restored pride in every individual that their involvement was crucial and that they were "…sharing the perils of our lads at the Front" (Be 211).

Finally, Churchill legitimized the masses involvement in the battle for Britain and the free world. He recognized that it was God's will that Britain engage in the battle against evil in order to restore the heavenly altar of righteousness. As Field-Marshal Lord Alanbrooke affirmed, Churchill "…believed in a Providence that worked through human instruments and…he made the people he led believe in it too" (12). Ultimately, Churchill sought the masses' involvement in restoring government that holds paramount the sanctity and peace of all people. He acknowledged that "the interests of property, the hours of labour, are nothing compared with the struggle for life and honour, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed ourselves" (Be 211). Churchill recognized that it was Britain's God-given duty to restore the "shattered States and bludgeoned races…upon all of whom the long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken even by a star of hope, unless we conquer, as conquer we must; as conquer we shall" (Be 212).

In conclusion, Churchill's rhetoric has always been regarded as powerful and persuasive, and, in analyzing his use of metaphor in "Be Ye Men of Valour," it is evident how his rhetorical techniques interacted to ensure certain effects on the audience. Since this was his first public address to a national audience in a desperate time of war and confusion, his speech necessitated the performance of many tasks. Through his careful construction of metaphors, Churchill was able

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

to unify the audience in accordance with an identifiable enemy and a vision of victory, instill confidence in that vision of victory, restore courage and conviction in Britain's attempt to halt German domination, and legitimize the total engagement of the masses in the war effort. Churchill's effective use of metaphors to reinvigorate a nation in a time of world crisis is an example to all others who face a discouraged audience and a hopeless situation. Churchill reconstructed reality to fit his optimistic vision, and he secured the audience's acceptance of that reality, which initiated his dominance as a rhetorical giant in England during the war.

Works Cited

Bryant, Arthur. The Turn of the Tide: A History of the War Years Based on the Diaries of Field-Marshal Lord Alanbrooke. New York: Doubleday, 1957.

Churchill, Winston S. "Be Ye Men of Valour." Address Broadcast. London, England. 19 May 1940.

—. Blood, Sweat and Tears. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1941.

—. Their Finest Hour. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1949.

—. The Gathering Storm. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948.

Colville, John. The Fringes of Power: Downing Street Diaries. New York: W.W. Norton, 1985.

Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1996.

Ironside, General Sir Edmund. Time Unguarded: The Ironside Diaries. Connecticut: Greenwood, 1962.

Lomas, Charles. "Winston Churchill: Orator-Historian." Quarterly Journal of Speech 44 (1958): 153-160.

—. "Churchill's Concept of his Audience." Western Speech 22 (1958): 75-81.

Osborn, Michael. "Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family." Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 338-47.

Oliver, Robert J. Public Speaking in the Reshaping of Great Britain. Delaware: Delaware UP, 1987.

Panter, Downs Mollie. London War Notes: 1939-1945. Ed. William Shaum. New York: Farrar, Straws and Giroux, 1939.

Rickert, William E. "Winston Churchill's Archetypal Metaphors: A Mythopoetic Translation of WWII." Central States Speech Journal 28 (1977): 106-112.

Schoenfeld, Maxwell Philip. The War Ministry of Winston Churchill. Iowa: Iowa State UP, 1972.

Thompson, W.H. I was Churchill's Shadow. London: Christopher Johnson, 1951.

Weidhorn, Manfred. "Churchill as Orator: Wish and Fulfillment." Southern Speech Communication Journal 40 (1975): 217-227.

—. Churchill's Rhetoric and Political Discourse. Lanham, MD: America UP, 1987.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

Clinton's Address to the Nation:

A Case Study of Apologetic Goals

Robert A.Vartabedian

Laurel Vartabedian

Abstract

The main argument of this case study is that apologetic discourse can be both aretaic (character oriented) and teleological (purpose oriented). Recognition of these goals as part of the "speech set" provides insight into contemporary apologia. Clinton's August 17, 1998 apologia was seemingly more "purpose" than "character" oriented. Moreover, the paradoxical reception of this speech indicates that an examination of underlying speech goals is an essential component in determining the relative effectiveness of apologia.

Introduction

When President William Jefferson Clinton stood before the world on August 17, 1998, he was a man caught in the clutches of his private actions and public denials. Given these circumstances, many political observers expected him to somehow re-affirm his moral authority and figuratively to throw himself at the mercy of the American people. For various reasons, Clinton chose otherwise. A systematic analysis of the speech revealed a paucity of the expected aretaic (character oriented) rhetoric designed to affirm virtue, nobility of character, and integrity (see Pojman, 1995). In light of this observation, this essay will examine Clinton's political and rhetorical exigencies, his rhetorical choices, the reception of his speech, and the subsequent apologetic implications.

