The Times of London reported:

Peter Ustinov, an English actor, retraces a journey made by Mark Twain a century ago. The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector.

Please note, that in the above sentence an additional comma would prevent Nelson Mandela from being a dildo collector, but he could conceivably still be an 800-year-old demigod.

Before we delve deep, let me make my point by giving you one more example. Here you have a love letter that Jill wrote to Jack:

Dear Jack,
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy — will you let me be yours?
Jill

Now this love story has a little villain, John, who wanted Jill all for himself. Like all villains he had powers. He was good with punctuations. So without changing a word in the above letter, this is what he did:

Dear Jack,
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn! For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?
Yours,
Jill

(Truss 9)

Looking at these two examples and from your earlier readings one might take that punctuation are little things that can make an otherwise usual sentence little funny by distorting their meaning. You might think that they are of little significance. But history gives them the place they deserve. One of the biggest events in world history — the Russian revolution — was precipitated when Bolshevik printers of St Petersburg, in 1905, demanded to be paid the same rate for punctuation marks as for letters.

Now, to understand punctuation, we need to understand all the grammatical conventions that dictate its usage, follow manuals of style and be guided by writing handbooks, that tell us all the systematized rules that we need to follow. This is the way we have been always taught. Go read. Learn. By-heart. However, experts on punctuation like Lynne Truss and John Dawkins tell us that there is a simple system underlying usage of punctuation that enables writers to achieve important — even subtle — rhetoric effects.

Dawkins says that punctuations do not follow set rules that’ll tell us what is the right usage every time but they follow a set of functional principles. Good writers use these principles to convey their intended meaning, with their intended emphasis. As writers we want the reader to focus on some parts more than the other. We want to guide our readers into the by-lanes of our writing — hold their attention, make them pause, present ideas in succession.

To understand the functional principles of punctuation we need to familiarise ourselves with the basics of independent clauses. Identifying the independent clause is very important for the writer, as they help them break their sentence into meaningful little parts, arrange them, and join or separate them using different punctuation marks.

Independent clauses are the basic elements of prose. Any written or spoken discourse consists of independent clauses or underlying independent clauses. An independent clause has a subject and a predicate and expresses a complete thought. If prose is a concatenation of independent clauses then punctuation shows an appropriate relationship between them.

A good writer, thus, doesn’t just puts words on paper but composes them with punctuation, arranges them in a comprehensible order, creating his own rhythm and tempo. Following some simple rights and wrongs — apostrophes should be where they should be — writers can use a good ear, follow certain functional principles and stitch the fabric of language using punctuations. If this stitching is strong; readers will comprehend better. However, the consequences of mispunctuation are very evident:

A woman, without her man, is nothing.

(Feminists are already flaring their nostrils.)

A woman: without her, man is nothing.

(Maybe the writer isn’t a misogynist but just someone with poor punctuations who misplaced the colon with a comma.)

Punctuations are designed to help readers understand a story without stumbling. For more practical purposes one can look at punctuations as the traffic signal of languages: they tell us to slow down, notice this, take a detour, and stop (Olsen 1).

Let us now briefly discuss some of the most used punctuation marks.

Comma

The comma tells you to pause.

It was first used by Greek dramatists two thousand years ago to guide actors between breathing points, indicating pauses, accentuating matters of sense and sound (Truss 72). In the traffic light analogy, it is like the blinking yellow light that tells a driver to slow down and proceed with caution (Olsen 4). Writers can try reading their prose aloud and insert a comma where there seems to be a clear pause in the sentence. The only thing that one needs to keep in mind is the intended meaning.

In the following sentences observe the intended meaning and the meaning conveyed through the sentence:

1. No dogs please.

(This is a gross generalization, since many dogs do please, and some rather make a point of it.)

2. Ankur walked on his head, a little higher than usual.

(The comma has been misplaced and belongs after “on”.)

3. The driver managed to escape from the vehicle before it sank and swam to the river-bank.

(It suggests that the vehicle swam to the river-bank, rather than the driver. The comma should be placed after “sank”.)

4. The convict said the judge is mad.

(The above sentence makes perfect sense unless what is intended is: “The convict, said the judge, is mad.”)

A wrongly placed comma, other than being a funny thing, can cause huge doctrinal differences in your religious beliefs. In the following example, see how Protestants and Catholics use different versions of the same sentence.

“Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

“Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

(Truss 74)

In the first version, Protestant interpretation skips over the Purgatory part and takes the crucified thief straight to heaven with the Lord. The second sentence promises Paradise at some later date and leaves Purgatory in the picture for Catholics.

Commas are also used for emphasis. For example:

Today John went to school.

The above sentence is completely right. But what if John went to school after being hospitalized for a year. The writer would want to emphasize on the context. He can do this by writing:

Today, John went to school.

What we can learn:

a. Commas divide items in a list. A comma is correct if it can be replaced by ‘and’ or ‘or’.

The rhetoric wiki on medium.com contains entries on various topics like art of argumentation, rhetoric of memory, subjectivity etc.

b. Commas join two complete sentences along with such conjunctions as and, or, but, while and yet.

They wanted the party to go on till the morning, but they grew tired and fell asleep.

c. Commas can be used in pairs to give additional information.

The students in the YIF, who managed to get language-realities, were very satisfied.

One last bit of advice: if your sentence is very short (perhaps 5 to 10 words), you do have the option of omitting the comma if you wish. Here is an example:

Mr. Santana is old and he is wise.

In such short sentences, one may opt to omit the comma. Remember, punctuation is meant to help the writer and the reader, not to make their jobs more difficult.

Colon

A Colon introduces.

It can introduce just about anything: a word, a phrase, a sentence, a quotation, or a list.

Jesse has only one thing on his mind: he wants to get rich.

Jesse has three things on his mind: money, psychedelics, and fame.

Colon delivers what the preceding words promise and gives special emphasis to whatever you’re introducing. Readers must first come to a stop, and then expect something that must balance the preceding part (Truss 114). For example, let’s say you are writing a letter describing a product, and you want to emphasize above all that this product, the Alexa toaster, is reliable. You could very well write:

The Alexa toaster beats its competitors especially in the key area of reliability.

While this sentence gets the point across, it doesn’t place much emphasis on reliability. A sentence using a colon is much more emphatic:

The Alexa toaster beats its competitors especially in one key area: reliability.

Test: To see if you are rightly using a colon substitute it with the word namely; if the sentence reads through smoothly, then there’s a good chance that you do need a colon.

Caution: Do not place a colon after a verb, as the verb itself introduces. For example, you would not write:

My three favorite movies are: Harry Potter, Twilight, and Transformers.

Semicolon

A semicolon is used to connect two related sentences where there is no conjunction such as ‘and’ or ‘but’.

Each of the sides of a semicolon holds two complete sentences and makes your reader take notice of the relationship between them. They help the writer create an abstract relationship between the two parts of the sentence, and therefore between two ideas.

Martin is a good typist; he makes few mistakes.

Crude oil is the thing of the past; electric cars and bikes are cheap and accessible.

In the above two examples, sentences are glued together by a semicolon. The second part of each sentence adds something to what the first part said; it comments on it. If these sentences are written as two different sentences separated by a period the reader must stop at the period of the first sentence and then begin to read the second; with two sentences connected by a semicolon, the reader does not come to a full stop and, therefore, the relationship seems that much closer. Here, for example, it need not be explicitly mentioned that a good typist is one who makes few mistakes; joining the sentences using a semicolon creates that relationship in the readers' mind and they can understand that the criteria for someone being a good typist are the number of mistakes they make while typing.

A semicolon is also used as a super-comma, a kind of Special Policeman in the fight of commas. In the below example notice how semicolon gracefully joins sentences together and calls a bunch of brawling commas to attention.

When they asked for my preferred location for the job, I gave them four cities: New York, New York, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Bangalore, Karnataka, and San Francisco, California.

This sentence contains so many commas, both between the members of the list and within them, that readers are likely to become confused.

When they asked for my preferred location for the job, I gave them four cities: New York, New York; Mumbai, Maharashtra; Bangalore, Karnataka; and San Francisco, California.

Notice how in the below examples the sense of the sentence changes with the punctuation marks:

Salim locked himself in the basement. India lost to Bangladesh.

The two statements can be unrelated. They merely tell two things that happened in the past.

Salim locked himself in the basement; India lost to Bangladesh.

We can say that the two events happened at the same time, although there is a possibility that Salim still doesn’t know the outcome of the game as he couldn’t bear to watch the match and locked himself long before the match actually ended.

Salim locked himself in the basement: India lost to Bangladesh.

Here the meaning is much clearer as there is a direct relationship between Salim locking himself up and India losing the match.

Dashes

Dashes are used to connect groups of words to other groups or for separating words in the middle of a sentence.

A dash creates a dramatic disjunction which can be exploited by the writer for humor, drama or shock. It is like a whisper that tells the reader to ‘wait for it’.

RBI Governor’s prescription for the economy, lower interest rates, higher employment, and less government spending, was rejected by the PMO.

RBI Governor’s prescription for the economy — lower interest rates, higher employment, and less government spending — was rejected by the PMO.

The second sentence is much clearer than the first one because the dashes clearly mark where the component begins and ends, whereas the reader might become confused by all the commas in the first.

Dashes are also used to add words to the end of a sentence when there is a clear break in the continuity of the sentence. Here are two examples:

PM Modi will be unable to win enough votes for another term of office — unless, of course, he can reduce unemployment and the deficit simultaneously.

Weather department had predicted decent rainfall this year–although, global warming is on the rise, glaciers are melting, and low lying coastal areas are constantly flooded.

Use dashes sparingly — only for those occasions when you wish to show special emphasis­–too many of these can clutter your writing.

Hierarchy of Functional Punctuation Marks

Raising and Lowering

Depending on the hierarchy presented above, a writer can either increase or decrease the degree of separation between clauses (Dawkins 538).

Raising is increasing the degree of separation. For example, raising from a comma or semi-colon to a period.

Consider this sentence:

The very name hallucinates: Man’s country, out where the West begins.

Writer John Didion used raising to bring greater emphasis. He raises a colon and the comma to a period.

The very name hallucinates. Man’s country. Out where the West begins.

Lowering decreases the degree of separation or increases connectivity between the clauses. For example, lowering from a period to a semi-colon or comma.

Consider these four sentences. Punctuation marks gain emphasis for the attachment. The degree of emphasis depends upon the hierarchy of the punctuation mark i.e. higher the mark greater the emphasis.

1. John asked for a date when he got the nerve.

2. John asked for a date, when he got the nerve.

3. John asked for a date–when he got the nerve.

4. John asked for a date. When he got the nerve.

Teaching Punctuation

To learn punctuation, we can look at writing as a process.

The student doesn’t try to match his sentences with a rule in a handbook but rather responds to it in a behavioral sense. They should read the sentence keeping their intentions in mind and the reader’s need, and then decide on the basis of intended meaning and emphasis. Such an approach allows for individual differences in its application and each student can have their own learning curves (Dawkins 544).

When should I check my grammar and punctuation?

One should concern with grammar and punctuation after they are done with their first draft i.e. they have all their ideas organized and down on paper. Going back and looking at each sentence: how they sound, are they clear, can slow down your writing and thinking. After reading your draft, if you find out that your words do not convey what you had in your mind, you might want to go back and tweak your punctuation or sentence construction.

How can I work to improve my grammar and punctuation?

Read.

Every time you read, pay attention to grammar conventions. Where are these authors placing commas? How are they using punctuation to separate sentences, phrases, or ideas? How are they formatting lists, quotations, or long sentences? With a good eye and a good ear, one can use the structures used by these writers as models when you write. The more you read, the more you will be able to recognize and adopt effective uses of grammar and punctuation.

Other Resources:

1. Video explaining the differences between the usage of semicolons and colons:

2. Ted-ed lessons on punctuation:

References

Dawkins, John. “Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 46, no. 4, 1995, pp. 533–548. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/358327.

Olsen, Gary A. “Punctuation Made Simple.” Punctuation Made Simple: An Introduction. N.p., 29 July 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2019.

Truss, Lynne. Eats, Shoots & Leaves : the Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. New York :Gotham Books, 2004. Print.

