Both Frederick Douglass and Frances
Willard's texts focused, for me, was how to think about audience.
One of the most interesting points from
My Bondage and My Freedom was
on 1077 -
“People
won't believe you ever was a slave, Frederick, if you keep on this
way,” said Friend Foster. “Be yourself,” said Collins, “and
tell your story.” It was said to me, “Better have a little
of the plantation manner of speech than not; 'tis not best that you
seemed too learned.”
Even
more preposterous was that Douglass had to go so far as to reveal his
old plantation and master in order to be trusted, putting his own
person and freedom all on the line. This is definitely a matter of
ethos in combination with what the public expected a slave to be: a
physical threat (in terms of strength and in terms of pathos being
linked with emotion and the body). His friends needed him to play the
role that society expected him to play in order for any progress to
be made from their point of view. I think this definitely deals with
“seeming” to be something – showing a truth that will induce
the desired effect on the audience so that they will join your cause.
For Douglass, he “could not always obey, for I was now reading and
thinking” (1077), and he wanted to do more than simply be a
pathetic appeal to the audience.
Willard's
pamphlet about how to address the women learning about the
organization was interesting. The specific lines I'm thinking of are:
“Learn then, dear temperance workers, that in this day of
specialists you are safe in assuming that your group of good women
have minds as vacant as a thimble” (1137). I like this quote
because it is very good practice for the type of meeting that they
are giving. It allows for the speaker to be addressing a larger
audience than one she would expect, such as allowing for people
without any education at all to become a part of the WTCU, and also
to ensure that all the bases were covered, to allow anyone with any
doubts about any particular information to be included in the
knowledge. Two other moments that I appreciated from the pamphlet
included: “The opening exercises. Let these be informal but full of
earnestness” (1136) and “Put yourself in the attitude of a
learner along with the rest” (1137). Little lines like this made me
feel like it would be easy for anyone to establish a WTCU chapter;
the language was very inviting, carefree, and earnest, just as
Willard suggests. But I also love that Willard appeals to the pathos
near the end of handout, as if she had just gone over a lot of
overwhelming information: “Now is the time to prove what manner of
spirit you are of. Does your courage rise with danger? Are you
fertile in resource? You are being tested now as they test steam
engine boilers...Are you master of the situation?” (1139). I think
in this passage we could say she is laying out all the
characteristics of someone who is a good orator or leader should
have: courage, resourceful, in control. The last line – about being
a master – particularly speaks to controlling such as a man would;
embodying a masculine form almost.
It's
interesting how we can learn so much just from the biographies of
these speakers or from their own pamphlets to see how they conducted
their own rhetoric and that they also provide clues into how we can
conduct our own.
I would say that Douglass being pushed (by other fellow abolitionists, no less) to display feigned ignorance is an instance of forced social conformity at its worst.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of conformity...while Willard outlines roles for WTCU members to fill, she doesn't describe the particulars of what they must do as much as she describes what they generally ought to do. In fact, she seems most specific about what members ought not to do. That doesn't seem a bad formula for instructing a many leaders within a widespread organization.