Margaret Thatcher and Martin Luther King Speech Comparison

Marg bet Thatcher and Martin Luther King Speech ComparisonWith reference to the two speakers Marg atomic number 18t Thatcher and Martin Luther King, comparability the path in which English may be employ for rhetorical purposes in political and religious speeches.collins Dictionary defines rhetoric as the art or study of using language efficaciously and persuasively and it is no surprise that such a skill is often in evidence with corking politicians or religious leaders. The need to actively gain ground angiotensin converting enzymes pass along in a good light, especially if it is a disputed decision that provide be uncovered to debate, is vital and backside basal the difference between success and failure. Indoctrination or persuasion of the masses has, since the very dawn of primitive communication, settle opinionated beings against each other and propelled those who are able to work effectively at bottom the recognised techniques of rhetoric into the glare of soci ety. Indeed, historical figures from Gandhi to Hitler polish offure used vocal stimulus to spread their message and influence the masses, and through various techniques, well constructed rhetorical speeches are effectively audience management devices giving their key outeners cues, reference sharpens and the suggested positions of applause.Within this essay, I will be investigation Thatchers and Kings manipulation of such techniques. Beginning with Margaret Thatchers speech to the Conservative Party Bournemouth conference in 1990, it is interesting to note how she begins her speech with an impassioned mention of a origin colleague killed in Ireland. Building up to what will later frame a key issue in her speech, she utilizes emotive language in the beginning he was murdered by the IRA, Ian taught us how a civilised community of interests should respond to such an outrage insinuating the absolute guilt of the IRA and to set a tone of compassion within her rhetoric that must(pr enominal) allow softened the hearts of her audience and helped gain their approval and support for her and their messages and sentiments.However, in Martin Luther Kings 1963 I have a dream address to a cracking wave of protesting civil rights campaigners, the tone is somewhat diametric. Rather than speaking to a more contained group of political figures, he is responsible for enflaming the hearts of thousands of pertain individuals who may well however have come from all walks of life, and his beginning rhetoric seems to reflect this. Rather than Thatchers heartfelt vote of apprehension for a colleague presumably k promptlyn by most within the conference, Luther Kings audiences only common ground is their compete and desire to take action, and he attempts to arrest the feeling of this need. I am happy to join with you at once in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Here, King is dealing in emotive absolutes, b uilding up the importance of the event, and stirring he crowd into excitement and attentiveness, ready to take in the rest of his great speech.Indeed, religious and civil rights speakers, like Luther King, often depend rather more on verbal eloquence and spontaneous creativity than their political counterparts. In a setting that is less formal and subject to passions rather than modishly crafted spin, little of these speeches may be scribed in advance and an old Afri displace tradition of call and response has been noted by the linguistic police detectives Keith and Whittenberger Keith (1986.) Indeed, this is ostensible several times over in Kings speech, firstly as a call to all in the first line, and then again with open comments Let us not wallow in the valley of desperation and of take to the woods, the famous I have a dream statement. Both of these lines, and more in the speech besides, showcase this call and response, while one notes that in Margaret Thatchers speech she a ppears to address and name check Mr chairwoman when she addresses her audience, offering a more official line of diction.It is as well lucid that King, in the style of such old Afri bath or pentecostal preachers, uses stark proverbs and a great deal of imaging within his lyric poem to ensure that his point is shown starkly to the many different sections of the community, both meliorate and not, that may be watching him perform. Using metaphor in describing his peoples struggle to being dealt an unfair deal in society, In a reason weve come to our nations capital to cash a check, he constructs an entire separate around the paradigm of the need for money, a common problem everyone can relate too, and thus brilliantly engages his audience. Thatcher of course has the luxury of a to the full engaged audience and prefers to allude to very real policy discussion, and humourous asides that a fully educated audience of Conservative members can appreciate, once again proving that tar endureing ones audience is extremely valuable in the process of exploiting rhetoric.However, scorn these subtle differences, it is noticeable that the arts and techniques