Punctuation as a Rhetoric Tool was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“He’s nervous, but on the surface, he looks calm and ready

To drop bombs, but he keeps on forgetting

What he wrote down, the whole crowd goes so loud

He opens his mouth, but the words won’t come out

He’s choking, how? Everybody’s joking now

The clock’s run out, time’s up, over — blaow!”

The movie 8-mile, Jimmy “B-Rabbit” Smith Jr. is a young and frustrated blue-collar factory worker, who doesn’t want to give up on his dream of becoming a rapper. He seems to have stagnated in progress, as he chokes in the middle of a rap battle and gets booed off the stage. But he doesn’t let this incident get him down. He decides to make his dream come true through relentless practice and hard work. He wrote and rewrote his songs till he got the right syllables at the right places. Today, he is known by the name Eminem, one of the greatest rappers of all time; his name considered synonymous to articulation. Taking the journey of this kid who once had difficulties in enunciating, to becoming a global rapping legend, I’ll be moving on to some lengths over the problems related to speech, which also engulf most of us, for us to understand, accept and counter the anxieties of this predicament.

What is Speech Anxiety?

Rhetoric is the art of using language as a tool of persuasion through discourse and argumentation. But before the formulation of an argument, comes speaking itself along with some anxiety wrapped around it. Speech anxiety is pretty common even if at times you feel that you’re the only one feeling the nerves. Everyone feels it at some point in their lives, they just learn to handle their anxiety and use it to enhance their performance. Because it is such a common phenomenon, many researchers have given their own definitions to speech anxiety. Karen Kangas Dwyer uses the term “communication apprehension” to describe this condition and define it as “the fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with others”. Communication apprehension and Speech anxiety are terms used interchangeably to describe similar (if not the same) phenomena. According to Brydon and Scott “speech anxiety refers to the feelings of discomfort that people experience before or during speaking in public”. Whereas DeVito describes communication apprehension as a “feeling of fear or anxiety about a situation in which one must communicate,” especially when the communication act takes place in a public forum.

“Courage is not the absence of fear but the awareness that something else is more important.” — Stephen Covey

The fight-or-flight response (also called hyperarousal/acute stress response) is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. When man lived in caves in the stone, this reaction was invoked only then threat to life was perceived. But in today’s age, as mankind has evolved, speech anxiety also invokes this response. The extent that a person sees public speaking as a threatening situation, they will experience the fight-or-flight reactions which are seen as anxiety (Alm). Has the thought of addressing an audience made you feel uncomfortable? Ever felt those feelings manifest into physical reactions such as sweating, stuttering, flushness, and dizziness? Have you forgotten what we were going to say, feel unprepared and unsure, and just want the experience to end? I am here to tell you, that you are not alone, we are all in this together.

You are not alone!

Chapman University Survey on American Fears reported the fear of public speaking at the top of the list. Our fear of addressing an audience is so great, that we fear it more than death itself. Everyone experiences apprehension in speaking at some point in their lives. Interviewing a Public Speaking trainer herself, I realised that she herself also faces speech anxiety at multiple instances of her life. Be it an unexpectedly smart or experienced audience, or dealing with standards set by her own training in the past, or comparison with a new trainer are a few situations that made her face this kind of anxiety. When her students felt anxious while talking to a senior, a principal, a trainer, or anyone above in the hierarchy. In her experience, this is caused by a lack of confidence due to lack of knowledge and an “impressive personality”. As a trainer, she coaches them to start working on themselves on the outside, starting with dressing well, looking smart, improving grooming and body language, which gives inherent confidence. She says, “when you come across people who are confident speakers, you find that their appearance is generally very impressive. Before the speaker opens his mouth, the audience already forms a positive impression of him. Secondly, they speak very well. Then comes the knowledge of the subject being spoken about”. This knowledge does not necessarily give the confidence to speak. That confidence comes by knowing the language in which you are going to communicate.

Speech anxiety is not just faced in the public domain. It is also faced while having one-on-one conversations sometimes. We often face situations where we feel compelled to converse but cannot or are unable to because of a variety of factors. Some people feel conscious when they think their audience has better command over language, or when they think that they are underqualified to make an argument.

Little by little, technology has become an integral part of the way that people communicate with each other and has increasingly taken the place of face-to-face communication. Research on early detection of social anxiety and loneliness have shown that smartphone usage can be used as an indicator of different levels of social anxiety or loneliness with people. Often people avoid human communication, by hiding behind tiny 6 inches screens, avoiding face-to-face conversations whenever they can. Nowadays, WhatsApp groups are such a big thing, that the butler need not announce dinner, he should just put it on the WhatsApp group! Humans have started creating relationships with their mobile devices. Their relationship with WhatsApp is stronger than their relationship with the person on the other side of the chat box. Just for an instant imagine this person peeping into your phone when you are messaging someone. It would mean the end of ages old friendship, where you once shared everything with each other. People’s relationship with tinder is stronger than their relationship with the person on the other side of tinder. The obsession is more with swiping right and finding more matches, which provides more validation any other human interaction could. Point being, humans try their level best to save themselves from getting into conversations face to face, as they feel that they are scrutinised and judged, causing them to feel anxious. Technology seems to be an easier option without the constant scrutiny of the human gaze, as it serves as a mask or a shield.

Myths about speaking

1. A common misconception for complex cognitive and communicative processes is that they require innate talent or abilities that are outside of our control. In truth, these skills can be developed, trained, or improved.

2. “Nervousness will make my performance worse”. Only if you let it be. Nervousness is the anxious energy building up inside you, which when tamed, and enormously enhance your performance.

3. “Everyone will see how nervous I am.” Most of your anxiety is not visible to the audience. You may feel like you are shaking uncontrollably but people in the audience probably cannot even tell. Gain confidence from the fact that you are the only one who knows how nervous you are.

4. “You have to be an excellent speaker”. Who says so? The belief that you have to be “excellent” is often hindered effective public speaking because it confuses polish for true communication. When you speak to people, your job is to connect with them and give them something of value. Your task isn’t to be slick, charismatic, or a stand-up comic; unless you’re a motivational speaker. Then you better be good. Your livelihood depends on it.

5. “The people in the audience are extremely critical and are waiting for me to fail”. The audience is full of good people who want you to succeed! Think about situations where you have been an audience member. Did you ever want the speaker to fail? Probably not, in fact, we are usually quite supportive of speakers and may even feel bad for them if they stumble over a word or lose their train of thought. Most audiences you will address (especially as a student) are rooting for you.

6. The British home remedy. Take seven pieces of almond and black pepper, make a fine paste by grinding them. Add a small quantity of sugar candy in this paste and lick it. By using this method daily in the early morning with empty stomach, you’ll get relief from the problem of stammering or stuttering. Use it frequently at least for one month. Take it or leave it.

Research on the relationships among growth mindset for public speaking and beliefs about the nature of public speaking carried out in the University of Memphis by Craig O. Stewart in a general education public speaking course, claims that public speaking is a skill that can be grown through practice and effort rather than innate talent. Encouraging students to believe that public speaking will help them develop new ideas and better understand their own thoughts and opinions may reduce apprehension and improve self-confidence in public speaking. Likewise, helping students recognize the need to orient to and adapt to their audience may also lead to greater reductions in Public Speaking Anxiety. But this belief has to be coupled with early on practice, that reduces anxiety rather than increasing apprehension. For example, focus on practising delivery rather than remembering exact words.

How to tame Anxiety Butterflies

Everyone has butterflies in their stomach when compelled to converse in certain circumstances that put them outside their comfort zone. But there are ways to get your anxiety butterflies to fly in formation.

1. Build your own model of Speech. When we think of speaking, we often think of a “perfect model” of speech in which we try to fit our words. For one to be an effective communicator, there is no such “model” of speech. Communication takes place not just through words, but also body language and gestures. A person doesn’t have to be a linguist to be a good communicator. So instead, build your own model of speech, specific to you, which brings out your strengths, which is what Donald Trump does. Donald Trump jumps sentences and thoughts faster than a frog jumps out of hot water. Yet he grabs his audience’s attention and is able to connect with them.

2. Think of Public speaking as multiple one-on-one communications. Most people feel comfortable with communication opportunities when one-on-one or in small groups. The feeling of comfort changes to nervousness when communicating with multiple people. Think of it as one-on-one communication, however, just with multiple ones.

3. Picturing your audience naked will help you feel more comfortable. Be careful of embarrassing yourself, especially if you are faced with an audience of the opposite gender.

I hope after this, speaking to an audience is not the nightmare that it seems to be.

List of sources referred to:

Alm, Per A. Stuttering, emotions, and heart rate during anticipatory anxiety: a critical review. Lund, Sweden: Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Division of Psychiatry, 2004.

The University of Tenessee, Knoxville, School of Communication Studies https://cmst.cci.utk.edu/content/speech-anxiety

The Speech That Wasn’t was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires. — THE PRINCE, Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469–1527

Everyone wants power. Everyone wants more power. No one wants less. But, some people have more power than others is one of the most undeniable truths of our time. This makes the concept of power perhaps one of the most “ubiquitous” yet misunderstood social theories existing today.

Have you ever felt like the world is a manipulative and duplicitous playground where everyone is executing their scheming designs to outplay one another? Do you feel trapped inside of it? Have you had enough to make you want to exit the playground? Let’s face it, we do not want to quit this game. That would make us powerless and miserable. We would rather become adept at playing these games.

We live in a time where power-hungry motives manifested through overt power moves can be far too dangerous. The current power game seems fair and decent, civilized and democratic yet it’s laden with subtle and devious plans which call for you to jump right into its complex web to decode its artful nuances so that you don’t fall prey to it.

POWER-OVER: The three faces of the power debate

The power debate as deconstructed by the three different scholars finds one similarity; the shared conceptualisation of power as “power over” or “power as a source of restraint and constraint”. (Jasinski 446). Manifested in negative forms such as domination, oppression, coercion and force, this kind of power threatens human liberty.

While it is no doubt the time of “indirect duplicity” established by seducing, alluring and skilfully outsmarting your opponent, some power relationships are explicit and observable.

BEHAVIOURAL MODEL OF POWER

Robert Dahl’s “behavioural” model of power explains power as a relational phenomenon where one person is in a position to dominate the will of the other person and uses this position to serve his vested interests. Relationships of this kind would include that between a teacher and a student, an employer and an employee. (Jasinski 443)

In such a scenario, power is played out when there is an “observable” and “explicit attempt by A to cause B to do what A intends but what B would otherwise not do. Dahl’s “intuitive” definition of power relies on an underlying base, source or domain of power that gives A the authority to control the decision-making capacity of B.

This brings us to the question- how does A get B to do what A intends but B is unwilling to? How is this oppressive game of power carried out? The answer is, through A’s speech act of the “COMMAND”. (Jasinski 443)

Consider when Donald Trump through a tweet, ordered the U.S Air Force to “cancel” the order of a Boeing Aircraft on account of its spiralling costs. The defence industry, fearing Trump’s bullying and suing attitude, immediately obeyed his order and reduced costs by handing down the contract to a bankrupt Russian Airline company.

Even the “big” players are not immune from the wrath of the POTUS for when he commanded General Motors and Toyota to keep manufacturing facilities in the U.S.A by attacking them with threats of a big border tax, the companies immediately changed their business plans.

It is also not unusual to see that Trump, drawing power from his esteemed position as POTUS has often attempted to implement a “command-obedience” foreign policy which lacks the nuances of diplomacy and has been criticised for utilising only “one face of power”.

But does this definition take into account strategies that are designed to serve the same purpose while disguising the nature of manipulation? Is the command that is obeyed the “only” way in which power is exercised?

What if we cannot see “observable” conflict between A & B although it exists? What if we cannot see A dictating or commanding B’s behaviour? Can we then conclude that there was no power relationship apparent in the situation?

TWO FACES OF POWER

Bachrach and Baratz (1962) in “Two faces of power” while accepting the theory propounded by Robert Dahl explained that there’s a second face of power which is displayed when certain individuals are able to control communication so as to shape the political agenda and influence decision making by eliminating issues that might threaten the party’s individual interests, thus limiting the scope of decision-making. (Jasinski 444)

Consider, for example, the case of Narendra Modi whose rise to power featured his distinct oratorical style. A look at his discourse would clearly highlight the themes that he considers critical to his political agenda and which he seeks to reinforce through his speech by weaving public opinion around it. At an election rally, he uses rhetoric to appeal to the common man, at a business conclave, he channels his business know-how.