Political Exigencies

On January 18, 1998, a gossip column on the Internet, the Drudge Report, provided the first public account of the Monica Lewinsky scandal (Abse & Crites, 1998, p. A19). This was initially uncovered as a result of the deposition of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit—which was later dismissed. Secretly tape-recorded conversations between Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky indicated sexual involvement between the young former White House intern and President Clinton.

Despite repeated public denials by Clinton, a media frenzy ensued. The cover of U.S. News & World Report asked: "Is He [Clinton] Finished?" (1998, cover). Similarly, Newsweek's cover declared: "Clinton in Crisis" (1998, cover). The cover of Time magazine referred to the Lewinsky case as the "Sordid Tale That Imperils the President" (1998, cover). In assessing the "history of addiction"

Robert A. Vartabedian and Laurel Vartabedian, College of Arts & Sciences, 201 Stillwell Building, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723

An earlier version of this essay was presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Seattle, 2000

Speaker and Gavel, Vol. 40 (2003), 28-46 www.dsr-tka.org/

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

in the Clinton family, David Maraniss of the Washington Post suggested that Clinton suffered from "sexual addiction" (1998a, p. A21). The line between mainstream news and tabloid fodder was increasingly blurred.

Historian Stephen Ambrose described the media circus as "Washington agog. Reporters in a feeding frenzy. The White House besieged" (1998, p. 20). Time magazine assessed the immediate broadcast media reaction to the Lewinsky scandal as an almost surreal spectacle:

Within the hour they [Clinton's staff] faced a parade of hyperventilating talk-show hosts clutching the Constitution and handicapping the prospect of impeachment proceedings; of psychologists explaining how to tell children that the President might be a liar and a serial philanderer; of network anchors jetting back from Havana. (Gibbs, 1998, p. 22)

Strong immediate media reaction notwithstanding, the Lewinsky scandal seemed to be fading away until July 28th—when independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, granted her "full immunity in exchange for testimony" ("Caught in the web," 1998, p. 35). After Lewinsky's immunity deal was struck, it appeared to be a matter of time before Clinton was cornered into testifying before the grand jury and subsequently addressing the American people. Moreover, Starr's possession of Lewinsky's stained, "infamous blue dress may have helped freshen Clinton's memory" (Duffy & Weisskopf, 1998, p. 32).

On August 17, 1998, in the midst of steadily high job approval ratings (approximately 60%), Clinton testified before Starr's grand jury and later that evening delivered a nationally televised address ("Clinton's ups and downs," 1998, p. 23). The New York Times aptly described Clinton's political exigency as "hemmed in by prosecutors and reaching for political forgiveness" (Bennet, 1998, p. 1A).

Rhetorical Options

Given the preceding events, Clinton's rhetorical options were not so much "if" he should address the American people, but "when" and "how." At this juncture, Clinton appeared to be beyond the point of rhetorical avoidance or reliance on surrogate apologists. While such strategies had sustained him through most of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit (see Vartabedian & Knight, 1998), his credibility was now in immediate peril. Additionally, his blanket denials with regard to having a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky were appearing to be more and more insupportable in light of the physical evidence provided by the dress.

On the evening of August 17, President Clinton faced an ominous yet not insurmountable apologetic task. His rhetorical task was aptly described by Ware and Linkugel (1973) as a "custom of Occidental culture firmly established by Socrates, Martin Luther, Robert Emmet, and thousands of lesser men" (p. 273). Ware and Linkugel defined apologia as, "a personalized defense by an individual of his morality, motives, and reputation" (1973, p. 274). Moreover, their often

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

cited factors or strategies of the apologetic form were divided into the categories of denial, bolstering, differentiation, and transcendence (p. 275).

Other scholars—particularly given the aftermath of the 1973-74 Watergate scandal—have also addressed the strategic urgency of effective apologia. Kruse (1977) stressed that a prominent person must effectively "repair his character if it has been directly or indirectly damaged by overt charges or rumors and allegations, which negatively value his behavior and/or his judgment" (p. 13). Crable (1978) pointed out that the essence of accountability through apologia is the fact that the actor/politician has exercised his own moral choice in his conduct, and that such conduct may at any time become the subject of ethical challenge (pp. 25-26). Gold's (1978) assessment of post-Watergate America was that politicians "can literally be made or broken on their ability to practice the ritual of self-defense" (p. 316).

