Showing posts with label narrative paradigm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label narrative paradigm. Show all posts

Friday, June 21, 2024

Frederick Douglass' Fourth of July Speech: A Masterpiece of Narration

“The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.”
So said escaped slave Frederick Douglass in his famous speech, “What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?” In this speech, which condemned the very concept of the 4th of July, Douglass told a story in vivid language that shocked the conscience of those that heard him speak. He told a sordid story of callous torture. This speech was a lesson in the power of storytelling. Douglass told a horror story, not a children’s tale, but it was a horror story, a story of unblinking truth, that America needed to hear.

That is why Douglass told a story to his shocked audience in Rochester New York on July 5, 1852. His story teemed with pity, horror, and grief. That his story was true, that it arose from his own experience, added to its heartrending power. It was Douglass’ story, not his historical reasoning (which was impressive in itself), his emotional narrative, that gave his long speech its mesmerizing power.

By 1852, chattel slavery was deeply ensconced in the United States’ economy. How could Douglass overcome this pernicious tradition? Surely not with facts or figures. Facts, figures, and statistics rarely persuade people. No, when speakers promote controversial arguments, they need to tell a story.


Douglass’ story narrated the slavedriver’s moral depravity. He led his audience through a slave procession’s suffering and examined the slave market’s dehumanizing economics. As the story continued, Douglass gave a generalized critique of the United States’ slave-driven economy.

After a lengthy introduction, Douglass contrasted the joys of the 4th of July against the horrors that the enslaved experienced daily. Quoting the Bible’s bitterly mournful Psalm 137, Douglass called up the “mournful wail of millions:”
“Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, ‘may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!’”
Warming to his narrative, Douglass told the horrifying story of the slave merchants, who drove men, women, and children like animals, heedless of their suffering while indifferent to the viciousness of his own behavior:
“Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States.”
Showing his gift for narration, Douglass conveyed the vivid details of the slave merchants who, across the southern United States, treated their human merchandise with more cruelty than they showed toward their dogs:
“You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and Bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them.”
Continuing his story, Douglass turned to the suffering of the victims, the enslaved human beings who, suffering desperately, hoping futilely for some relief from the physical and, worse, mental torment that marked the slave-procession. As the slavedriver pushed the forced laborers forward, he behaved, in Douglass’ enraged commentary, like a madman, accountable to no one. It was Douglass, but not the slavedriver, who recognized the victims’ searing, unbearable suffering. Douglass focused first on the slavedriver:
“Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives!”
Douglas then turned to the tormented slaves:
“There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn!”
Unconcerned whether the enslaved are exhausted, suffering, or in pain, the slavedriver in Douglass’ depiction made his living with brutality and fear, not humanity:
“The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the centre of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on.”
Still, by Douglas’ account, the procession’s brutality was merely a precursor to the market itself. When they arrived at the auction, customers examined the offerings as if they were buying horses or cattle, again, utterly heedless of their victims’ most elemental humanity:
“Follow this drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude.”
To persuade his audience, however, Douglass generalized the sad, horrifying tale. It was not enough, could not be enough, for Douglass’ ever-so-dignified listeners to accept that his Gothic story might have been real, that these events could have once happened. For it was not just one story. Douglass showed audience that his story represented everyday events in the southern United States. From one end of Dixie to the other, from slave states as far north as Delaware and Maryland, and south to Texas and Florida, the white economy’s prosperity and dignity sprung from the slavers’ brutality. One vicious procession, after another, after another. Slave markets and auctions without end. A massive enterprise, Douglass explained, in which the entire southern culture was an opus of ruthless behavior that betrayed the nation’s pretense to be free:
“Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States.”
Not just any part of the United States, but, Douglass insisted, “the ruling part of the United States.” Douglas was right. Even the northern states relied on the raw materials that the slave states sent them. Or, as Douglass correctly noted, it was, ever so ironically, slavery – cruelty – forced labor – that propelled the greatest free nation on earth. The South’s enslaved labor cultivated cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco. Northern mills processed the farm products and sold them on the domestic and international markets. A wheel of prosperity for many, but not everyone, as the nation steadfastly refused to look at the horrible story that made the United States rich and powerful.

Earlier Post about This Speech: Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Earlier Post: Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies
 
There’s an old saying that, if you want to understand something, follow the money. Slavery brought immense income to many. That was not Douglass’ point. Douglass’ story took the nation’s eyes off the money and onto the heartlessness that slavers showed to their victims. Douglass, who bore the scars of the slave-driver’s whip on his back, told a story that was hard to deny. Widely republished in newspapers, flyers, and books, Douglass’ oration helped the United States awaken its slowly growing conscience.

