Efficient communication is essential to enhance effective co-ordination of the activities within any given setting. It requires the transmission of a clear and understandable message from one individual/office to another. The use of words or rather speech is one of the modes of communication. To be able to pass information in an effective manner, one needs to express the opinion of the majority especially in the political realm. This is particularly essential in political forums. The rhetoric aspect of speech is also considered essential especially when deriving a meaning from a given statement. From a clear understanding of these two aspects, speech is more than a mode to convey information.
This paper begins by finding the relevance of speech and rhetoric in literature by analyzing the film 12 Angry men. The next section will explore the relevance of literacy in the statements that we make in any given setting. This will be followed by the impact of speech and rhetoric in the political realm as defined by Arendt in her book Human Condition. The overall theme of the essay is to assess the usefulness of rhetoric as proposed by Aristotle.
In the film 12 Angry men, one of the notable elements is the build up of tension. This comes from personality conflict based purely on dialogue and body language-not any form of action. This reflects the fourth usefulness of rhetoric as stated by Aristotle in Book I. The defendant becomes glimpsed only in a single brief shot. This is necessitated by the struggle of logic, emotion as well as prejudice to control the entire field. More than just the old man’s words was needed to be able to overshadow the doubt as described above.
In the film, the evidence presented against the accused depicts speech as a form of passing information. Additionally, it enables the viewer identify with the understanding of the Jury concerning the validity of the evidence. This is most notable where the old man says that he heard the murder besides seeing the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime (Chicago Suntimes 8). Additionally, the contribution of the woman across the street adds to this effect when she says that she saw it happen through the windows of the moving L train. This raises two major concerns. A credible witness to a crime must be able to prove without doubt that they indeed had first hand information which is relevant in the case. For instance, the man reports to have ‘heard’ about the crime and seeing the defendant flee front the scene. Hearing about a crime is not enough to justify the claim as opposed to being an eyewitness of the crime. Secondly, the defendant might have fled for several reasons. For instance, he indeed witnessed the murder and was fleeing from the murderer or rather saving his life. A counter argument could be that the defendant was trying to flee from the authorities after committing the murder. This is why Aristotle, in stating the third use of rhetoric in Book I, urges people to employ persuasion on opposite sides of a question to be able to establish the truth about a given matter. He relates this to the fact that things are always easier to prove and easier to believe in.
The decision that the jury makes depends entirely on the information that they get from the defendant as well as the other parties involved in the case. To arrive at a verdict that serves justice, the jury needs to get valid information. This supports Aristotle’s claim that the information given by the defendant and other speakers determine the achievement of justice thus in case of defeat or any form of injustice, the speakers are the ones to blame (Aristotle 7).
Literacy is fundamental in understanding rhetoric and speech. In popular usage, it signifies the ability to read, but in actuality, it encompasses all the rhetorical arts of reading, writing, speaking and listening. Even more, literacy entails knowing how and when to employ these arts so as to navigate social and cultural systems, whether the systems be schools, workplaces or social networks. Consequently, it influences the way one thinks, the way he/she imagines the world and the way he/she behaves or acts. Therefore it forms the basis of critical thinking and communication. One can therefore say that the usefulness of rhetoric and speech, as outlined by Aristotle, is based on literacy-the core aspect in critical thinking.
The statements we make have far reaching impacts not only on our lives but also in the lives but also on the lives of others. Arendt uses the statement that a reporter made after the first innovation of a spacecraft: “step toward escape from men’s imprisonment to the earth” (1). This was no ordinary report but a statement that was has been echoed in many instances in the history of humankind. The statement shows what man anticipates in his dreams. It brought about a new understanding of the nature of mankind in relation to the earth. Unlike the conventional believe that the earth is the home of man, the statement made man to dedicate most of his time as well as all other resources to free himself from the ‘prison’ he had lived in for years. This led to further innovations-human artifice that separates man from the other creatures living on earth.
Aristotle believed that the human being, as far as speech is concerned, is a political animal possessing a special type of language-zoon politikon and zoon logon echon. He based this argument on the assertion that politics and communication are the two most important aspects that separated man from animals. Communication is essential and human beings communicate in one way or another. This makes communication one of the most priced properties of humanity.
Speech forms the core of politics. This originates from all man’s response to all developments made to better the way of living of the majority in the society. Arendt argues that in cases where the credibility or relevance of speech is at stake, the matter in question becomes political (4). The formulation of speech is based on one’s opinion or understanding about a certain matter. Epistemologically, opinion is based on one’s experience and understanding of the world thus it is neither objective nor subjective. This explains why politicians are judged by their opinions they have, as expressed in their speech. However, Arendt understood the difference between opinion and truth as defined by their mode of asserting validity (Fry 40). Statements of truth coerce because there is something undeniable about them that is beyond disagreement or dispute.
Politics that are derivative from universal truths presume an ultimate truth or standard by which to make political decisions, pushing all political communities toward a universally true system of politics. Arendt believes that the virtuous statesman is one who tries to understand as many viewpoints as possible, rather than imposing one’s own world view upon the state (18). This does not denigrate the life of the thinker in comparison to other forms of life, but challenges the historical priorities that most politicians hold. Because the focus of philosophy is theoretical and founded in contemplation, it tends to ignore the opinions of others and is an inappropriate mode of though for political action. Other kinds of truths, like scientific or even philosophical truths, remain based on universality (Fry 44).
Therefore, in order to avoid tyranny, one must be willing to take into account the multiple perspectives of the community and tolerate the contradictions arising between various viewpoints. This is drawn from the overall theme of Arendt’s Human Condition. She seeks to restore the importance of the active life and to provide an alternative view of political theory that is not based upon life of the philosopher or the intellectual, but is more inclusive of the diversity of interests of the citizens as a whole. From the above discussion, it is evident that speech is more than a mode to convey information.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. Human Condition. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Print.
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by w. Rhys Roberts. 350 BCE. The Internet Classic Archive.
Chicago Suntimes. Great Movie: 12 Angry Men. 2002. Web. 14 May 2013. <
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-12-angry-men-1957>.
Fry, Karin A. Arendt: A Guide for the Perplexed. London, GBR: Continuum International
Publishing, 2009. Print.
Villa, Dana. Politics, Philosophy, Terror: Essays on the Thought of Hannah Arendt. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Print.