His 2018 Independence Day speech mentioned the word “garib” 39 times. The word “youth” was mentioned 9 times. The word “corruption” was mentioned 3 times. Contrast this to his speech in 2014 where newly finding himself as the Prime Minister and in an effort to appease the discontented youth, one of his major vote banks, the word “youth” coupled with “employment” was mentioned 27 times and “corruption”, 19 times.

Neither is coalition politics in India far from this truth. In the promise of cabinet portfolios, often the allied minority parties are bound by the “whip” of the majoritarian rule and are prevented from the public airing of grievances against an issue which perhaps they do not concur with. When it comes to the opposition, the manifestation of power in “non-decisions” is even more profound as the majority party by virtue of its position keeps at bay any issue that may affect the welfare of the other from coming up for “political decision”. The majority dictates who is at the table, it dictates which issues can be raised.

This bring us to the question-Is “actual observable conflict” essential for power to exist or can power exist in isolation and distinct from its “continued association with conflict?”

Could there be a scenario where A exercises power over B by influencing, shaping or determining B’s very wants? (Jasinski 444)

POWER

Lukes (1974) in his monograph “Power” thinks yes because is it not the supreme and ultimate exercise of power to get another to have the very desires that you want them to have? (Jasinski 444)

What if by shaping people’s perceptions, cognitions and preferences you prevent them from having grievances in the first place? What if your influence has the power to force people to accept their role in the existing order of things because they see it as natural and unchangeable? (Jasinski 444)

Isn’t this form of oppression the most effective and insidious use of power, even without the existence of actual conflict?

In the arena of political decision making, consider the concept of “soft power” or the ability of a country to persuade the other to do what it wants without the use of force or coercion. The most commonly used power in foreign policy debates does not only yield short term gains but is effective in shaping long term attitudes and preferences.

At the Singapore Summit between Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump last year, Trump, in an attempt to get North Korea to denuclearise its regime, famously used the notion of American “cultural references” as soft power to map out a possible future for North Korea which could only be realised with American help if North Korea reached a consensus with the US on the nuclear question. Releasing a Holywood-blockbuster styled trailer replete with US cultural influences like Basketball games, high tech manufacturing and American retail stores at the Summit, the US administration portrayed the vision of a “common” destiny between the US and North Korea with their “bonhomie” marking a new story of opportunity for the North Korean people.

Beyond explicit commands and acquiescent responses, can power be said to exist when people fail to recognize their own objective interests by being under the power of influence so much so that there is a genuine but uninformed consensus on the prevailing set of values?

It would be hard to say no because from this:

Is manifested:

Now that we have seen how discursive practices effect domination and oppression, can we train ourselves to unmask and reveal the ways in which discourse creates or enables social and political oppression so that we can guard ourselves from the treachery of deception? In what way can we inform our judgement?

So far, we have studied the use of rhetorical theory within the realm of it being used for deliberation of matters of public concern and discovery of available means of persuasion. ( Jasinski 117). But there’s another purpose of rhetoric where it can be used at the intersection of linguistics and social theory. Rhetoric, when used as a “critical practice”, critiques discourse to reveal the hidden manifestations of domination and oppression behind it.

Oppression and domination can be manifested through laws, customary social practices, economic relationships and physical action. (Jasinski 117) However, when used as a critical practice, rhetoric’s focus is only on the discourse of power which creates and sustains social practices that control the dominated.

How does it attempt to do that?

There are several modes through which discourse enables repressive power and functions to enact restriction and regulations as to who may talk and what may be talked about.

Consider the process of “hegemony”. It is the domination, influence, authority of one person/political group/society over others such that the dominant party acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate as opposed to dominance clearly by force so as to sustain its hegemony. By deconstructing the process of this discursive construction of hegemony or rather “hegemonic discourse”, rhetoric reveals the ways in which repression is manifested so as to create the conditions for our emancipation from it

Consider for example how “patriarchal” societies practice a hegemonic masculinist discourse manifested in our everyday conversations to sustain and perpetuate its dominance.

Watching the news on a daily basis, it would perhaps skip our attention to notice and uncover the subtle nuances sustaining the dominion of patriarchy but every time there is the media reportage of a case like Arushi Talwar which was apparently “solved” when it was discovered that the murder of the domestic help, Hemraj was said to have been committed by the father, who was as “characterless” as his daughter and who found her in an “objectionable” and “compromising” position or when the woman was supposedly the “object” and “trigger” of a rape crime, the gendered construction of discourse has the power to continue to allow a hegemonic patriarchal society to thrive.

A closer look at the matrimonial business which finds its legitimacy more often than not, in a stereotyped, myopic vision of a “troubled” father trying to find a suitable groom for his “most valuable possession”, the daughter so that she can be in “safe hands” is another clear example of how our innocent everyday discursive practices sustain the hegemony of a patriarchal society.

The political arena is no stranger to the exhibition of supremacy and dominance furthered through everyday discursive practices which shape these institutions. Consider Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign where a hegemonic discourse has constructed a “dominant” sense of one set of people which negative as it may be, surprisingly has the consensus of the majority of Americans.

Donald Trump wishes to build a wall on the US-Mexico border to counter the problem of illegal immigration and finds it the only “solution” to tackle the rampant trafficking of illegal drugs from the region which has resulted in “thousands of deaths”. In his words, the apparent, “invasion” of migrants from the US-Mexico border is a serious humanitarian crisis facing America that deserves immediate action.

A factual critique of the President’s speech featuring the following discourse would reveal that the most common way for traffickers to smuggle drugs is actually by hiding them in cars that drive through “official” border checkpoints in sharp contrast to what Trump said about “300 of their citizens being killed by heroin alone, 90% of which floods from across the southern border.”

Ironically enough, much to Trump’s dismay, even the “invasion” of illegal migrants has lessened with the US administration apprehending 310, 531 illegal migrants in the year 2018, its lowest figure since 1971. In fact, more often than not, illegal migrants enter “legally”, as data reveals that more than 600,000 people allowed by the US administration to enter the country legally via air or sea overstayed their visas and remained in the country at the end of the year. Data also reveals that Trump has an incorrigible habit of calling migrants who satisfy all legal requirements for “asylum” as “illegal migrants” who are a threat to American society.

This invisible manifestation of power which hides the fact that power is even at play finds resonance with the third face of power and is perhaps the most insidious and crippling. It acts within a person’s mind and creates an internalization of stereotypes, leading to internalised oppression. It skips our attention, it is that powerful. We are not averse from it but we have a choice against being influenced by it. We can teach ourselves to recognise and deconstruct hegemonic discourses through political education, conscientization and adopting a questioning attitude.

Trump’s speech can no longer be watched and allowed to be. We need to dissect it. Until its inconsistencies are revealed to throw light upon the multiple ways in which his speech has attempted to enact repressive and coercive power we can never truly be liberated citizens.

To show us how it's done, let’s take a look at this viral rant:

Works Cited

Greene, Robert, and Joost Elffers. The 48 Laws of Power. London: Profile, 2010. Print.

Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010. Print

Learn more by visiting

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/independence-day-speech-pm-narendra-modi-farmer-jobs-word-analysis-1314951-2018-08-15
2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/narendra-modis-skills-in-presenting-lessons-to-learn/articleshow/37235683.
3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/trump-fact-check-speech-immigration-border-security
4. https://www.exchange4media.com/advertising-news/why-do-matrimony-ads-continue-to-present-a-stereotypedmyopic-vision-61747.html
5. https://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/08/on-hegemonic-discourse

“CONTROL” was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The Hidden Sentiments.

Feelings, not analytical thinking, drive donations (Wharton 2007).

a) Any money that you donate will go to Rokia, a seven-year-old girl who lives in Mali in Africa. Rokia is desperately poor and faces a threat of severe hunger, even starvation. Her life will be changed for the better as a result of your financial gift. With your support, and the support of other caring sponsors, Save the Children will work with Rokia’s family and other members of the community to help feed and educate her, and provide her with basic medical care.

b) Food shortages in Malawi are affecting more than three million children. In Zambia, severe rainfall deficits have resulted in a 42% drop in maize production from 2000. As a result, an estimated three million Zambians face hunger. Four million Angolans — one-third of the population — have been forced to flee their homes. More than 11 million people in Ethiopia need immediate food assistance.

In 2000, while Africa was going through the major food crisis. Various fundraising campaigns were conducted. Two of the given stories were used to collect funds for the cause. It was found that the average amount collected by using the narrative of personal story was $ 3.7per person whereas using the numbers while designing campaigns, the amount collected was $ 2.5per person. The researchers found that if organizations want to raise money for a charitable cause, it is far better to appeal to the heart than to the head.

The incident clearly defines the presence of emotions and connection with the personal stories. Thus the use of narrative plays the dominating role, the rhetoric we use helps us in persuading the audience.

What is a Rhetoric? The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. The rhetorical device i.e. Ethos , Pathos and/or Logos are used as a medium.

“Let’s not forget that the little emotions are the great captains of our lives, and we obey them without realizing it.” – Vincent Van Gogh

Pathos

Pathos evokes an emotional response from a reader by appealing to empathy, fear, humor, or some other emotion. It works in conjunction with logos (logic) and ethos (credibility) to help form a solid argument. However, not every argument employs all three rhetorical devices. Each writer must choose which combination of rhetorical devices will work well for his or her writing and will suit the chosen topic. Used correctly, pathos can make a bland argument come alive for the audience. Pathos offers a way for the audience to relate to the subject through commonly held emotions. However, it is important to determine when pathos will be useful and when it will only serve to muddy the argumentative waters. Here are few examples of pathos used in different forms (Gayle):

1. Quotations: Picking out famous quotes adds an emotion to the writing, it connects the reader to the writing and is an eye catcher. For example while writing about freedom fighters using the quote “Inquilab Zindabad”.
2. Anecdotes : An anecdote in a writing is a way to connect emotionally to the readers. For example while writing about human trafficking, a start with a personal story of one person will attract the reader.

“Mari Had 4 Children Over Her 16 Years Of Forced Prostitution. ”

3. Humor: Including humor in the writing indirectly creates an emotional appeal. For example comedians use lot of humor in their writings to capture reader’s eyes.

4. Media Forms: Usage of visuals, audio, images and other media forms is one another way to engage reader’s emotions. For example, while writing about terrorists attack, adding pictures of victims create anger among the readers.

We learnt that pathos is found almost in every form, let’s look at another story.

He is our savior, don’t know why?

Because he has helped us, by convincing the professor to extend the deadline. Do you know what has he written? Would professor give the permission if he doesn’t give a good reason? How has he assured that he touch his professor’s heart?

You want to see how? Here is the magic…(Salik, Class Mail 2018)

Dear Santa,

Since Christmas is right around the corner, we thought it’d be a good time to share with you our wish list. Don’t fret, our list isn’t incredibly long — it has a total of one item on it! I’m sure that you can conjure up our gift in a jiffy :D

We’ve been trying our best to be good kids for the past few months. While there have been times we’ve wavered and faltered, we’ve, for the most part, been honest, diligent, and good-natured. So, considering our dedication to doing good, we’d love it if you could gift us an extension on our submission. We would’ve never asked for an extension, but the intensity and demanding nature of Heart of Leadership has caught us by surprise :(

Please consider our request. We’ll be the happiest kids ever on Christmas if you do grant us the extension :D :’D

Thank you very very much for listening to us!

*crossing fingers and hoping plea gets accepted*

Yours lovingly,

Your critical writing fellows

P.S. We promise cookies and milk when we next see you.

“Santa”, thats what he has used to address his professor. The idea of Christmas gift has created a positive vibe. Now by telling the professor about how good and honest we have been in the last few months, he can consider to help us and surprise us by extending the deadline.

Emotions

Feeling, Sentiments, Sensation. Emotion is a mental state associated with thoughts and feelings (Emotion 2019). We unconsciously tend to express ourselves in different ways and we include our emotions in our rhetorics. It comes in both ways , the sentence we use and the way we speak. So what are the different kind of emotions?

Here are few examples:

Fear : Any delays beyond the given time will result in an automatic grade cut, irrespective of the reasons.

Anger : I never expected this from you, you ditched me over him.

