Time, Analytically

Time And Its Ability to Persuade

Rachel Young

In the world, there exists a man-made concept that holds the power to control space. It defines the changes in the world and provides a mean to quantify subjects of an unquantifiable nature. It is not tangible, nor is it easily described, but we are acutely aware of its affect on our beings. This entity can be harnessed, molded, emphasized or deemphasized to fit a specific need… and it does so in an incredibly effective way. The entity of which I speak is ‘time.’ As we humans go through schooling, we learn about the world in context of time- through world history and presidential terms, through life cycles and chemical reactions. Our own lives are delicately connected to the concept of time- many people are acutely aware of a perceived lack of time, when concerning their own existences. Time is a multi-faceted subject, which touches everyone, everything and everywhere.

Time has an extraordinary power. We, as humans, are so incredibly attentive to its existence that sometimes we discredit the power we have over it- that we have the ability to change ourselves in the present and that we can affect the future. Time also has an incredible power over us- references to past occurrences often have the ability to elicit intense emotions. This ability of time, to give immediacy to our claims and give us an intimate awareness of the subject at hand, has not remained untapped. In documentaries, news castings, blogs, as well as other types of media, time has been utilized to create audiences and to give their stories focus… which creates a very successful model for presenting information.

This model changes in the field of public discourse. Public figures address a variety of subjects, all of which touches people in infinitely different way- every audience member has their own specific context, and it is hard to frame an subject in a way that interests a multitude of people at once, and a large audience is necessary if there is to be a distinctive change in the public… a small audience usually won’t cut in this area of largely debated issues and historical challenges. Time is one of few things that affects most everyone the same way, an emphasis on the immediacy of a topic can spark interest in a subject that was ignore before. Moreover, appealing to time does not only help create an audience. Public discourse has an aim to do more than just inform a mass audience. If public discourse is to be effective, it not only needs to work within the stases of value and policy, but furthermore, moving the audience to act. Otherwise, there will be no public change. If there is no resulting change in the audience, the discourse may as well have never occurred. Time has the ability to change all of this.

There are an indeterminate ways to appeal to the all-too-human concern for time, but for all intents and purposes, I limit myself to just two: a focus on the present and a focus on the past. I have two examples of public discourse which use either of these appeals, and it aim to discover just how the use of time can affect an audience so much so, that they elect to change their own lives as a result.

In the midst of a vicious presidential battle between Barack Obama and John Mccain, one speech rose above all the rest. It is now fondly referred to as “the race speech,” and addressed topics that were pertinent to Obama’s candidacy. Obama spoke to show the public that a vote for his presidency was a vote against racism. He spoke to demonstrate how a ‘more perfect union’ was possible. Mostly, he spoke to show people how racism affects their everyday lives, and how they have the power to change it. Knowing this, it is not surprising that Obama situated his speech in the present and future.

It is clear that Obama’s speech addresses an issue about ‘misunderstandings of each other’s intended frame of reference in making certain statements’- Kaufer’s level II argument. Obama acknowledges this, quite matter-of-factly, when he says “They've {Caucasians} worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas…when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed.” Each person involved in racism only sees it from their point of view and through a lens of selfishness, without bothering to think how it might affect the other faction. This issue is inherently situated in the present, as a constant decision that is made every day. Obama goes on to explain how focus on each specific issue that comes along won’t fix the problem of racism. A solution to racism exists in understanding others’ problems and respecting them as much as your own. This is why Obama puts so much emphasis on the man who was “there for Ashley.”

Obama does not completely disregard past events- in fact, he references them quite often. He references slavery, possibly the most notorious example of racism in history. Obama touches on the issue of Reverend Wright and his racist comments, which created a public uproar. Obama speaks of his own past, with a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya. He also speaks of Ashley Baia, who’s mother filed for bankruptcy after she had to undergo treatment for cancer. Obama brings up these personal anecdotes not to focus on the past, but to highlight the immediacy of this issue. These stories show how the problem of racism is very much in the present. He uses to them to bolster the idea of a corrupt present- that this problem is unchanging. It brings racism to the attention of the audience by portraying it in these intimate settings. Obama brings it all together by describing that the ends of these stories are the beginnings of a new, stronger union.  But he always brings it back to the urgency of present.

