The production of emotions in political discourse: the rhetorical techniques of Bush and Obama

Abstract

AS IS GENERALLY KNOWN, according to Aristotle a public speech must show logos, ethos and pathos in order to persuade. On the other hand, however, Aristotle opposes sophists and other manipulators who persuade their public using cheap effects alone. In the modern period this has been turned into an opposition between rational-factual and emotion-free speech vs. emotional speech characterized by pathos. This is not only objectively wrong, since it implies or presupposes that there is such a thing as speech without emotions, but also historically: Aristotle is not concerned with two mutually exclusive styles of speaking, but with the fact that logos, ethos and pathos are expressed in the appropriate and “optimum” way for the particular speaking situation.1 And if a certain speech does not achieve this “just synthesis”, then it is too logical, too moral or too passionate. From this it follows, however, that in the following analysis of the rhetorical techniques of Bush and Obama I will not just examine the pathos, but deal in extenso with the logos (i.e. the argumentation and ideological content, but including language aspects as well) and ethical-moral ideas.

Sin resumen.