Guilt : I am sorry, I was not able to join you for the meeting. I fell sick terribly.

Pride : I knew I will win this race, I know how good runner I am.

Emotions have no limit to it, we use them everywhere. Sometimes we do that consciously and sometimes unconsciously. We should know the importance of emotions, if not used properly or at the right moment. It can effect us badly. Let’s look at this incident:

Aditi was smart, driven, and a great professional women who had an amazing track record. She was giving her interviews and during one interview, she had impressed her supervisors by her passion, drive, and creative ideas. They recruited her to implement rigorous audit processes. Just a few weeks after joining, Aditi drew from her previous experience and generated many new and creative ideas to overhaul the financial audit processes. Her supervisors had given her all the responsibility and authority to bring about the important changes. Though, she quickly encountered a problem and came up with solutions but her peers and team members would not buy into her ideas.

What was missing there? Even after coming up with solutions, why had Aditi failed? She had failed to include emotions and never took the time and effort to involve her peers and team members in the decision-making and convince them of the need for change.

Thus it is important to know that, in order to persuade others to your point of view, you must understand what truly moves your audience and then appeal through the elements.

Advertisements

In today’s life, the world is driven by another world called as a virtual world. Advertisements play a bigger role in it. Thus, to connect to the audience (where audience is not specific and is very broadly categorized), good persuasive advertisement schemes are required. These advertisements also include the three mode of persuasion, Pathos is a critical element which captures the audience eyes. Let us look at some of the known advertisements. Emotions create responses and, in the increasingly consumer-driven culture, the response is to buy something. Pathos appeals to an audience’s basic emotions like joy, fear, and envy. All are easily triggered in many ways.

A story of a Transgender — Vicks Touch of Care

Stuck up in an arduous lifestyle of lacking human rights or even minimal social acceptance, Vicks aims to redefine the meaning of family in a contemporary society with #TouchOfCare, a campaign that embraces maternity with a slight variation but the same affection.

Vicks Touch of care, the slogan itself has made an emotional appeal to the audience and adding a real story would instantly capture their eyes.

Fallacious Pathos

Emotions used in any form of rhetoric in order to sway the opinions of the audience without any purpose and logic leads to the fallacious pathos. Some of the ways to identify them are:

Argument by Emotive Language: Using emotional words that are not supported by evidence and/or are unconnected to the argument being made (Gayle).

Appeal to Pity: Drawing on irrelevant personal experiences or feelings in order to produce a sympathetic response (Gayle).

The Slippery Slope: Suggesting that a particular argument or course of action will lead to disastrous consequences without offering evidence. This fallacy usually produces an emotional response (Gayle).

Argument by Dismissal: Rejecting an idea without providing a reason or explanation for its dismissal (Gayle).

Thus, such arguments which are given above should be avoided in any form of rhetoric. The new study known as emotional intelligence has come up which devoid logical fallacy. Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to identify and manage one’s own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. It focusses on self regulation, where we learn to use emotions in a right manner (Sussex). While you might be smart and have all the right skills to succeed at your job, if you lack emotional intelligence, there’s a high chance you’ll struggle to fully succeed in the workplace as is the case with your life.

Learn more by visiting:

1. How to use rhetoric to get what you want https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3klMM9BkW5o
2. https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/pathos

Works Cited

“To Increase Charitable Donations, Appeal to the Heart — Not the Head.” Knowledge@Wharton. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 27 June, 2007. Web. 11 March, 2019 <http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/to-increase-charitable-donations-appeal-to-the-heart-not-the-head/>

“Inspirational Quotations by Vincent Van Gogh (Dutch Painter).” Inspirational Quotations, www.inspiration.rightattitudes.com/authors/vincent-van-gogh/.

“Survivor Story: Four Children and a 16-Year Relationship.” Polaris, 26 Oct. 2017, polarisproject.org/blog/2015/05/03/survivor-story-four-children-and-16-year-relationship.

Gayle, Kendra. “Kendra Gayle, Jessica McKee, and Megan McIntyre.” Writing Commons, writingcommons.org/161-information-literacy/rhetorical-analysis/591-pathos.

“Emotion.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion.

Gayle, Kendra. “Kendra Gayle, Jessica McKee, and Megan McIntyre.” Writing Commons, writingcommons.org/fallacious-pathos.

“Emotional Intelligence.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/emotional-intelligence.

The Hidden Sentiments was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

But what is eloquence really? Through time, we can find multiple instances where scholars have tried to define eloquence.

One of the claims was that “eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak” (Jasinski 199).

This talks about the importance of keeping the persona of the audience and the decorum in mind while crafting and presenting a speech.

The Synergistic Effect Of Eloquence

Scholars have termed Eloquence to be a fusion of factors.

Winston Churchill has described it as the fusion of speaker, delivery, matter-at-issue, language, image, occasion, and audience into a live articulation of meaning-into a commanding moment of eloquence (Jasinski 199).

As a student in rhetoric study, I would coin eloquence as a synergy of the body language, eye contact, delivery, pace, movement, follow of decorum, emotional appeal, audience centric weaving of the speech together, voice modulation at play.

This synergistic effect of the underlying factors helps in solving one simple problem: it converges the attention of the wandering minds of the audience to register the crux of the discourse. It then paves way towards shaping the realities that they believe in by touching the chords of the heart.

The Key To An Eloquent Speech

I recently watched a video of a woman speaking for the Sikh community in America. I was left deeply moved, yet optimistic about the future of the minority community in America. It was strange because I am not an American, in fact I have never visited America. Nor am I a minority in my own country. Yes, I am not Sikh too. And it was only later that I came to know of Valerie Kaur, the speaker in the video.

If we closely listen to the video and break down the aspects that helped us connect with the speech, my list would have the following: use of personal stories with use of descriptive speech leading to imagery in the mind of the audience, short yet impactful sentences, the progression of the speech from the dark reality of the present to an optimism about the future, the strong feelings with which she presented the speech, strength in her voice, pace and voice modulation.

I haven’t mentioned body language because I wasn’t particularly a fan of the slight wobble in her stance and the constant pursing of the lips together during speech delivery. It usually indicates nervousness, but here it did not contribute to making the speech any less eloquent. So here’s how it is, for eloquence, one needn’t check boxes of every factor that lead to it. Again, it’s a synergy of a couple of factors appropriately selected keeping in mind the context of the speech and audience.

Here, above all, if Valerie wasn’t truly feeling what she wanted her audience to feel, the speech wouldn’t be as impactful.

Few examples for how this speech has remained in the minds of the people can be seen below:

Kelly Wickham Hurst on Twitter

This has become a thing I watch when one year is leaving and another is incoming. A reminder to breathe by Valerie Kaur speaking @ the National Moral Revival Watch Night Service.. https://t.co/eA6kYohdHo

Speakola on Twitter

This Valerie Kaur speech is one for the season, whatever you call it. An interfaith speech for the ages. "On Christmas Eve 103 years ago, my grandfather waited in a dark and dank cell." https://t.co/LLaUMLDpDk

From the above tweets, it is interesting to note how this speech is remembered even after three years of its delivery and still connects to people.

Let’s Make Our Speeches Stand The Test of Time

Before you start your journey of being an eloquent speaker, it is important to spend sufficient time reflecting upon the message you want your audience to carry home.

If we go back to Valerie Kaur’s speech, by comparing comments and tweets on various social media platforms, we can see that most people have expressed a strong connect to these lines:

This is in fact the message Valerie Kaur wished her audience to take home.

To ensure your audience connects to the message you wish to convey, make sure you feel passionately about what you are going to say, have a strong belief in everything that you want others to believe in and reflect that confidence during the delivery through your voice, eye contact, body language.

Feel what you want the audience to feel. Feel the passion towards the motherland when you want to evoke feelings of patriotism, truly feel the pain of the families of the martyrs if you are giving a condolence speech, submit to yourself first if you want others to submit to you.

To elaborate on this very idea, consider what state you want your audience to be in and then consider what state you have to be in to put your audience in that state.

Let’s say we have to deliver a speech about a new product/ technology/ service to be introduced by our company to the public. Then we will want to elicit curiosity, wonder, excitement, sense of discovery and build a sense of closeness and partnership with the audience. I’d then suggest we choose to reflect a sense of belief in our voice, stand light on feet, move laterally across the stage using gestures congruent with the content, voices and expressions, maintain an air of playfulness while coming up with ways to build connections with the audience through our narration and let the synergy of these factors lead our way towards being an eloquent speaker.

Now, consider a situation where you have to deliver a speech wherein you are now required to restore brand credibility after a proven glitch from your company’s end. If you are a student, consider a situation wherein you have to deliver a speech to restore credibility about a team you are leading after it goofs up a pre-fest event. Reflect upon what are the factors of eloquence you would include in your speech to make your customers trust your brand/ team again.

The Role Of Eloquence In Shaping Political History

Eloquence, as we have seen, is the close study of how to get a message to live in the minds of an audience. Rightly so, this key concept has been especially used in political discourses to leave an impact on the prospective voters of a region. A research finding by Harvard Business School suggests that more eloquent politicians are found to be more likeable and trustable even when the comparison is between a person who directly answered a question asked, but less eloquently and a person who dodged the question asked in an eloquent manner while participating in a political debate. Obama’s candidacy is said to have founded on a speech, specifically, his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention (Masket).

He draws his audience through well-crafted, compelling, poetic discourses using logos, pathos and ethos to back a central thesis by using instances from the common life of Americans which connects to most of his audience and also sharing the story about his roots. He has a real knack for connecting personal stories with the long sweep of history and conveying a profoundly optimistic worldview. The power in his voice, pacing, open body language, voice modulation always captivates the minds of the audience. Eloquent oration has been important to many other presidents in their rise to prominence.

Revitalizing Eloquence In The Contemporary World

If we focus on traditional political rhetoric, it is now a declining art. Candidates have more ways to get a message out, pictures can mean as much as words, and fewer people see major political speeches. In the 1950's and 1960's, presidential candidates were still selling themselves in five-minute speeches as campaign ads.

Now their speeches are mostly ways to highlight the 15-second sound bite they hope will get on the news or vehicles to get talking heads on television to rave about speeches most viewers haven’t seen (Applebome).

Undoubtedly, the art of eloquence has also been impacted by the technical and cultural changes of the time. Scholar Jamieson argues that “Manly” eloquence has been replaced by an “effeminate” style (Jasinski 200).

In simpler terms, it is a shift from abstract, hierarchical, dominating, and problem-solving oriented discourse to use of narrative, concrete examples, analogies, and anecdotes as primary evidence sources, use of personal tone and encouragement of audience participation. This can be witnessed in both the speeches linked above, especially through the narration of their personal stories to build a deep connection with their audience.

Some feminist scholars hail the decline of the masculinist ideal of eloquence. They believe that new norms and ideals, not tarnished by the masculinist rhetorical must be developed. But the question here might to be find out how the two ideals of eloquence can be brought closer to revitalize the backbone of rhetoric.

Next time we come across a speech, let us analyse it further and try to find out which factors are contributing to making the speech eloquent and which are the factors that could have been added to make it more impactful. From the great speeches of all time, let us handpick factors both from the “manly” and “effeminate” styles, appropriate to the speech we are to deliver. Let us experience the synergistic effect of eloquence, by making our audience feel it. Today, let us all consciously start our journey towards being an eloquent orator.

References

Applebome, Peter. “Is Eloquence Overrated?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/weekinreview/13applebome.html.

Jasinski, James L. Sourcebook on Rhetoric. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2001. Print.

Masket, Seth. “The Effectiveness of Obama’s Oratory.” Pacific Standard. Pacific Standard, 14 Feb. 2017. Web. 25 Feb. 2019.

Eloquence: the key to delivering a speech that will be remembered was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Since time immemorial — and I know this sounds like I have not done my research, but that’s not the case- we, Indians have enjoyed and more importantly, even venerated sexual activity. Sex was good, fun and definitely NOT A TABOO. But through the larger colonial influences on our culture sex became from a natural, enjoyable phenomenon to something we should be ashamed of.

Porn is nothing but a representation of sexuality in any medium. Be it video, text or even sculpture and paintings. Our Indian culture has understood, respected and enjoyed these representations. Khajuraho temples and Kamasutra and Shiv Puran are examples of texts that have not shied from talking about sex and even sexual representations that we today call porn.

