The following rhetorical analysis attempts to understand and characterize the impact of Robert F. Kennedy’s historic speech on April 4th, 1968—the day civil-rights torchbearer and spiritual leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Through placing Kennedy in Lloyd Bitzer’s rhetorical situation, this analysis will reveal how his timely plea was able to help dissuade over 95,000 black citizens in Indianapolis from rioting and engaging in violence for retribution, and ultimately helped solidify the post-MLK civil-rights movement under the cultural ideals of nonviolent integration of races, equality, and social justice. The analysis will discuss how Kennedy responds to competing exigencies by adapting his content and genre to his audience, and how he uses his tremendous ethos and pathos to assert unifying American values that continue to endure today. Ultimately, Kennedy reveals the immense rhetorical importance of empathy during a moment of great loss, and proves that mere words can halt violence and create new opportunities for cooperation despite tremendous constraints.
Contextualizing the Eulogy to MLK
Scholarly Context and Original Contribution
Utilizing the Rhetorical Situation as Theoretical Grounding
Analysis of Kennedy’s Speech: A Campaign Speech and Eulogy
Analytic Conclusions and Implications
Final Conclusions
Few moments in American history resonate as loudly and have impacted the course of the nation as thoroughly as the Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. On this day, communities across the nation writhed in loss of a spiritual leader and champion of social justice. With the death of King, many feared his non-violent movement suffered a mortal wound as well. In those moments proceeding the assassination, few possessions but words then stood between peaceful mourning and calls for bloodshed. Violence erupted in one hundred and ten American cities, resulting in dozens of deaths, thousands of injuries, and extensive damages to homes, businesses, and national confidence for a peaceful civil-rights resolution. Yet the words of one individual, well placed in the situation, had an impact that would help redefine a nation.
The analysis will proceed by first introducing the historic context of Kennedy’s speech, providing the relevant details to understand the complexities of the national social and political climate at the time. Next, the scholarly context reflects on previous scholarly works that have attempted to comprehend why Kennedy’s speech was so powerfully able to diffuse violence that seemed imminent. This section will also provide an explanation of important terms and include a preview of the original contribution intended through this exploration. Moving into the analysis portion, the theoretical grounding will provide a framework to evaluate Kennedy’s response to competing exigencies through a combination of adapting the content and genre of his speech, focusing on the immediate exigency, and utilizing historically accumulated ethos and pathos to quell the rage of the crowd. Afterwards, the full implications of Kennedy’s words can be understood, which allows for reflection on the importance of this speech in understanding rhetoric, it’s influence on U.S. culture, and the meaning of freedom in a democracy. Finally this discussion will conclude with a restatement of the thesis, as well as a review of the major claims that have been presented.
Contextualizing the Eulogy to MLK
On April 4th, 1968, Democratic Presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy was already scheduled to speak at a political rally in Indianapolis, where a tightly gathered crowd gathered waiting to here from him; many did not know King had been assassinated (Thomas, 2012). The national social climate was one of open hostility, mistrust, and fear anchored between African American and White populations across the U.S. With a backdrop of mounting racial tensions and rioting, the Vietnam War, and clashes between peace demonstrators and police, this was an election year already scared by violence (Stuckey). Before his historic remarks on this day, Robert Kennedy had already established himself as an advocate for civil rights, social justice, and promoter of non-aggression and peace; he was running as a late entrant in the Presidential race, content to rely on popular support to win the Democratic nomination (Remarks). The Senator from New York was already in route to his last campaign stop of the day—an inner-city, mostly black audience awaiting—when he learned that the spiritual leader of the civil rights movement, Rev. Martin Luther King, had been shot and had recently died that evening (Anatol). Ignoring the advice of aids, whom understandably feared the possibility of riots and for the safety of their candidate, Kennedy insisted on delivering a short (extemporaneous) message to those in attendance (Anatol). Instead of a campaign speech, Kennedy’s somber eulogy would inform some in the audience of King’s death for the first time; you can hear shocked-horror in the voice of the crowd moments after Kennedy begins speaking (Kennedy). By the time this speech was made, Kennedy had become known as “a leading spokesman for the urban and rural poor,” (Rohler 2002, Remarks 1968). Only Kennedy, of all American white candidates, ventured into black districts immediately after King’s death (Stuckey). The assassination directly led to riots and violence across “110 cities causing 39 deaths and injuring 2,500,” while the city of Indianapolis (with a significant black urban population of around 95,000) where Kennedy had spoken was quiet (Thomas, 2007).