President Obama further situates this issue in the present and future by becoming quite visionary; he describes America’s potential, speaks of the results of the future election, and talks about how it is everyone’s wish for a union where everyone is treated with equal respect. Obama creates these lofty ideals, but then brings his audience back to reality: these ideals are not possible without realizing the problems of today. Obama explains how closely these are involved by saying “…It also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.” It makes these goals seem attainable to his audience… by changing your mindset (as well as voting for Obama), a ‘more perfect union’ is possible. It makes it real.

The issue of racism provides an interesting juxtaposition between a crisis in the present and a potentially racism-free future: it is an issue that needs time to be resolved, but cannot begin without present action from the audience. This sense of urgency, that it is a crisis of the present as well as the future, helps move the audience to action. For an audience who is ultimately short sighted, Obama acknowledges their ability to change the future. This is where Obama’s appeal to time really shines: By thoroughly demonstrating how personal action can extend past the present, he creates yet another reason for the audience to take action. ‘If not now, when?’ his race speech echoes ‘Racism is a problem affecting people now, and you can stop it.

Now we move to another example of public discourse: Robert Bullards lecture on ‘race response’. Robert Bullard’s discourse is on a very similar subject matter to that of Obama’s, but provides a more focused issue. Bullard speaks of how different races were treated differently in the wake of natural disasters, such as hurricanes. He wastes no time, explaining how there is a difference in the lack of care in issues that affect both Caucasians and African-Americans. This already lends his claim some immediacy- if Dr. Bullard doesn’t want his issue to be watered down by unnecessary context. That will be provided later in his lecture.

A majority of Bullard’s lecture is situated in the past. He cites instances such as Hurricane Betsy, where waste from the disaster zone was placed in an African-American neighborhood, significantly impacting their ability to recover from the disaster. Bullard speaks at lengths about the governmental assistance received by impoverished/black areas, but provides only facts and information. There is a lack of prophetical statements about what could happen- and instead focuses on the trials and tribulations that people of race have experienced.  This could be because Bullard’s subject is a level 3 argument, that “we give decisive weight to different evidence.” The privileged society may need the hurricane debris gone so that they can function, but underprivileged people could do without a toxic Superfund site in the middle of their neighborhood so they can recover. Both have their own views of what is important, taking into account the evidence that is presented to them. Bullard, quite obviously, believes that the injustice done to these underprivileged people outweighs the inhibitions that Caucasians would experience by finding an alternative means to manage waste.

Furthermore, Bullard does not bother connecting these past events to the present. He very clearly desires for it to be recognized that these events occurred through the history of America. “This is 1965” he says, repeating this and other dates at least 5 more times in his lecture- there is no mistaking his wish to for use to acknowledge the magnitude of these past events. A focus on the past events does, however, help him to create a sense of fear- the past cannot be changed, and harbors a distrust of the government. Bullard ignores a chance to give his argument a sense of urgency by showing that environmental racism is happening today and action needs to be taken. In fact, he barely mentions the idea of changing governmental policy at all.

Bullard’s desire to incite action is inherent in the fact that he is creating a public discourse, as opposed to any other rhetorical medium that would be more informational. He fails to make this obvious to the audience, or to provide them the means for action. Why would he appear to do himself a disservice?

The approach taken by Bullard to address this issue is actually quite clever.  It is similar to Jone’s description of the Enthymeme and Syllogism- he provides a major premise (the concept of environmental racism) and a minor premise (examples of environmental racism) but leaves the audience without a conclusion. The audience then, themselves, must come to a conclusion; whether or not they take action against this issue. For this, Bullard relies on a strong send of ethos and logos to carry his argument but offers no pathos to rouse emotions or a sense of time. It is more this reason that I believe Bullard desires a specific, informed audience- with the knowledge to comprehend that environmental racism is an imminent problem and the ability to make a change. His audience may be smaller, but they will be more inclined to take action- and the solution he proposed, albeit silently, requires a higher level of dedication than simply casting a vote. In this way, a focus on the past assures Bullard a small group of highly dedicated individuals who are grounded in solid facts and an unchanging past.

The differences in time between the two examples of discourse I provided are both blatant and nuanced. For the most apart, it boils down to the needs of the issue and the needs of the audience. The issues undertaken by each rhetor elicit a need from the discourse- whether that be blanket statements about the nature of America (vestiges of the arguments involving misunderstandings and value, levels 2, 4 and 5) or very specific anecdotes of how the US governmental failed in the face of disaster (called into existence by levels 1 and 3). Appealing to time, as one of the most intimate way to affect the human condition, can be both emphasized and deemphasized to have a similarly strong effect.  How it is used depends of the nature of the issue you, Obama or Bullard are trying to change.