In the last decade, an opinion among certain radical factions that, porn was one of the major reasons for violence against women, grew strong. This opinion was carried forward by the ruling party which resulted in a draconian policy in 2015 which ended up banning several porn sites in India.

On July 31, 2015, the Department of Information Technology had asked the Telecommunications to deactivate 857 URLs related to adult websites.

This was a drastic step by the government, which resulted in immediate and severe criticism from people from all walks of life. Let us have look at how these events unfolded.

In 2013, Kamlesh Vaswani filed a petition to ban all access and distribution of pornography.

In 2015, DoT notifies ISPs to ban 857 URLs

After 3 days of the DoT ban, only porn sites showing child pornography will be banned, clarified by government officials.

In August 2015, the Government of India banned access to 857 porn sites. Department of Telecom notified internet service providers to block access to these 857 URLs, under Section 79(3)(b) of Information Technology Act, 2000. The content on these websites related to morality, decency as given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. This list of 857 URLs was given by petitioner Kamlesh Vaswani to government officials on 17 October 2014. However, later the Government backtracked by saying it only plans to ban websites showing content related to ‘child pornography’. In November 2014, the Government had banned access to sites hosting pornography; the ban was later lifted due to heavy public pressure to unblock porn sites.

The department of Electronics and Information Technology had asked the Department of Telecom to notify internet service providers to block access to 857 URLs. The notification functioned under the provision of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

This was a complicated policy decision, based on several socio-political occurrences at the time.

Our lives as citizens are governed by various factors, some of which are government policies. With the advent of democracy as the leading form of governance post the First Great War, we have taken a lot of decisions as a populous by rules and regulations collectively agreed upon. These set of rules and actions are called policies.

policy (n.1)

the term was derived from Old French à policie; Latin à politia; Greek à politeia during the early 1400 B.C.E when its meaning was similar to “political organization, civil administration, citizenship”

Probably the best-known, simple and short definition of public policy has been offered by Thomas Dye, ‘anything a government chooses to do or not to do’ (Dye, 1972: 2)

While many organizations and actors create policies to which their members must adhere, we focus on ‘public’ policies made by governments that affect and influence every member of a nation-state or a subnational jurisdiction. The ‘actions’ we are concerned with in this case are government decisions to act, or not to act, to change or maintain some aspect of the status quo (Birkland, 2001: ch. 1)

Have you ever wondered though what the governing litigations that caused these events were? How were these policies formed? Let’s dive deep into exploring these issues.

Now that we understand what policy is and how much it can impact our lives and history. Let’s unpack the porn ban policy by using stock topics and figure out how policies are made.

Stock topics are Rhetoric tools used by policymakers to make effective policies. They are

1) Ill;

2) Blame or Cause;

3) Cure;

4) Consequences;

ILL

Policies are solutions to problems. To find a solution we first need to define the problem/ill. This can be done most effectively by asking questions. And answers to these questions will help us understand the real problems we need to solve with the policy solution.

Let’s try and see how this is effective in figuring out the problem.

Does a problem exist? How probable is it that the ill will develop? Is it urgent? How long will it last? How significant (in terms of qualitative severity and quantitative magnitude) is it?

This idea of discovering the problem by asking these questions is highly effective in figuring out the root problem that the policy is trying to solve and hence are a necessary first step in creating policies. Without a clear understanding of the problem and its various aspects and scope that is a real chance, we might end up with policies that are ineffective and incomplete in solving the core problem.

Ill can be understood as

1. Physical

2. Failure to meet objectives

3. A general sense that things could be better.

We can understand thus that, problems — ills, are an idea that things are wrong and need corrective intervention.

We must also remember how ills are perceived as different by different people, something that seems to be a definitive solution for a group of people might not be so for others or would be just a start to a much larger narrative.

Ills have a way of changing with time when the solution to a problem ends up becoming a problem in itself. There is a huge ambiguity in which such concepts are applied and the shift in public perception helps us understand that. There can be several negative consequences of a policy- exposed in a policy debate- that might constitute a “new” ill, but the policy itself isn’t an Ill.

BLAME or CAUSE

After understanding the problem/ill, we will use a similar question and answer method to understand in detail what is the cause of the problem and who is to blame for it.

Who or what is responsible for the ill? Was it done on purpose, or was it an accident? Is the ill inherent in the human condition or in the social structure?

This inherency can be of two kinds.

Structural inherency — inherency can be built in the system or the culture of the people and hence it becomes a problem that is not a single occurrence but a problem that is inherent to the social fabric.

Attitudinal inherency — This is the cause which helps us understand the social reasons why this problem exists. Unpacking this aspect we come to realize that the legislation doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Both the legislation and legislative entities are made and run by social beings and influenced by social practices. So it’s the social values and beliefs that are reflected by the rules and procedures.

By establishing that the problem is inherent and not apparent we are able to establish that minor reforms are not going to be sufficient.

If it is, are there ways in which we can palliate it? If not, capable of remediation?

It is important to think carefully on the relationship between ill and blame — Causality because at times it can be confusing. It is determining if its a cause that has CAUSED an ill or are they just parallel occurrences.

It is generally difficult to decide who is to blame for an ill, and its exactly these errors in understanding causality which results in policy which isn’t a solution at all to the ill that is in question.

It also helps in establishing that there might not be a final solution to this problem because of its deep-seated causes and reforms will take time and the effects might not be absolute.

Cure

It is the proposed solution of the determined ill and it’s cause. Using questions let us understand what is ‘cure’.

What is the proposed solution for the ill? How feasible is the cure? Does the cure promise to remove the ill completely-solve the problem — or is it merely a temporary palliative while we Look for a more permanent solution?

if the cure not comprehensive or does not promise to completely solve the situation then it is a point of the contest if this solution is temporary or part of a permanent solution.

The cure has to be tailored according to two main issues

Solvency and workability

Solvency

When the cure has been determined to not be comprehensive there are several dialogues that take place between the policies makers. There are arguments to make for and against the proposed cure. The following chart effectively depicts some of the directions such discussions can take.

But most cures which are not definitive fall under the area of being partial and solving/lessening some part of the problem while waiting for a comprehensive solution.

In normal cultural parlance, if the solution seems to work even a little bit, it should be tried out, and that is exactly what was done.

Workability

It is necessary to understand if the solution is feasible or not to be put into action even if it seems effective on paper. If we have technical and structural feasibility to implement a solution.

CONSEQUENCES

cures have consequences, which are generally unintended. Even if they are intended, they aren’t the expected primary effect of the cure.

There could be good consequences — Ones which have unintended positive cultural effects on social situations.

There could also be bad consequences- when can be understood as

1. Material consequences — those that result in loss of money and resources.
2. Social consequences — the price paid in terms of loss of social capital and loss of the rights of people then or infringements that can cause loss of rights later.

We will analyze the policy of porn ban through the lenses of these stock topics.

Cases of rape and violence against women have been progressively increasing. There are news articles flashed every day of women being violated, gang-raped and murdered. India as a country has gained a global reputation for being unsafe for women. Children as young as 18 months are getting abducted and raped

As stated in Kamlesh Vaswani’s original Public Interest Litigation

“the sexual offender or rapist achieves his gratification, not from sexual release alone but also from the thrill of domination, control, and power. In the December 2012 Delhi Gang Rape the girl was physically and sexually tortured by a gang, She lost her life after heavy resistance.”

The ill here is the brutally unsafe treatment of women.

This has already been developing for a while and has worsened in recent times as this problem has been ignored for quite some time and needed to be engaged with right away.

It is certainly not a new problem but the frequency of it has made it really pertinent. Women in India are now more aware of their rights; victims are more open to taking a strong stand making it possible to get a better understanding of this social evil. The advent of social media and connectivity has helped give a voice to victims of such crimes and supports of them to stand by them.

Rape is the fourth most common crime against women in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2013 annual report, 24,923 rape cases were reported across India in 2012. Out of these, 24,470 were committed by someone known to the victim (98% of the cases). There is no woman in the country that hasn’t faced some kind of sexual harassment or advances.

Using the concept of ill we can now understand that in the case of the Porn Ban The ill is — Increasing instances of violent crime against women in India.

In India, in 2012 a physiotherapist intern named Jyoti was subjected to a brutal gang rape that resulted in her death a few days later, in the national capital of Delhi. This wasn’t the first case of gang rape in India by any account but this did capture the public attention and several youths and social media campaigns to bring the perpetrators to justice arose. The government obliged with speedy prosecution and death sentence for all the perpetrators but one as he was legally a minor. There was a public outcry for his prosecution as well. Very soon juvenile acts were amended to make sure that the last perpetrator was persecuted too.

But for a lot of others, this was merely a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The problem was the treatment of women in the country and the insufficient protective and legal infrastructure to ensure it. It was a social, cultural and a historical Ill, that needed to be engaged through several different perspectives and not just legal.

This is one of the reasons why later in 2013 a petition was filed by lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani, a lawyer at Indore High Court, to ban access and distribution of porn in India. He was acting in response to several occurrences of a brutal rape by up in drawing a connection between pornography and crimes against women. His petition said:

“Watching porn itself puts the country’s security in danger, encourages violent acts, unacceptable behavior in society, and exploitation of children and lowers the dignity of women and he believes watching online pornography has a direct co-relation with crimes against women.”

Here, Ill was the lack of security and safety of women, and through some correlations, it would have seemed appropriate to consider porn as the cause of such acts and even a logical solution, according to some people, to ban it. But the porn ban itself acted as an Ill for a lot of people who believed that their fundamental rights and choices are being infringed upon and violated by an increasingly controlling government administration.

Men who believed that they could hurt women and get away with it were responsible for this ill. But this was just the tip of the iceberg, patriarchal social structure, lack of judiciary repercussions in a timely fashion, lack of social support to victims of violent sexual crimes, social abuse of such victims, acceptance of known perpetrators of such crimes in the society, women who encouraged/accepted such behaviors, all were responsible for such an ill. Surprisingly the petition or the judgment did not take these aspects into account.

According to the petition filed by Mr. Vaidya

“Petitioner strongly believes that most of the crimes against women/girls/children like gang rape and sexual assault are definitely fueled by watching pornography.”

Perhaps, with the right social reforms and educational changes, we might be able to with time palliate the effect of an ill. Maybe. Reform of such individuals may be possible, though it is an ongoing debate if it would help in the social condition that has resulted in this Ill if litigation focused on the remediation instead of punishment and resolution.

Everyone agreed upon the fact that “women being raped” was an Ill, but there were several opinions on who is to blame for such practices being rampant.

The proposed solution to this Ill was the ban to pornographic website access, among other reforms as more number of courts being set up to prosecute rape cases and more number of judges being assigned to such tasks.

We can argue that banning porn could have some effects on behavioral psyche of the perpetrators and could stop men from aspiring for sex and hence performing acts of sexual violence, but it can also be argued that without the respite of pornographic material and self-gratification, men will be more prone to commit rape — this is an ongoing debate with no answer to this question.

The porn ban in our case solves the problem of heightened sexual desires or men and resulting rape to a certain extent, but it does nothing to deal with the reasons why men feel the need/liberty to rape in the first place. Why we as a society do not help the victims and how do we deal with the perpetrator.

There might have been some tangential correlation between rape and porn but a ban on porn was a direct infringement to the right to privacy of an entire country, also there are over 40,000 websites with their domains registered in India and many more registered in other countries and dismantling them would be really very difficult, making this solution unfeasible and its workability low at best and hence it’s repealing within a week.

Under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, publishing pornographic content is an offense in India, but viewing it is not. Hence, any debate on ‘Right to Privacy’ or ‘Personal Liberty’ won’t stand as the Government banned 857 porn sites under a defined law. It did not ‘ban’ anyone from viewing the content. The content was banned from being published in the first place.

Such cures have consequences, which are generally unintended.

good consequences — because of the porn ban, human trafficking to fuel the porn industry would reduce.

bad consequences

1. Material consequences –

a. Loss of revenue by digital service providers.

b. Loss of jobs in the porn and allied industries.

c. Cost of Law Enforcement.

2. Social consequences –

a. Right to privacy of citizens

b. Precedence for the governing bodies to also encroach upon other basic rights.

This might be too big a social price to pay.

