Professor Kenneth Andersen Called for Civic Community in 2003. Are We Any Closer?

Kenneth Andersen

Among a speaker’s greatest roles is to call for moral renewal. Any democratic or republican form of government, indeed, any way of life that relies on people sharing a community, requires free, honest, respectful communication. Yet, Kenneth E. Andersen pointed out, in 2003, that we in the United States of America were already losing that sense of community and must work hard to regain it. He bemoaned the problem of the “free rider:”

“Many aspects of what we are talking about are problematic. One of them is the issue of the free rider – the person that takes advantage of the fact that we live by rules and they do not.”

At the 2003 National Communication Association (NCA) Convention in Miami Beach, I heard my former professor Dr. Kenneth E. Andersen deliver the prestigious Caroll C. Arnold Distinguished Lecture. The convention had gathered thousands of communication scholars, educators, and students. A former president of NCA, Andersen’s topic was, “Recovering the Civic Culture: The Imperative of Ethical Communication.” His thought-provoking talk called for moral renewal. He based that renewal on ethical communication and freedom of speech. Andersen focused his presentation on the NCA’s Credo for Ethical Communication, a document created under his guidance, which began by stating:

“Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision-making, and the development of relationships within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media.”

Yet, Andersen bemoaned the United States’ decreasing sense of civic community and ethical involvement. He noted the increasing tendency of people who tried to triumph by ignoring the rules that everyone else follows. As he explained, civic engagement requires us all to respect the rights of people to communicate with one another.

Although there are several ways to deal with the free rider, Andersen suggested that the most important was for us to work – as an entire society – to insist on moral standards. After all, he explained, laws do not provide our most important guidance. Andersen explained that true guidance comes from a society that cherishes citizenship:

“Create a culture, a set of practices and norms. Perhaps the society should be best known for the laws it does not need to enact.”

But if we do not need to enact so many laws, we must let common values guide us. Ethical communication must be among those values. Andersen’s view of civic involvement entails that citizens respect the basic norms of a free society governed by the people themselves. That sense of civic commitment requires the nation to reject totalitarianism and respect people’s different opinions and needs. Andersen continued:

“The communication process as it has and is being utilized has played a significant role in the decline of the civic culture. Altering communication activity can play a significant role in rebuilding the civic culture.”

Accordingly, in words that presaged the political clashes that we face in 2024, Andersen pointed out the great conflict between two opposing views of community. The authoritarian view holds that a nation needs strong guidance from above, while the other places confidence in our fellow citizens. The authoritarian view obviously invites the free rider, for totalitarian leaders seize power to ignore their own rules. Andersen explained:

“Many commentators see the world as caught between two great clashing views, one that would freeze time and individuals or return us to some better, previous state or what it is believed to have been. As we age many of us remember a past that never was. This view involves holding to existing standards and patterns, to what was and is and thus ought to be. The other view or want of a better term might be termed ‘modern,’ envisioning a progressive evolutionary change allowing different standards and patterns. Loaded words I know.”

The first of those views, which clings to an often-imaginary past, steals peoples’ free choice. Do not Andersen’s words resonate today? The greatest irony of 2024’s political climate is that the people who scream most loudly about freedom are often the first to demand their own freedom at the expense of others. That view predictably unleashes the free rider. Yet, if we live by ethical principles, Andersen points out, we will share by free expression and speech, respect one another’s views, and value truth and critical thinking. If we do those things, we still might restore the United States’ civic culture.

However, Andersen insisted that an ethical civic culture requires that we all accept a free society’s values. We form a community only when we agree to respect one another:

“We cannot live more morally with other individuals than they are willing to live with us.”

In other words, a society full of free riders – people who enforce the rules but do not follow the rules – makes good people feel precarious.

Indeed, a free society flourishes when people understand and accept their community’s civic values. That is why so much of civic community comes from education. That does not mean political indoctrination. Andersen did not talk about urging students to support one political party or another. Instead, he pointed out that students need to learn to evaluate the information that modern mediated communication floods across the airwaves. Accordingly, students need to learn critical thinking and evaluation. Andersen explained:

“We need to assist students in developing strategies for dealing with the mass communication stimuli coming at us.” 

