THE RHETORIC OF GRAY: How presidential rhetoric can be used to democratize globalization, guide American foreign policy, and dismantle worldwide structures of oppression.
Open Access
Author:
Brosnan, Angela Casey
Area of Honors:
Communication Arts and Sciences
Degree:
Bachelor of Arts
Document Type:
Thesis
Thesis Supervisors:
Jeremy Engels, Thesis Supervisor Jeremy Engels, Thesis Supervisor Lori Ann Bedell, Thesis Honors Advisor
Keywords:
President Obama President Bush coercive rhetoric gray rhetoric neoliberalism
Abstract:
Globalization is a tangled web of contradictions: connections between nations but divisions and disconnect within individual countries, economic prosperity for some countries but caste-like economic paralysis in others. Undisputed is the increase of global communication caused by technology. Hegel’s discussion of “The Other” describes how self-identity is assessed through the creation of another. Lack of communication can lead to the creation of the “other” more easily, thus war is more easily justified and understood; however, globalization’s increase of communication has had no effect on global conflict (which has increased by roughly fifty percent in the past fifty years). Neoliberalism and “blowback” attempt to explain why this seemingly paradoxical phenomenon has come to exist. Presidential rhetoric has become more important than ever in this increasingly violent world. Gray Rhetoric, a rhetoric that is anti-Manichean and anti-coercive, is valued for its simplicity, honesty, and specificity. This research first explains how gray rhetoric can be used as a tool to combat problems addressed by neoliberalism and global conflict. Gray Rhetoric describes that vagueness can, and often is, extremely coercive when used in Presidential remarks. Gray Rhetoric is then applied to President Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress on September 20th, 2001 and President Obama’s 2009 address, “On the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The dangers of Manichean, vague, and coercive rhetoric are examined in both speeches. Portions of the speeches that follow responsible “gray” rhetorical patterns are highlighted. The research then expounds on ways both rhetorical addresses could have been more “gray,” and thus more ethically responsible.