Stories work. If you want to persuade people, tell a story. 

by William D. Harpine


Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine
Image: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
 

Sunday, September 19, 2021

Janet Yellen Told a Story about Childcare Economics

Janet Yellen
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen spoke on September 15, 2021 about the need for the United States to strengthen its childcare system. A Department of the Treasury report had found that the United States’ childcare system is overloaded. Worse, lack of childcare has significant implications for economic growth.  Yellen told a personal story to make an abstract economic principle come to life.


Janet Yellen’s Economics Story

Good speakers tell stories. Communication researchers call this the “narrative paradigm.” Yellen began her presentation with a personal story about when she needed to pay for childcare as a young working mother in 1981. Her story did not just illustrate her point, but also helped her explain economic theory. Her story showed that working families rely on childcare, that it is important to pay childcare workers a good wage, and that the economy depends on childcare. Here is her story as she narrated it:

“We didn’t plan this, but today is a very appropriate day for me to participate in this event. Because it turns out, forty years ago on this exact morning – September 15th, 1981 – I was returning to work.

“My son Robert had been born over the summer, and by the time the school year rolled around, I was ready to resume teaching again at Berkeley. I needed a babysitter, and I started doing some research. What was the going rate for childcare in the Bay Area? I asked friends with kids and surveyed childcare providers, and when I came to an answer, I called the Classified section of The Daily Californian – people still used those back then – and purchased a ‘help wanted’ advertisement, offering ‘good pay,’ the market rate plus a few dollars more per hour. ‘Job starts on September 15,’ I added.”

Yellen’s story stressed that she and her husband were willing to pay more than the market rate to attract a babysitter. Why would anyone do that? Conservative orthodoxy says that people should be paid according to the market, as if the market has some magic moral power. As she spoke, however, Yellen pointed out that employers gain benefits when they pay more than the market rate. She made that point by continuing her story. Here is what she said next:

“Why a few dollars more? My husband George was an economist too – he still is – and at the time, we were both interested in the topic of ‘efficiency wages.’ Classical economics says that it’s not rational to pay a worker more than the market rate, but we hypothesized it could be. The job might be an important one, for example, and a higher wage could encourage someone to do better work. That’s a completely rational reason to pay someone more, especially if the job is some of the most intimate work there is, which is caring for children.

“Our hypothesis proved correct, at least in our own home. The advertisement led us to a babysitter who took wonderful care of Robert while George and I were at work.”

Yellen was rhetorically clever to slip economic theory into her narrative. She slyly acknowledged that she had violated economic orthodoxy. She continued, however, that paying more than the market rate helped to attract a good babysitter who proved to be loyal and caring.


And on to policy recommendations!

Yellen’s story helped her explain the need for better financing of childcare. “The free market works well in many different sectors,” she insisted, but childcare is not one of them.” She continued:

“It does not work for the caregivers. It does not work for the parents. It does not work for the kids. And because it does not work for them, it does not work for the country.”
(I love parallel language, by the way, which helps audiences see how different points link together: “It does not work for … It does not work for … It does not work for.”)

Yellen went on to cite economic figures about the number of workers who had to drop from the labor force or change jobs because they couldn’t get adequate childcare. That was good, but her story had already made that point – it was her story that helped the audience understand why financing childcare was important. She concluded, in fact, by referring back to her own story: “Indeed, looking back, I am not sure whether I would be here, in this job today, if I didn’t have an excellent babysitter 40 years ago.”

Read: Does a Speaker Always Need to Be Energetic?

Yellen has never been a dynamic speaker, but she has an extraordinary gift for being clear. She made her point sharply and precisely. It is unfortunate that critical events in Afghanistan and the coronavirus drowned out news reports of this important and dramatic speech.

Economic theory is always abstract and mathematical. Yellen’s personal story framed her economic recommendations to help the audience understand them in human terms. Good speakers tell stories. Advice to speakers: tell stories. And don’t just tell random stories: instead, tell stories like Yellen’s that help you make your point. Tell stories like Yellen’s that help you prove your point.

________________

Read: Janet Yellen Established Her Credibility During Her Confirmation Hearing

Read: Janet Yellen’s Speech at Jackson Hole: We Need a Stable Financial System

Read: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' First Congressional Speech Told a Story
________________


P.S. The entire Department of the Treasury report about “The Economics of Childcare Supply in the United States” is well worth reading.

Research Note: the late Professor Walter R. Fisher introduced the concept of narrative argument in a 1984 article that he published in Communication Monographs.

Image: Department of the Treasury