Works cited

1. Staff, Scroll. “Uttarakhand HC Orders Blocking of over 850 Adult Sites after Alleged Rape of a Minor in Dehradun.” Scroll.in — Latest News, In Depth News, India News, Politics News, Indian Cinema, Indian Sports, Culture, Video News, 27 Sept. 2018. Web. 11 Mar. 2019.
2. “Pornography: Is the Extreme Picking up Steam?” NewsGram. NewsGram, 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 11 Mar. 2019.
3. “Polis (n.).” Index. N.p., May 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2019.
4. Dye, Thomas R. (1972) Understanding Public Policy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall)
5. Birkland, Thomas A. (2001) An Introduction to the Policy Process; Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe)
6. Jasinski, James L. Sourcebook on Rhetoric. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2001. Print.
7. Bakchod, All India. “AIB : Rape — It’s Your Fault.” YouTube. YouTube, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2019.
8. “PornographyPetition.pdf.” Google Docs. Google, Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Mar. 2019.
9. N.p., n.d. Web.
10. “Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.” The Centre for Internet and Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2019.
11. The videos are created by the author by combining other videos which are cited in the description and cards.

Ban Porn was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

December 7, 1970. The German Chancelor Willy Brandt visits Poland to mend Polish-West Germany relations. At the end of his visit, he approaches the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising memorial (“The Monument to Ghetto Heroes”) and falls to his knees, in an act of apology that makes news around the world. This was an apology that had no words but simply raw emotion, and that can often make a huge impact. The gesture is a symbol of asking for forgiveness today and even has a monument dedicated to it. Brandt, later said, “… I acted in the way of those whom language fails.” It is to date thought to be an important step in restoring relations between Germany and Easter European countries.

Governments around the world have not been strangers to saying sorry. Often governments, as part of the regime they were run by at the time, have committed crimes, atrocities and human rights abuses. Many have decided to stay mum on the matter, despite widespread recognition of their violence, both externally and internally. Many governments have apologized for their wrongdoings in order to soother the pain or just to address the elephant in the room. Interestingly enough, sometimes governments also choose to acknowledge the crime and not outright apologize for it either. On the change of government, a few have resorted to Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to ease the suffering of the victims and legitimize their struggles with loss of family, loved ones and inquire about the gross injustices that may have taken place against them or their communities in the previous regime.

The Anatomy of the Apology

Apologia is derived from the Greek word of the same name and is defined as the “defense of one’s actions and opinions”. Today, the definition of apology is not limited to that. Often, if one were to defend their actions of wrong-doing, they would be criticized and ridiculed, and would appear on a list of worst apologies of the year. Jokes apart, apologies are important. On a personal scale it is easy to understand the power of a well-thought out, straight-from-the-heart apology. Blatz et al. condenses the interpersonal apology into six elements. They are as follows —

• Remorse — saying “I’m sorry”
• Acceptance of responsibility — saying “It’s my fault”
• Admission of injustice — saying “What I did was wrong”
• Acknowledgement of harm — saying “I know you are upset”
• Promises to behave better in the future — saying “I will never do it again”
• Offers of repair — saying “I will pay for damages”

The large scale apology is not too different — except a lot rides on the quality of the apology being made. Often simply saying sorry will not cut it. If the victimized group is asking for reparations then saying sorry will imply that the apology will not be accepted. The reverse is also true. In 2007, when the then Canadian government decided to remove a statement of apology as part of the settlement with its indigenous communities, it was not well received at all. The community responded saying, “We are extremely disappointed that the current government does not understand the significant role an apology would have in the healing and reconciliation process for our people.” To counter this Blatz et al. provided four additional elements to make a final ten elements of a governmental apology —

• The government might choose to address the identity concerns of a minority — this might answer why this minority has been facing oppression at the hands of other communities
• The government might seek to phrase its apology to least avoid backlash from the majority — majorities may often strongly oppose an apology to a minority
• The government might seek to include praise for the current system — this encourages people to believe that they live in a country which is fair and just (NB: it may also be used to establish “political good will” and also paint the image of a “noble” party in a populist structure)
• The government might dissociate itself from the regime in which the injustices occurred — the laws then are not be same as those that were before — acts of discrimination were often legal — be it mass murder, extremely high taxes, etc.

When it comes to large scale apologies done at a national scale, national memory is at stake, and a good one can even kick start a rebuilding process of society itself, as is the case of South Africa post-apartheid and post-TRC. A healthy understanding of these ten elements, and an honest and heartfelt application can surely do wonders.

The Rhetorics of the Apology

James L. Jasinski, in the entry on Apologia in his book Sourcebook on Rhetoric (which also happens to be the base of this assignment) has documented work on the rhetoric of apology. Ware and Linkugel, in 1973, divided the genre into two — the postures or the goals that the delivered apology seeks to achieve, and the tactics or the strategies that the apologizer will use to achieve the goal they wish to. To understand it better, they are supposed with examples of interpersonal apologies.

The postures are further divided into five categories-

• Seeking Acquittal. To acknowledge the charge and deny the accusation. Chetan Bhagat’s large post on Facebook fits the bill exactly.
• Seeking Absolution. To acknowledge the charge and admit guilt. Tony Robbins makes a heartfelt apology after his inappropriate comments at an event — https://twitter.com/TonyRobbins/status/983012094760177665
• Attempting Explanation. To acknowledge the charge and offer one’s side of the story. Varun Grover’s open letter regarding allegations against him are a good example of this — https://medium.com/@varungrover/an-open-letter-to-find-some-closure-d8bd8dad8ca9
• Seeking Vindication. To not acknowledge the charge and misdirecting the accusation. Although Kevin Spacey acknowledges that he may have done something, he does a good job changing the subject — https://twitter.com/KevinSpacey/status/924848412842971136
• Justification. To redefine the act in question to something justifiable/praiseworthy/noble.

The four tactics are further divided into four categories-

• Strategies of Denial. These include forms of denial that may be used to disagree with the accusation. They include denial of substance, of intent, of extent of consequences, and forms of indirect denial.
• Bolstering. The process of linking the accused to something greater, such as to family values or the objects like the flag.
• Differentiation. This seeks to create distinctions between the act and the element of the situation.
• Transcendence. This includes a significant reinterpretation of the act in question.

A good example of how this works is that of Turkey’s after they shot a Russian plane down that apparently violated their airspace, and were diplomatically cornered by other countries and thereby forced out an apology. Erdoğan cleverly apologised by saying, “would like to inform the family of the deceased Russian pilot that I share their pain and to offer my condolences to them. May they excuse us.” No apology was made to the Russian government, nor any reparations offered for the destroyed plane. Erdoğan didn’t apologize for shooting down the plane. The apology was for the pilot who lost his life and for nothing else. This is an interesting example of how to politically maneuver oneself, while also mildly ceding to political pressure. If we were to analyze it as per the above information of the goals and tactics used to apologize — then this apology seeks to achieve vindication; this would be the goal. It is an “indirect response to charge” (“the family of the deceased Russian pilot”) and the charge — of shooting a Russian plane down — was never acknowledged. Instead the collateral damage of the loss of the pilot’s life was condemned. As far as the tactics are concerned, significant redefinition or reinterpretation of the questionable act took place, thereby confirming that the tactic of transcendence was made use of here.

Public Apology for Crimes of Years Past

Jasinski says,

In life, an attack upon a person’s character, upon his [sic] worth as a human being, does seem to demand a direct response. The questioning of a man’s moral nature, motives, or reputation is qualitatively different from the challenging of his policies.

In a public apology, reputation comes into play. In an apology, the kind a government has to mete out for itself, the audience receiving the apology is huge, not just one person or a bunch of people. Another added pressure that comes along with governmental apologies is the disapproval of the apology by the opposition. In some governments, apologies are far from being given, such as in Turkey for the Armenian Genocide, in Japan for the Nanjing Massacre (what is also called The Rape of Nanking) or for Pakistan’s 1971 Genocide of Bangladesh. Many of the time, addressing a crime that the government had indulged in comes at loggerheads with national interest as well as national pride. Often, governments may even shun literature and media that seeks to discredit or defame a country because of its involvement with the said perpetration.

Where apologizes on behalf of governments are concerned, Justin Trudeau, Prime Minster of Canada seems to have been busy in the apologies department. In November 2016, he apologized for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914, where Sikh, Hindu and Muslim individuals were denied entry into Canada. In November 2017, he apologized to the indigenous people of Newfoundland and Labrador where children from indigenous families were separated and admitted in residential schools, where many said they had faced abuse. Later in the same month, Trudeau apologized for the “ state-sponsored, systematic oppression and rejection” of LGBT Canadians. In November 2018, he apologized on behalf of the federal government for rejection of a ship of Jewish refugees in 1939 fleeing the Holocaust. He called for an end to antisemitism and that this was a “shameful event in Canadian history”. Oh, to be Canadian and apologetic.

Trudeau, in his time at the top of the Canadian government, has apologized four times. It’s interesting to see his approach to apologies. Many of them generally seem like acts of goodwill — this of course is backed by his proactive social equality actions like having a cabinet of an equal number of men and women, as well as his participation in LGBT pride parades. As per Jasinski’s entry, all apologies seem to seek absolution — Canada admits wrongdoing and agrees to never do it again — and reaffirms a commitment in something greater (such as the call for an end to antisemitism). For the various stakeholders in these apologies — it would have been a moment of relief — to finally have received an acknowledgement for the injustices they and their families would have faced under these terrible actions.

On February 13, 2008, the then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the indigenous population of Australia for forced removal of children from their families (also called The Stolen Generations) by state as well as federal forces. Some of the lines in PM Rudd’s apology include

That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
[…]
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
[…]
For the pain, suffering, and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
[…]
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

This is a powerful apology, following which a compensation and reparation plan was talked about in the Parliament by Rudd. Many have considered this to be a powerful start to apologies and revisiting the painful memories of separation, loss of culture, loss of identity and ripping apart of the familial fabric. Often this is the first step that is required for a generation to reconcile with its past. Rudd’s apology on behalf of the Australian government was a good one, simply because it aimed to seek absolution for it’s past crimes. As far as the tactics are concerned — it aimed to bolster itself in the eyes of the public — by linking itself to the idea of Australia being a free and fair nation and that the Parliament would never do such a thing again.

The Jasinski entry can be applied in any apology to check and analyze. Often, the authenticity, the sincerity and the honesty with which an apology is rendered can be understood. Further, autopsies on these expressions of regret can also be analyzed to understand and identify any underlying motives in the choice of tactics used or the goal that is looking to be achieved. In conclusion, it’s smart to stay informed and to be skeptical. Jasinski’s documentation on the rhetoric of apologies are a fantastic tool to be aware and alert to the subtle undertones that celebrities, politicians and governments may use to make their case.

As far as the quality of apologies is concerned — a great apology would probably be one that makes use of all ten criteria to properly and respectfully acknowledge injustices and provide the confidence of it never being repeated again. Furthermore, one can also saying that using the right rhetoric styles and ideas could only make one’s case for an apology. Lastly, the most important thing to keep in mind while delivering an apology is the apologee. One must be careful to keep in mind the unfairness, the crimes and the abuse that a community would have gone through. It must always be kept in mind that the apology is for relieving the persons and the community of their pain, and not for absolving a guilty party from their misdeeds (although this may happen as a by-product of the apology). The survivors must always come first.

Closure is a beautiful thing.

Read More (read: stuff I went through for this article but did not include them)

A documentary clip on Der Kniefall von Warschau

The branched out piece on Genocide Denial on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia article on the Nanking Massacre denial.

The Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide denial.

The Wikipedia section on the Bangladeshi Genocide denial.

Smithsonian Magazine’s article on the Bangladesh Genocide.

The extremely well-detailed Wikipedia article on Australia’s Stolen Generations.

An interesting website called Sorry Watch which claims to “praise the good [apologies] and fling metaphorical monkey poop at the bad ones”.

A 7-minute NPR podcast clip on the “Economics of Apologies”.

Australia’s National Sorry Day and the effect of the Rudd apology ten years on.

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, the request for an apology one hundred years later, and UK’s “reflection” on the matter.

Bibliography

Jasinski, James L. “Apologia.” Jasinski, James L. Sourcebook on Rhetoric. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2001. 20–22.

Blatz, Craig W., Karina Schumann, and Michael Ross. “Government apologies for historical injustices.” Political Psychology 30.2 (2009): 219–241.