Professor Andersen gave this talk, so critical to the communication discipline, more than 20 years ago. I question whether we have made any progress. On the contrary, the increasing disregard for factual communication only symbolizes our nation’s failure to commit itself to a common community. Wild conspiracy theories run rampant. Free riders infest the political scene.

Worse, too many people in 2024 reject the very concept of rational thinking. Shockingly, the failure of facts symbolizes that failure. Immature Internet memes replace factual dialogue. The prestigious Annenberg School of Communication established the first major fact-checking website, FactCheck.org, to call out public figures who misrepresent the truth. Sadly, this noble enterprise has met with utter failure: although FactCheck.org does a major service, the professional liars who infest American public life in 2024 casually dismiss its well-researched findings as liberal bias. Needless to say, no free rider can tolerate facts.

Our 2024 presidential campaign does little to restore public confidence in national integrity. The leading Democratic candidate for the presidency, Joseph Biden, is an admitted plagiarist. Not only did he fail a law school course for plagiarism, but he admitted that he had repeatedly quoted other politicians without attribution. His opponent, Donald Trump, has been charged with dozens upon dozens of serious crimes and loudly boasted (on a sound recording!) about assaulting women sexually – and no one seems to care. Neither man has fared brilliantly on FactCheck.org, although Trump’s endless duplicity has almost overwhelmed the fact checkers. Trump won PolitFact’s Lie of the Year Award on three separate occasions.

In the 2003 Carroll C. Arnold Distinguished Lecture, Andersen pointed out that civic community requires mutual respect, integrity, honesty, and compassion for others. He warned us of free riders, the people who thrive by forcing other people, but never themselves, to do the right thing. Andersen called for higher education to lead the way, not by partisanship, but by teaching compassion, mutual respect, and critical thinking. Is that too much to ask? 

By William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Ayanna Pressley's Mother's Day Speech: How Did She Use Language to Make Her Point?

Ayanna Pressley

In a brief speech on the United States House of Representatives floor, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley used a ceremonial occasion, the approaching Mother’s Day, to urge Congress to pass better policies for mothers. She used the rhetorical figure of anaphora to link a series of accusations. Anaphora means to link sentences with a common word or phrase, such as when Scotty on Star Trek said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Pressley’s anaphora made her speech seem elegant and, well, rhetorical. The repeated phrases tie her points together.  Nevertheless, her speech would have carried more punch if she had better managed the anaphoric sentences.

Pressley accused American policy of praising mothers while refusing to support them. She headlined that we need to act, not just talk:

“Mr. Speaker, mothers across America don’t want a Hallmark card. They want policy change.”

She then gave a series of statements, all in parallel language:

“We tell mothers that caregiving is their greatest contribution, and then undermine them at every turn.

“We tell women that motherhood is aspirational and the greatest contribution they will ever make, while for many a safe pregnancy is a privilege and not a right.”

Each “we tell” stated an unfulfilled goal that society offers to mothers. Each statement then showed how society suppresses those same goals.

Anyway, Pressley continued:

“We tell mothers that the work of keeping that baby warm, safe and fed is the highest calling, and then we allow negligence and policy gaps to create a baby formula shortage in the midst of a pandemic as mothers panic to meet a most basic need.”

Notice right away, however, that Pressley’s overwhelming verbiage suppressed her emotional impact. She could, for example, have said: “We tell mothers that it is a high calling to keep the baby fed, but we negligently allow mothers to panic during a baby formula shortage.” Same point, but sharper. The shorter, crisper sentence sounds more like a public speech, and less like a government report. More memorable.

Continuing, Pressley said:

“We tell mothers that they must work like they don’t have children and parent like they don’t work, while we fail to pass a universal paid leave policy thrusting mamas and caregivers back into the workplace and mere weeks after their babies are born.”