of rhetoric, as studied and scribed by the researcher Atkinson, are commonly used in both Kings and Thatchers speeches. Obviously, in spite of being different types of rhetoric, quasi-religious/political and right away political, an underlying need to hold attention and elicit response is necessary and so it is unsurprising that the trey part list is noticeable in both of these speeches. In Thatcher one such example is Theyre quite presently speeches. laughterfo 9 Monosyllables even. laughter Short monosyllables and within Kings address We cannot walk alone and as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. Both plain important moments in the speeches, Thatchers to insinuate a sense of troupe unity and witty aside, while Kings insists unrepentant solidarity and p rogress, the use of this three point list, simply a point made via the use of three specific components, is vital in amplifying general ideas and stimulating audience response. join with this, and often obvious within such triplets, is the use of repetition, and to some cessation rhyme, that is produced in these speeches. King repeats I have a dream at the beginning of eight sentences rising to a feverish crescendo of verbalize word politics to amplify and continuously rein twinge his message (see end of his speech) and Thatcher uses the device more sparsely to achieve similar results. new jobs. come apart jobs. Cleaner jobs. Such rhyming words coupled with exciting imagery within them (King uses sweltering and Oasis to compare the contemporary situation and his future tense vision of the state of Mississippi) can excite an audience and to a fault take hold them a cue to respond in applause or a holler back situation, depending on the nature of the address itself. Of course, we must also remember that these speakers will have used intonation and gesticulation not easy in the transcripts of these speeches, but these are also very important in the art of successful rhetoric.The use of contrasts, and occasional symmetrical contrasts are also evident in both of these speeches both Thatcher and King drawing on failures of others to highlight the superiority of the speakers favoured position. I seemed to hear a strange sound emanating from Blackpool. And I thought at first it was seagulls. laughter indeed I remembered that lug was holding its annual Conference there and And so weve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. Although, of course, the tones of these voices are very different, Thatcher taking a cheap shot at the Labour party while King is striving to keep his protest on the high plane of dignity and discipline, they both contrast their message with failures of a rival institution or the system as a whole. Cynics could of course dismiss t his element of rhetoric as merely a heroic attempt to cover up ones own lurking bad points with those of others, although if skilfully done, it can help immensely to highlight these problems and bring down the audience science of what could be seen as a rival problem.So, in conclusion and despite the differing social and political contexts of the situations, Thatchers and Kings speeches, although unsurprisingly differently constructed and clearly intended for different audiences, contain many similarities in the type of rhetorical devices they use to get their messages across. Thatchers arguably more familiar and amusing speech is sure as shooting more frivolous and snide at times, while Kings I have a dream seems more spontaneous and impassioned, but in terms of historical importance, this seems unsurprising. Indeed, even looking at a more juvenile speech, that of Tony Blairs 2003 declaration of British war on Iraq, similar techniques can be witnessed. Repetition and rhyme, not wherefore does it matter? But why does it matter so much? within a rhetorical interrogative mood in this case the use of a three part list What changed his mind? The threat of force. From December What changed his mind? The threat of force. And what makes him? The imminence of force and even an element of media call and response is in evidence And now the world has to learn the lesson all over again. Of course, unlike Thatcher, there is no political backstabbing at a rival party, the situation would be deemed to important to go along that route, but he does nevertheless compare the way Saddam Hussain ran Iraq to the way the world should, in his view, progress. Indeed, it seems the art of rhetoric is mostly formalized in terms of techniques, but can be used skilfully to push any doctrine in a originative and personal manner by an individual.Bibliographyhttp//www.stanford.edu/dept/english/courses/sites/lunsford/pages/defs.htmhttp//www.margaretthatcher.com/Speeches/displaydocument .asp?docid=108217doctype=1http//www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/Ihaveadream.htmhttp//politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,916789,00.htmlCollins English Dictionary (Collins 2005)Janet Maybin (Editor), Neil Mercer (Editor) From Conversation to Canon (English Language Past,Present Future) (Taylor Francis 1996) 130