Abu-Jamal in his broadcast entitled De Profundis at first glance is attempting to take apart the very fabric that makes up the American democracy. He bases his argument upon fundamentally flawed logic of the Christian doctrine. In his argument, he attempts to make his audience appeal to their inner sense of decency. His carefully crafted speech, and manipulative strategy makes a large impact on his overall train of though. The rational he uses, also plays a major part in the inner workings of his persuasion techniques. In the end, I think that it Abu-Jamal is trying to present a moral to us as Christians. Through his outlandish acts of one-sided persuasion, Abu-Jamal may have just convinced many people.
When analyzing this speech, Abu-Jamal utilizes some of the persuasive techniques of Aristotle very craftily, and other not so well. His ethos is already ruined as a result of him being in prison. We as the reader already form a perception of him and his speech, even though we may not know what he is going to talk about. His speech, as we read it, is one-sided in its approach. He is very presumptions in his beliefs, and makes many hasty generalizations about the Christian faith. He directly attacks Christianity, and automatically assumes that all Christians are alike in their beliefs and nature. He also makes the generalization that every person in America is a Christian, especially everyone involved in the legal system. Further generalizations he makes include, his assuming that the Christian church has never fallen victim to corruption or rule without faith. Overall, Abu-Jamal’s ethos is shot right from the beginning, and as he progresses in his speech his credibility and ethos are further diminished.
In the analysis of pathos in his speech, I found that Abu-Jamal did an overall great job. He set out to challenge the mindset of the people supposedly going to be listening to him. While reading, my initial reaction was disgust in my culturally connected Christian history and myself. I felt confused about my faith, and what I really stood for. It caused me to call into question my own rock solid system of beliefs that have been so fundamental in my life as a person. In some instances it really rocked me to my core. I asked myself, am I really exemplifying the Christian faith by allowing capital punishment in my society? He really hit home in this area of Aristotle’s persuasive techniques.
In the aspect of logos, the speech utilized varying degrees of examples, but most all of these examples were out of date and context from his argument. Most all of them took place in other countries, and happened in long past history. I felt like his examples in certain instances were going down the slippery slope fallacy. He made it seem, that because these things happened and were acceptable in these other countries and in our nations past, they are prominent in our society today. What I really found funny was when he tried to make a comparison between his situation and Christ’s. I felt that he was making a faulty analogy on a momentous scale.
In the end, I felt that Abu-Jamal’s means for attack were justified. I felt that the true purpose for this speech was that he was attempting to quantify our relationship with Christ and god through his own situation. He was teaching us a moral lesson, that reflects upon him and his circumstances. As Christians, we know that Christ died for us on the cross, and that he was sentenced to death because of the corruption present in the legal system at the time. After reading this passage over a few times, I got the feeling that Abu-Jamal was trying to tell us, that as Christians when we encounter leadership positions, we need to be strong in our faith. Corruption and sin are easy to let into our lives, but hard to get out. When we are in leadership positions, we are more susceptible to these things; so Abu-Jamal is making the statement that we need to be righteous in our actions and deeds.
De Profundis in Latin translates to, out of the depths. Abu-Jamal has shown us the errors we as Christians have committed in the past. He is imploring us to change our ways, and rise above the corruption and sin. Abu-Jamal was making a message that crosses the realm of time and cultures for all to hear. His speech at first was very alarming, and the ethos, pathos, and logos that went with it didn’t seem to help his overall case. But in the end, I felt that his way of delivery was the best means to get the job done. It may have been a bit overly brash than most would have preferred, but it got our attention and made us question. In the end, isn’t that what every great persuasive speech does?
No comments:
Post a Comment