Scholarly Context and Original Contribution
Previous analysis succeed in explaining the rhetorical effectiveness of Kennedy on the day of MLK’s assassination, identifying rhetorical tools at Kennedy’s disposal such as the American Jeremiad, or hinting at how Kennedy “created a new or accentuated an already existing image” among the black community (Anatol, Murphy). Karl Anatol and John Bittner attempt to understand the effectiveness of Kennedy’ eulogy in preventing violence in Indianapolis, and was published shortly after the tragic event. The authors attempt to contextualize the speech and discover why precisely his rhetoric had the effect it did. The critical observation made in this analysis is that “violence and riots can be averted (with the use of rhetoric), and that cross-cultural communication is a necessary step” when dealing with civil rights issues. In the critical analysis entitled “A Time of Shame and Sorrow,” John Murphy analyzes the strengths and weakness of using and altering the Jeremiad as a “response to a social crisis.” This article shows how Kennedy is rhetorically successful in producing immediate change through a powerful induction of the Jeremiad, but also identifies how using the Jeremiad may have limited the direct impact of Kennedy’s goal for social action in support of civil rights. The author argues that Kennedy’ speech acted as “communal definition” for his audience “in order to enable the community understand itself and its values”. This analysis will utilize Bitzer’s rhetorical situation as a model to gauge Kennedy’s rhetorical success at the time of his speech, and explain how this moment came to define a turning point, not only for the candidate, but also for the installation of a common American value favoring peaceful integration of races and civil rights action. Further, the analysis will demonstrate how a combination of rhetorical vehicles (unique placement in the situation, strong pathos and ethos, defining common values) can situate an individual to yield a rhetorical power that can influence immediate decisions in a crisis, as well as cultural values far into the future. Finally, by looking at the situation and the rhetoric as a whole, as well as considering the immediate and long-term outcomes, we can better define the meaning of Freedom in a Democracy.
Utilizing the Rhetorical Situation as Theoretical Grounding
In order to frame the persuasive appeal made by Kennedy, an understanding of certain rhetorical vehicles and definitions is necessary. Lloyd Bitzer introduced the rhetorical situation as, “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence, which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence” (Bitzer). Bitzer identifies three essential characteristics that are important to the rhetorical moment. Exigency can be simply understood as “an imperfection marked by urgency,” where there is an existing opportunity for rhetoric to shape reality and decision-making (Hart). The rhetorical moment is further defined by both the audience and whether the implementation of rhetoric is addressed to an audience that is able to act in order to resolve an issue, and the constraints of the situation, or ideas, objects, and other limitations that stand in the way resolving the issue at hand (Bitzer).
While this framework provides essential characteristics in order to evaluate a speaker’s success in just about any derived moment, it has been criticized for under clarifying the many complexities that arise with multiple audiences and multiple exigencies that may exist simultaneously—as is the case for Kennedy. For these reasons a reconstruction of Bitzer’ model was performed by Craig Smith and Scott Lybarger in an article entitled “Bitzer’s Model Reconstructed.” They contested that exigence is “more akin to…motive than to purpose; it is more transcendent both in terms of how the speaker derived a purpose, to what problem the speaker is addressing his/her speech, and to what extent the speaker achieves congruence with her/his audience” (Craig and Lybarger). It is this modification and other refinements of Bitzer’s original theory that allows further consideration of the plurality of perspectives in each situation; “Just as a speaker may have more than one controlling motive, so too a situation may have more than one exigence” (Craig and Lybarger). Ethos and pathos, from the Aristotelian rhetorical situation, are also vitally important rhetorical tools utilized by Kennedy in order to achieve his multifaceted objectives of quelling violence and winning an election. For the purposes of this analysis, the traditional definition of these terms is sufficient for understanding the underlying claims. Ethos, refers to the credibility or trustworthiness of the author’s perspective, while pathos refers is an emotional appeal to the sensibilities of the audience.
Analysis of Kennedy’s Speech: A Campaign Speech and Eulogy
Kennedy, placed in Bitzer’s rhetorical situation, responds to multiple exigencies amidst enormous constraints in an attempt prevent further violence, and rally commitment to a peaceful democratic solution (which he represents as a presidential candidate). Kings death leaves an exigency of crisis to decide between violent or nonviolent resistance, while a competing exigency of the upcoming (country defining) presidential election also complicates the situation. The influence of Kennedy’s words can be attributed to the speaker-audience relationship and content/delivery choices that were made that evening. When Kennedy stepped in front of the podium and microphone, many were expecting to hear a campaign speech. As he promptly delivers the shocking news, it is apparent almost immediately that the small group of mostly black urbanites is not listening to a political stump, rather a eulogy and appeal for compassion and non-violence (Kennedy). Kennedy acknowledges the immediate exigency, the probability of violence, even before he informs the crowd of Dr. King’s death. He asks people in the audience to please lower their signs and says, “I have…sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world” (39 Years). Staying clear of political language and any form of accusation, RFK’s remarks pay tribute to MLK, recognize the anger/hate/mistrust between the races, call for understanding, and emphasize broad ideals such as understanding, wisdom, and justice for those who suffer…“whether they be white, or whether they be black” (39 Years). Coupled with the extemporaneous nature of the remarks, Kennedy appears genuine, caring, and as a voice of leadership and reason amidst one of the most catalytic events of our time. A successful genre switch from campaign speech to eulogy makes it possible for him to leave out any acknowledgement of the competing exigency of the up coming presidential election, while instilling his voice as one of authority who will act for social justice. Kennedy frames the exigency to his immediate audience as a choice between two future directions (characterized as either bitter and filled with hatred and violence, or of love, wisdom, and compassion) that can be made individually by returning home “to say a prayer for our own country” (39 Years). This framing is effective because it addresses both the immediate concern at hand, and the prospects for long term integration of white and black populations that would later reflect on Kennedy’s words. The constraints at the time seemed so insurmountable that close advisors warned Kennedy not to give his speech for fear of immediate retributive acts. Individuals were in the midst of planning violent insurrection in Indianapolis in response to king’s death, and riots had already begun in places where Kennedy’s words could not reach. But Kennedy shows that verbalizing the existing conditions, being adaptable and framing choices in values terms can help a rhetor respond to competing exigencies.