Similarly, scholars in the 1980s and 1990s have continued to acknowledge the strategic significance of political apologia. Kruse (1981) concluded that apologists present their "character" as they wish their audience to perceive them—and "logos and pathos function principally to support ethos" (p. 290). Ryan (1982) elaborated on accusation and apology (or the accuser and the apologist) as an important "speech set" (p. 254). Downey (1993) explored the "symbolic" importance of apologia and arrived at five subgenres: self-exoneration, self-absolution, self-sacrifice, self-service, and self-deception (p. 42). More recently, Benoit (1995) provided five broad categories in his typology of image restoration strategies: denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification (pp. 74-82).

With regard to Clinton's possible rhetorical options, previous contemporary research on apologia has yielded a number of findings. Apologia results from moral choices that have been subjected to ethical challenges and unless character repair is made, there can be negative future consequences. Therefore, apologia often involves focusing the audience on how the apologist wants them to perceive his/her character. The apology is seemingly context (or accusation) bound. Finally, there have been numerous theories on the possible subgenres and strategies inherent in the apologetic form.

As such, the contemporary study of apologia has provided a number of theoretical findings upon which apologists may draw. However, the general form of the apology has not significantly deviated from its ancient use. Specifically, the four following rhetorical tasks are often undertaken by the ancient as well as the contemporary apologist: (l) A statement of the case at hand is given; (2) Then, a refutation of the charges and often a counterattack are advanced; (3) The self-defense explanation unfolds, particularly stressing the rhetor's fine character; and (4) Finally, a summation/conclusion is given reasserting the apologist's own moral integrity (see Kennedy, 1963, p. 151).

When viewed from the vantage point of the preceding findings, the rhetorical options available to Bill Clinton were limited. Few would question that he needed to address the country. From an ethical, historical, and perceptual perspective, at the very least, his moral authority was in jeopardy. In addition, the accusations and the accuser, Kenneth Starr, were relentless.

SPEAKER AND GAVEL 2003

However, any explanation by Clinton had at least three apologetic complications: (1) He had publicly and repeatedly told less than the total truth to the American people; (2) The highly sexual nature of the allegations of the Lewinsky case severely limited a detailed explanation and reduced the issues to one primary allegation of lying about the relationship; and (3) This was a part of a fairly long "history" of such sexual allegations against Clinton. Since the self-defense rhetor attempts to extricate himself/herself from wrongdoing by somehow elucidating or re-defining the situation, Clinton's options were limited.

Clearly, he could not go into great detail about the charges at hand; he could not defend his actions; and, he could not easily reassert his own moral integrity. He could, however, launch a counterattack and/or simply throw himself at the mercy of the American people. As we will see, he resorted to a comparatively disproportionate use of these strategies.

Applying a Critical Method

President Clinton chose to deliver a very brief speech—particularly by Clinton standards: 543 words were used in an approximately four-minute time span.1 There were a number of different ways in which a critic could analyze this brief address. As discussed previously, critical systems or methods developed by Ware and Linkugel (1973), Ryan (1982), Downey (1993), and Benoit (1995) all offered methods which could have been applied to Clinton's speech. However, many critics have argued that there is merit in looking at a specific speech and devising alternative approaches to speech criticism.

Edwin Black's pioneering book, Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (1965) lamented the lack of variety in rhetorical method. Similarly, Fisher (1969) posed the following challenge to the traditional methods of rhetorical criticism: "Any method adopted in rhetorical criticism should not be selected before the act of discerning what is remarkable about a speech" (p. 105). Campbell (1972) argued for "organic or situational criticism in contrast to formulary or prescriptive criticism" (p. 13).

Brock, Scott, and Chesebro (1989) commented that "diversity will continue to mark rhetorical criticism as criticism, that is, as practice continually being turned to fresh ends and adapting means" (p. 8). Hart (1990) stated that "the exceptionally judicious critic is one who gives fair attention to the many alternative standards by which persuasion may be evaluated" (p. 52). Moreover, after reviewing various "alternative standards," Hart concluded that, with appropriate justification, "each critic can, and should, freely supplement the list" (1990, p. 53). Hart (1997) noted that the critic should be imaginative and search for "the story behind the taxonomies" and recognize that what is "not there" may hold more interesting revelations than what is present. Furthermore, Hart stated that the generic critic operates on several assumptions, one of which is that generic patterns reveal societal truths (p. 122). "Thus the `odd case,' the text that breaks the pattern, will be of particular interest because it highlights the rationale behind the generic formula thereby exposed" (p. 122).

Clinton's August 17 speech is a particularly salient example of the type of speech analysis which benefited from a creative critical approach. Rhetorical