That’s an excellent point and I heartily agree. The “we tell” reminds listeners that society makes promises to mothers, one after the other, but fails to fulfill them. Again, wordiness buried the message. Maybe this instead? “The lack of paid maternity leave thrusts mamas and caregivers back to work much too soon.” A good speaker knows that you should never use 20 words if 10 words will do the job better.

Pressley actually said “we tell” seven times in a speech of less than six minutes. That was potentially formidable. However, we liberals tend to overstate our points, don’t we? Good speakers try to be sharp and crisp. Memorable phrases need to stand out without getting buried under unnecessary words. Most good speakers use short sentences, with an occasional long sentence for variety. The “we tell” phrases would have carried more power if they had been crisper, which would have packed them together with less stuffing in between.

Let us think about how pithy statements help us remember great speeches. Lincoln: “Of the people, by the people, for the people.” Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Roosevelt: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” No wasted words there!

Yes, sometimes we need to explain our points. Of course. But before we explain them, we must state our purpose clearly, sharply, and precisely. Our spoken words must strike for attention. Our words must be clear. Our words must be concise. Our words must show power.

Finally, let me wish a wonderful Mother’s Day to all the mothers out there. Loving and attentive mothers. Mothers who can’t function because life has crushed them. Good mothers. Mothers who struggle. Adoptive mothers. Foster mothers. Older siblings who raise their brothers and sisters. A wonderful Mother’s Day to all mothers blessed with adoring children. A wonderful Mother’s Day to mothers whose children have forgotten them. A wonderful day to every woman who wanted to be a mother but never had the chance. Thank you, every one of you; we wouldn’t be here without you. 

Remember that it is fine to recommend policies during a ceremonial speech. Speakers do that all the time (see links below). Thank you, Ayanna Pressley, for reminding us how important mothers are. 

Happy Mother’s Day 2024!

by William D. Harpine

___________

Earlier posts:

Vice President Mike Pence's Speech at the Marine Barracks: Policy without Proof?

Lady Gaga Spoke and Sang for National Unity in 2017

Tyler Perry at the 2019 BET Awards: "Helping Someone Cross" as a Metaphor for Reaching Out to Help

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Ayanna Pressley's congressional website

Joe Biden Organized His Holocaust Remembrance Day Speech to Place Values in Context

Biden on Holocaust Remembrance Day

“During these sacred Days of Remembrance, we grieve. We give voice to the 6 million Jews who were systematically targeted and murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War Two.”

Speaking in Emancipation Hall in the United States Capitol, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, May 7, 2024, United States President Joe Biden addressed the ongoing Gaza war with a classic persuasive speaking pattern: he started with the general theme, moved to the specific, and then shifted back to the general. Moving through that pattern, Biden placed the ongoing horrors into a historical and moral context. As he did so, Biden offered implicit support for Israel’s Gaza war's policies. 

Never ignore a ceremonial speech’s persuasive impact!

The General Point

The Holocaust survivor's slogan, “never forget,” signifies that history’s cruel lessons are too easily forgotten. Biden therefore wisely reviewed the Holocaust’s basic historical facts. Thus, following his opening comment about “6 million Jews who were systematically targeted and murdered,” Biden offered some personal experiences. This was, after all, a day of remembrance, not a political situation per se. Biden then reminded the assembled audience that antisemitism fueled the Nazi party’s rise to power:

“Germany, 1933. Hitler and his Nazi party rise to power by rekindling one of the world’s oldest forms of prejudice and hate: antisemitism.”

Biden then warned his audience that the Holocaust spread throughout Nazi-controlled territory because the rest of the world ignored the terror and suffering:

“With the indifference of the world, Hitler knew he could expand his reign of terror by eliminating Jews from Germany, to annihilate Jews across Europe through genocide the Nazi’s called the ‘Final Solution’’ — concentration camps, gas chambers, mass shootings.”

Biden’s general message: “never forget,” he said.