How Governments Apologize was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The Rhetorical Construction of Enemies: A look at how and why language is used to create enemies.

What common aspect connects the countries of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran? These nations are considered as the “enemy” of the United States of America. While there doesn’t exist any official declaration which brands the aforementioned nations as the foes of the US, a 2016 Gallup Poll result showed that Americans are most likely to name these countries as their nation’s enemy. In the 2018 iteration, the countries remained unchanged, but North Korea assimilated almost 51% of votes, more than 3 times what the country had received in the poll 24 months before. So, what exactly paints the picture of these nations as the enemy of the USA in the mind of American citizens? This is done so by using a rhetorical technique known as enemy construction.

But first, what exactly is rhetoric?

In language studies, rhetoric is a field of study that deals with the study and practice of how language works. Rhetoric scholars analyse texts and speeches to understand the effect that language has on the world that a language interacts with. Orators or rhetors use various rhetoric devices for effective and persuasive speaking. Multiple rhetorical devices are then employed in various rhetorical techniques. Rhetorical techniques are a very powerful tool, and using them helps a rhetor to build a more powerful argument that can shape our emotions and thoughts about what we perceive and believe. This in turn leads to shaping of our realities. These realities then dictate our language : the words and statements that we use to communicate the idea that has been etched inside our heads.

While all this may seem a bit confusing, rhetorical techniques highlight the essence of what has now come to be known as speech act theory. In a rudimentary sense, speech act theory talks about how a statement spoken by an individual has 2 purposes :

• Speech is used to present information.
• Speech is used to perform an action and shape reality.

One of the primitive speech acts that does both of this is labelling. Labelling is used to create an identity of a person or an entity, which is also a kind of information. This identity defines the characteristics and behaviour of that entity in the mind of a person. The rhetorical construction of an enemy is one such kind of labelling.

To foe or not to foe

Before we dive deeper to understand the process of how and why something is branded as an enemy, let us understand who or what is an enemy? An enemy is someone or something that is harmful of hostile to someone or something.The term is most commonly associated with a hostile unit force or armed forces of a nation. Hence, the most significant trait of an enemy is to have a sense of threat or the ability to cause harm to someone.Thus, be it Nazi Germany or narcotic drugs, anything that has caused harm or has the potential to cause serious harm has been given the tag of an enemy.

The exercise of constructing an enemy is a rhetorical technique, which is recurrent in political discourse. This technique namely involves the use of rhetorical devices mainly scapegoating, polarisation, stock stories*, and condensation symbols to serve one purpose: establish the identity of an enemy. Right from 1930s America when Al Capone was dubbed as the “Public Enemy №1” by the Chicago Crime Commission to the present day tenure of the 45th POTUS Donald Trump, who has often dubbed the media as “Enemy of the People”, such a discourse has been deployed periodically by politicians and bureaucrats alike. But, how is this done? To explain the process and the effects of using this rhetorical technique, let’s take a look at the popular standoff between Donald Trump and the Media.

Donald Trump vs The Media

It’s all about the process

The portrayal of enemy is very specific and such a portrayal is done by the rhetor when the rhetor perceives a sense of threat or feels that they can be harmed by a group of people. Since this technique is mostly observed in political discourses, the threat is generally towards the existing status quo or power that is being held by the rhetor and the actions of the enemy acts as a threat to this status quo.

In such a case, the enemy is debased or denigrated mostly using name calling, sometimes even using derogatory remarks to portray the inhuman or ulterior motives of the enemy. In the context of politics, the focus is on delegitimising the work of the opposition . One instance of such behaviour is noticed in Donald Trump’s views on popular news agencies, which has been consistent from his days of campaigning to his tenure as the President.

Right from his days of campaigning for Presidency to his tenure at the White House, Trump has repeatedly attacked many news media outlets. Trump and his administration has often labeled the mainstream press as the “enemy of the American people”. And in his anti-press rhetoric, Trump has characterised the press with remarks like “lying”, “dishonest”, “third-rate”, “bad” and many more.

Donald Trump’s standoff against the media is not a mere exercise in gaining media attention. Sure, it does help him to grab some spotlight when compared to other politicians thanks to his brazen use of words. However, Trump’s efforts in building this divide between him and the media has been deliberate, and he knows the purpose of it very well.

One might argue that the sole purpose of branding any entity as an enemy is an exercise in maligning the concerned entity’s reputation. However, rhetoric scholars have found that such an exercise serves multiple purposes, which often skips a layman’s radar.

Let’s talk about the gains

American political scientist Murray Edelman in his book Constructing the Political Spectacle broadly identified that by the means of constructing an enemy there are 4 functions that are being fulfilled. And these 4 functions are fulfilled even in the case of Trump.

• Discourse about enemies reinforces institutional structures : Edelman in his book wrote that

“To establish governmental agencies to deal with external or internal security is to guarantee that their top officials will see serious threats to security and so pre-serve a function, a budget, and careers”.

• Discourse about enemies produces anxiety, which produces an opportunity for the public officials to mitigate that anxiety : Edelman remarked that

“If [public] yearning for security and protection creates leaders, leaders themselves do more than their share to construct the threats to well-being that keep those aspirations alive.”

• Discourse about enemies personify issues, thus giving abstract problems a tangible form : According to Edelman

The discourse of enemies, enacts a “displacement of resentments onto personified targets”.

• Discourse on enemies helps to overcome divisional barrier by unification against a common enemy : Edelman also pointed out

the discourse of enemies functions as a form of transcendence, making it possible for people who are divided on issues to overcome that division through a confrontation with the shared enemy. Discourse about enemies creates, in David Kertzer’s terms, “solidarity without consensus”.

Sun Tzu in his book Art of War said that

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

When we examine the purposes from the context of this standoff, the picture is very clear. Trump knows that the most powerful enemy to threaten his power is the media. And he doesn’t shy away in saying it out loud. By using such a choice of rhetoric, Trump has actively engaged the American people in reinforcing his opinion and strengthening his stand using Twitter. And he tweets about “Fake News” on a pretty regular basis as well. If you go to this link, you will find that Donald Trump mentioned about fake news or corrupt/dishonest media about 12 times in a span of 11 days.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS &amp; ABC? What about the failing @nytimes &amp; @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!

Firstly, calling out popular news agencies as the fake news gives the opportunity to develop a partisan divide between the media and the American public.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

Secondly, there has been a problem of fake news in the USA, with many websites created with the agenda of spreading misinformation. However, Trump has subverted this issue to the popular media and has succeeded in personifying an abstract problem and creating anxiety among public simultaneously. Trump has been strengthening his stand as a Messiah of the people who is trying to save the Democracy of America by calling out those institutions which peddle fake news having an anti-presidency bias. This gives him an opportunity to do work against the media.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it's TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division &amp; distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous &amp; sick!

And if you think this tactic hasn’t worked, then think about it again. A Gallup Poll in 2018 showed that the public confidence in television news and newspaper is among the least, when compared against the likes of Presidency, Military and organised religion.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!

This has not only helped him gain strong support from the likes of Republican party members and GOP supporters, Trump has also gained support from the most unlikeliest bunch of people — The Indian Twitter users.

Preeti Joshi on Twitter

@nytimes loses? F16 was shot down by India...Donald Trump is right media shows Fake News...NYT is clearly supporting the terrorist country and terrorism, at least try to be on the right side..

Subhajit Sen🌼™ on Twitter

Trump rightly call CNN as #FakeNews in USA just like #NDTV #TheWire #TheScroll #AltNews and #TheQuint of India 👎 #Presstitute #SoldOutMedia #BiasOpinion https://t.co/9Vm1SjO8sv

Mubeen Khan on Twitter

Donald Trump is right when he says that #FakeNews media is the REAL enemy of the PEOPLE. #Indian media has proved #Trump right. Indian media fuelled the war of #Twitter with #fake claims. Shameful! #Abhinandan #Pakistan #India #PakistanAirForce #Budgam #PakistanZindabad

And these tweets are not the only one. If you go to this link, you will find many other Indian Twitter users are rallying behind Trump in his rhetoric.

The other interesting part of this standoff is that Trump tweets from his personal account : @realDonaldTrump and not from the @POTUS account. This helps him to reach out to more people, as Trump’s own account has nearly 59 million followers compared to the 25.4 million followers of the POTUS account. Since this battle has been waging on for so long and has continued from his account, Donald Trump’s tactic has been more in the spotlight due to his tenure and has helped him gain some serious advantage over the media. Thus, even when Trump will no longer be at the helm of the government, the support that he rallied behind in his tenure will help him gain virtual immunity over what the press choses to report against him.

So, what do we do?

The recent testimonial of Michael Cohen brought to light that many news articles which Donald Trump dismissed as fake news were verified by the statements of his ex-attorney. Unsurprisingly, Trump has now gone on the offensive against Cohen.

It is evident that such a kind of rhetorical technique will be persisting in the political landscape. Politicians will try to use this to shape our thoughts and emotion about them and their rivals. But, as responsible readers and consumer of news, we should take into cognizance of this effect whenever we encounter such a discourse.

Perhaps next time, lets make an effort to delve deeper to find out what is the actual truth of the story before buying into any kind of narrative that will be surrounding us. Let our own wisdom shape our realities, and not mere performative acts of such kind of speech.

References

• *Stock stories are a set of fictional account templates which are used to justify a certain characteristic or stereotype of a person.
• Jasinki, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric.Sage Publications, 2001. Print.
• How Can Words Change the World? Performative Language. Dir. The Ling Space. Perf. Moti Lieberman. YouTube. The Ling Space, 16 Mar. 2016. Web.
• Jones, Ronnell Andersen, and Lisa Grow Sun. “Enemy Construction and the Press.” Arizona State Law Journal (2017). Print.
• Klein, Ezra. “”Enemy of the People”: How Trump Makes the Media into the Opposition.” Vox.com. Vox Media, 30 Oct. 2018. Web.

Do you Know the Enemy? was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

On November 15, 2016 honorable Prime Minister Narendra Modi made an earnest request to the to the people of India; to support the demonetization of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, asking them to bear the “pain” for “50 days” to help him deliver the “India of your dreams”.

Most of the times, at least — people can be persuaded. By Arguments.

Arguments aren’t that complicated most of the times. Each time you tell someone to do or believe something or when you are explaining why you do or believe something, you are making an “Argument”. We all use arguments at a vast majority of places — from asking your parents to loan you the car to asking your preceptor for an extension to a deadline. In fact each time you read or make any comment on a social media platform regarding your stance on the rising India-Pakistan tensions asking for war or peace, you are in fact making an argument (good or not? Well, let’s see!)

People tend to confuse arguments with either witty comebacks or repeating the same thing loudly or angrily but well framed arguments, if made with sound logic and reasoning, as we will try to explain in this wiki, can set you up to be a more persuasive person (well, at least for breaking down propaganda and deadline extensions)

American scholar and theorist, Stanley Fish described Arguments as a “connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Argument is everywhere, argument is unavoidable, argument is interminable, argument is all we have.” While a contradiction “is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes” (Fish 3)

In order to completely understand this, let’s look at Shrey and Divya arguing about whether the government should ban smoking.

Shrey: The government should ban smoking because the harms of passive and active smoking are massive, both to the mental and physical health of the consumer and the society at large.

Now, Divya can choose to respond to this is two ways.

Shrey: Ahhh, this is too much!! Let’s go to Naveen and grab an ice-burst!

In summary, while an argument says, “My claim is right and this is why it’s right”, a contradiction merely says, “This one thing that you said is wrong”, but does not successfully prove why its claim is right.

So, what is an argument?

“Argument is a specific kind of persuasion based on the principles of logic and reasoning” (McGuire 2)

“An argument is constituted by two or more explicit and/or implicit claims, one or more of which supports or provides evidence for the truth or merit of another claim, the conclusion, which the argument intends to prove. (Toulmin 5)

In democratic societies like the US, India, France etc. the ability to argue effectively has always been central to public participation. As American entrepreneur Christopher Shroeder puts it, “A person who can argue coherently and cogently commands a considerable amount of authority in our culture, and such a person is considered to be educated, and to be a source of power.” This rising attention to argument also reflects an increasing focus on the importance of rationality, critical thinking, ability to debate and their application in the realities around us. Only recently, “Argument” has also become a specific discipline in academic curricula.