Hitler, the Harbinger of the Modern Christian Right, Gave His Inaugural Speech

The Specific Point

Specific events underlie every generality. So, for his next points, Biden related antisemitism to the horrible war in Gaza. Demonstrators on college campuses across the United States have protested Israel’s violent attacks in Gaza, attacks that have caused dreadful civilian casualties. Biden’s specific point was to remind his listeners that the war began when Hamas, the political movement that governs Gaza, attacked concentrations of civilians in Israel. Biden tied Hamas’ violence directly to the ancient bigotry that led to the Holocaust:

“Driven by ancient desire to wipe out the Jewish people off the face of the Earth, over 1,200 innocent people — babies, parents, grandparents — slaughtered in their kibbutz, massacred at a musical festival, brutally raped, mutilated, and sexually assaulted. Thousands more carrying wounds, bullets, and shrapnel from the memory of that terrible day they endured. Hundreds taken hostage, including survivors of the Shoah.”

Biden Speaking in Emancipation Hall

Israel, as is well known, responded with a massive attack against Gaza.

Biden complained that Jewish students have been harassed on college campuses. Relating the Holocaust to Hamas’ October attack against Israel, Biden tied the ongoing suffering to the Holocaust itself:

“Too many people [are] denying, downplaying, rationalizing, ignoring the horrors of the Holocaust and October 7th, including Hamas’s appalling use of sexual violence to torture and terrorize Jews.”

With those words, Biden connected the Gaza war to the larger context of antisemitic violence.


Back to the General

It is, however, the general point, not the specific one, that arbitrates moral judgments. So, in this Holocaust Remembrance Day speech, Biden brought us back to a more general point. Never quite saying so aloud, Biden stated the basic value that the United States of America bears a sacred obligation to guard civilization. He implied that guarding civilization includes opposing antisemitic violence. So, as he neared his conclusion, Biden called on a greater value:

“Great American — great Jewish American named Tom Lantos used the phrase, ‘The veneer of civilization is paper thin. We are its guardians, and we can never rest.’

My fellow Americans, we must — we must be those guardians. We must never rest. We must rise against hate, meet across the divide, see our common humanity.”

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

Dina Pronicheva’s Testimony at a Nazi War Crimes Trial: A Lesson Learned?

Joe Biden's Juneteenth Speech Used Values to Support Policies

A Lesson Learned?

In a ceremonial speech like Biden’s, an audience rarely wants a point-by-point policy discussion. This wasn’t the time. Instead, a ceremonial speaker makes a point by reviewing the moral values that lead us to praise and condemn. Praise and blame then give our decisions ethical guidance. We condemn the Nazis. We condemn antisemitism. Those are value statements.

Then, by placing the Gaza war into that larger context, by reminding us of the ongoing evils of antisemitism, Biden gave his audience a larger view. As he began the speech, Biden honored the Holocaust’s victims and condemned, not only the Nazi perpetrators, but also the indifferent world that stood silent as the Nazis cruelly ravaged Europe’s Jews. Only then did Biden remind the audience that Hamas itself began the current war by attacking, raping, and kidnapping Israeli civilians. Concluding, Biden returned to general moral values, urging the United States to guard the world’s freedom.

After all, values guide our policies. We can disagree about values (just as we disagree about policies), but we must never ignore them.

by William D. Harpine

_____________

Theoretical note: Communication scholars place ceremonial speeches in the epideictic genre. An epideictic speech (literally, a speech that “shows forth” or “enlightens”) offers praise or blame, often implying moral guidance. My colleague Dale Sullivan wrote a fine article explaining epideictic rhetoric. 

More generally, rhetorical critics typically examine deep-thinking issues, analyzing a speaker’s cultural principles, language use, or historical context. Those matters deserve our attention. Too often, however, we communication researchers ignore the speech’s organization. Is that an oversight? Organization can reveal a speaker’s priorities and motivating principles. In this case, Biden may have said more with organization that he did with content.

P.S. On a personal note, I support the basic justice of Israel’s plight in the Gaza war. Nevertheless, given the ongoing disaster that continues to afflict Gaza’s civilian population, the question still arises, has Israel gone too far? That question troubles me, and it is a question that Biden’s speech ignored. What do you think?

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Images of Biden speaking in Emancipation Hall: White House YouTube channel