Unfortunately in modern society, Argument has become only about beating your opponent. Even in the public discourse, a presidential candidate (no brownie points for guessing) debates the size of his penis and/or chest (wink, wink) rather than addressing the problems faced by the country. A lot of modern philosophers (enter names) believe that substantive argumentation (especially in the political sphere) is dead and has been replaced by sound bites and bumper-sticker rhetoric. Ironically, this is an argument against argument.

However, in our increasingly diverse as well as well as dynamic world, argument remains a valuable tool to imagine other possibilities for rhetorical practice — to make arguments with the goal of finding truth, with the best interests in mind for all parties, arguments where the parties involved actually listen to each other and from that listening respond in productive, thoughtful ways, attempted by us using Stephen Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation.

Origin of Toulmin’s Model:

Absolutism, mainly derived from Plato’s idea of formal logic in argumentation, promotes the notion of absolute truth. It proposes that arguments can either be completely true or completely false irrespective of the context they are in. All moral deadlocks can thus be solved by adhering to a standard set of moral principles.

Relativism, on the other hand, mainly proposed by anthropologists, propose that there is no notion of absolute truth. Truth varies depending upon the context and the situation. Therefore relativism in argumentation will depend upon the particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture and therefore make claims, taking all the cultural influences into account.

Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation:

Toulmin claims (or argues :p) that a good argument is one which provides sufficient evidence and reasoning to the claim it’s proposing and also stands up to criticism or rebuttals. He suggests that a good argument should be sufficiently applicable in real life problems and have a necessary practical value.

In his book, The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin first introduced the idea of ‘Argument Fields’. He asserted that some aspects of arguments vary from field to field, and are hence called “field-dependent”, while other aspects of argument are the same throughout all fields, and are hence called “field-invariant”.

According to Toulmin, the limitation of absolutism is the assumption that all aspects of argument are field invariant (or universally true); which makes absolutists unaware of the field dependent aspects of arguments. Toulmin’s model thereby tries to avoid the drawbacks of absolutism without resorting to relativism. He believes that relativists over-emphasize the importance of the “field-dependent” aspect of arguments, and become unaware of the “field-invariant” elements.

In an attempt to find middle ground between the two, the Toulmin model attempts to develop standards that are neither absolutist nor relativist for assessing the worth and impact of arguments

Elements of the Toulmin Model:

Toulmin’s model for rational argumentation states that a argument can be traced as the movement of the “data” (evidence) to the “claim” (conclusion) through the “warrant”.

Data: Data (or reason) is information that answers the question “What have you got to go on?”

Claim: A claim is a statement or assertion you intend to prove as ‘true.’ Claims involve taking a stance on either side of the controversial statement.

Warrant: A warrant is the logical persuasive connection between the claim and the reasons supporting it. They are generally unstated or implied assumptions about an evaluative value that makes the claim seem plausible.

An argument can be rendered valid and applicable only when the required procedure model (data to claim via warrant) is followed and the link from data to claim is accepted, thereby the warrant is one of the most crucial elements to establish the validity.

After further exploration of the role of logic in an argument, Toulmin asserted that the criteria of the evaluation of an argument should be context and situation dependent and the same universal criteria cannot be applied in all cases. He called this evaluation method as field-dependent. According to Toulmin, sound argumentation is “conducted in accordance with a formally valid procedure and in conformance with the specific soundness conditions of the field or subject concerned” (van Eemeren 133). In his book The Uses of Argument, Toulmin claims that the kind of backing used to prove a point will change as the field of argument changes.

Case 1: A warrant concerning whales being mammals is defended by relating it to a system of taxonomic classification of animals

Case 2: A warrant concerning whether a Saudi Arabian is necessarily a Muslim would be supported by statistics on how religious beliefs vary among different nationalities

To understand the Toulmin model better, let us take an example and break it down to see whether the Toulmin model fits to it or not.

Example: If the claim we intend to prove is that the Indian government should ban smoking, the argument layout would look something like this:

Claim: The Indian government should ban smoking. This claim if seen in isolation is a mere assertion with no evidence or reasoning to substantiate it. However, the Toulmin model brings explains how to validate or prove this claim true

Data/evidence: Cigarette smoking comes with an outstanding threat of cancer and thereby has a huge chance to reduce the life span of an individual. Hence, banning smoking will lead to a better health of the citizens of the country.

Warrant: The warrant implied through this argument is that the state (nation state) should work for the betterment of the individuals of the state; thereby should be responsible to improve the health conditions of the citizens.

Using the aforementioned principles, the claim becomes valid or true since the data and the warrant substantiate the side taken to make this statement i.e. Smoking should be banned.

However, complex arguments cannot be validated using the above mentioned scheme. Which is why Toulmin went on to add three additional elements to a more complex version of his argument model. These three elements strengthen the link between the data and claim (backing); preempts what the other side has to say (rebuttal), and describes the extent of the truth of the claim (qualifier)

Backing: Provides evidence and reasoning to support the existence of the warrant; making it more explicit.

Rebuttal: This element acts as a devil’s advocate and preempts the conditions of exception to the claim; or what the opposite side will have to say.

Qualifier: Provides the degree to which the claim is true or force of the claim. Might not be present in all arguments.

All argumentation appeals to some mixture of three human experiences: logos (logic), factual information and consequent deductions; ethos (character), a sense of the speaker; and pathos (emotion), resonance with the reader.

Ethos (Credibility) can also be defined as ethical appeal. It implies persuading your audience by the character/credibility of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect and admire. One of the major limitations of argumentation is that the arguer needs to project an impression to the audience that you are someone worth listening to, in other words making yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likeable and worthy of respect; which at times can also be used as a leverage to dilute on the logic presented in your argument.

Pathos (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader’s emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice affects the audience’s emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument. For example, when Narendra Modi was campaigning for the 2014 general elections, he used to wear the religious symbol of the state he used to hold a rally in (well, except a scull cap). Any such part of the argument (or the entire argument) which focuses on appealing to the emotion of the audience and overpowering logic, is linked to Pathos.

Arguments can be used everywhere from the political spheres to the classroom to the courtroom to the bedroom. However, as Stanley Fish and Stephen Toulmin suggest, one cannot apply any general “strategies” for strengthening an argument. Since arguments are always part of a social and contextual setting and can never be seen in isolation, all strategies are not necessary, and definitely not sufficient. Arguments in public sphere are used in a wide variety of reasoning and debates around us; political debates to legal debates to philosophical debates. Arguments, which become the premise for debates and propaganda, shape the realities around us. As Toulmin puts it, “What kind of justificatory activities must we engage in to convince our fellows that these beliefs are based on ‘good reasons’?” Good reasons may be defined as “reasons which are psychologically compelling for a given audience, which make further inquiry both unnecessary and redundant — hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject a proposition.”

For example our understanding of Demonetization as a policy (reality around us) is based on the argument that honorable Prime Minister Modiji makes in favor of the policy.

Applications of arguments in case construction and debates can further be understood here

Teaching Assignment:

Here is a small speech by Barack Obama, one of the most celebrated presidents of the United States of America. All you have to do is identify the elements of the Toulmin model in this speech and comment upon the validity of the argument.

Citations

Fish, S., “Winning Arguments: What Works and Doesn’t Work in Politics, the Bedroom, the Courtroom, and the Classroom”, HarperCollins. 2016

Jasinski, J., “Sourcebook on Rhetoric”, Sage Publications. 2001

Toulmin, S., “The Uses of Argument”, Cambridge University Press. 1958

McGuire, Com 101 Class Notes, MV Community College.

Smoking example expand

Make section 370 better — include in field dependent/invariant

Art of Argumentation was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

If you are an Indian and you are reading this, you belong to the 12.18% fraction of the Indian population distinguished as English speakers in the country. India has the second largest population of English speakers in the world after the United States and closely followed by Pakistan in the third place and this statistics with regards to India are anticipated to quadruple in not less than half a century.

Owing to the multicultural and multilingual diversity of India, English still remains the official governing language of India. After the British left India in 1947, the diversified language sentiments across the country echoed in the constituent assembly debates that was crucial in the construction of India’s constitution and English was decided to be official language only for 15 years to enable smooth transition to Hindi, but English still continues to be the official language after 70 years owing to the same diversity.

Political conditions still insists that the moment we take English away from the Indian equation of language, the north and the south can’t really communicate and creating utter chaos. With upto 22 officially recognized languages, India’s language diversity will pose a serious threat to effective communication within the country and we are more than safe with English. Roughly 25% of the global population speaks English and hence the networkability factor the language provides is not unknown to the Sub-continent dwellers. But this has created a different hegemony in the nation with respect to the vernacular languages.

Is India Vernacular enough?

In comparison with the rise of Roman empire, Latin which was the language of the church was mandated to be learnt by everyone in order to have a common language all across Europe but after the fall of the empire, latin started disintegrating and developed into various other languages such as Romanian, French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese which are among the widely spoken languages that developed from latin.

And with the help of this example, Ganesh Devy, Chairman, People’s Linguistic Survey of India in conversation with scroll.in talks about the carrying capacity of any language, he says every language that encounters an enormous growth starts disintegrating and diminishing with the rise of other vernaculars and illustrates this with the decline of Latin and Predicts the same future for Chinese, English and Spanish. According to him, these languages will eventually crack up and evolve into different languages. The below video is the explanation of the same,

The Elite and a considerable share of middle class in India send their children to English medium schools but the major chunk of the population who are poor send their kids to their mother tongue medium schools, this has created a clear hierarchy. The vernacular languages in India is still spoken by 3/4th of the country’s population and this division has been clearly understood by the world’s technological giants like Google. With the boom of internet in India, they have effectively formulated 3V’s that determines the future of internet in India Viz, Voice, Video and Vernacular. Apart from the voice and video as engaging medium of content the dissemination is highly dependent on the vernacular to create a vast and inclusive market in india.

What is vernacular and what it is not?

The word ‘Vernacular’ is derived from a latin word Vernaculus, which means native to any particular region and also refers to proletarian. It also refers to the everyday language spoken by common people in any particular region.

India with a rich and varied heritage of languages roughly has 19500 languages or dialects listed as mother tongue according to the latest analysis of Census. And now internet provides a space for the vernacular knowledge to showcase and has started the symbolic rise of vernaculars in India.

In the present day, English has already started developing into different language dialects such as the African American English, Australian English, Indian English etc., and there are distinct distinguishing divisions in Indian English owing to the geographical locations. With increased internet exposure, there is a awareness slowly creeping within the Indian public about the need to safeguard the various discourses in these vernacular languages.

James Jasinski in his book, Sourcebook for rhetoric quotes bodnar’s view on Rhetoric as, “Previous modes of historical inquiry privileged what Bodnar termed the “official culture” and largely ignored the vernacular. For Bodnar, it is impossible to understand a society’s public memory without devoting significant attention to its vernacular culture”, by which broadly explaining the importance of vernacular discourse in the spectrum of official knowledge.

To efficiently carry out these transmission of valuable information of knowledge from these vernaculars, Ono and Sloop, in their essay ‘The critique of vernacular discourse’ have suggested, “By recognizing that vernacular discourse is culturally syncretic, and may be generated from a pastiche of hegemonic culture, we begin to realize that vernacular discourse cannot be examined as bits and pieces of hegemonic culture itself but, instead, should be analyzed as a whole new hybrid, through its own conditions of emergence. Studies of vernacular culture may force us to examine figures of discourse not according to specific time periods or genres and not according to historical achievements, embarrassments, or acts. We may have to begin the critical practice by asking how an object or set of objects impacts localized communities. The emphasis on community relations does not allow for examination of texts, sans context. This focus allows for a culturally specific approach to discourse that impacts the formation of specific textual moments”.

Hence, proper construction of tools to study the vernacular rhetoric becomes essential and for a country like India this poses as an inevitable transformation needed. However strong the influence of English has been India has remained a largely vernacular nation and its population is mostly bilingual or multilingual and Indians have surpassed the Chinese only in our ability to talk in English. And here is funny video by standup comic Biswa Kalyan Rath funnily explains Indians relationship with English,

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

We can’t Communicate, Sorry! was originally published in Cracking the Rhetoric Code on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.