Kennedy focuses his rhetoric on the immediate exigency using historically accumulated ethos and pathos to win over his varied audiences in the disenfranchised black community, and ultimately in his Democratic constituency as well. Kennedy uses his ethos as a defender of the “invisible poor” and of civil justice to establish a critical dialog during a moment of crisis. Bolstered by past successes as an attorney, and his relationship with former President John F. Kennedy, historic reflection reveals Kennedy was the only white candidate who could traverse the inner black neighborhoods directly after the assassination, demonstrating he had established an intimate connection with the black community and reached a difficult status to attain of “trusted politician” (Stucky). Pathos is used in his message to establish an intimate bond with his audience at a critical moment. Kennedy begins his speech by saying he has “sad news for all of you.” He repeats this twice, and goes on to include “people who love peace all over the world,” broadening his audience as far as possible. In furthering his attempt at emotional linkage with his audience, he goes on to say “I had a member of my family killed,” referencing the death of his brother for the first time publically (37 Years). This establishes a critical link of empathy with the audience, letting them know that he literally feels the injustice that they feel. With several rhetorical vehicles now working in tandem, Kennedy is now in a position to make values assertions, “what we need in the United States is…compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer, whether they be white or whether they be black” (37 Years). Immediately after he says this, he makes his plea for people to return home, and reiterates a message of compassion. This emphasis on compassion, the “feeling” for those who suffer, and the affect it had on the audience shows the importance of empathy as a catalyst (or bridge) to shaping reality to create the conditions for new decision opportunities. Near the end, Kennedy defines his audience as a “vast majority [of white and black people who] want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all” (37 Years). Kennedy gives individuals listening an alternative path from bloodshed, allowing people to visualize a future of equality, while subtly reassuring the black community that their interests could still be addressed through systematic reform rather than violent uprising. While Kennedy’s historic ethos and unique position as a presidential candidate make him an ideal respondent in the moment, his establishment of empathy, and subsequent use as a vehicle for inducing cooperation (in this case preventing a devastated crowd from becoming an enraged mob and hence an example for the rest of the U.S.) is a critical factor in a peaceful democracy
Analytic Conclusions and Implications
With clear successes both defusing violence in Indianapolis, going on to win the election primaries he sought, and subsequently being violently murdered, Kennedy shows his policies and convictions were having a significant affect on the social and political landscape—though he was eliminated before implementing his blueprint for civil-rights action. These considerations help reveal that Kennedy was the only one situated in the rhetorical moment that could represent both of the vastly opposing white and black constituencies he faced that evening, and at the same time mediate the continued path to civil-rights action. The city of Indianapolis was moved and dissuaded from violence upon hearing Kennedy’s brief remarks on unity and path forward; the crowd quietly dispersed, and individuals decided not to take part in riots that would mire 110 other cities, leading to dozens of deaths, and thousands of injuries. Seven days later, congress would pass the “landmark” civil rights legislation of 1968. Despite an election cycle that started late, and was mired in defining itself in the beginning, Kennedy went on to win the Democratic primary during the election of 1968 before he was shot and killed; however, the country did not descend into violent insurrection, but rather maintained a course for peaceful integration of races.
Kennedy’s plea for movement away from division and hatred and towards understanding, justice, peace and love, would deeply impact the nation, and go on to shape the ideals embodied in Democratic values. Kennedy, in the midst of his greatest push for change in support of civil rights and social justice policies (as a candidate for president), died for his cause in close succession with MLK and JFK, putting him in the same class as these mythic figures, and making him a martyr for civil rights liberties. His name is memorialized and displayed along side King’s today at the Landmark for peace in Indianapolis, the Kennedy-King College, and numerous others. Kennedy’s speech is considered a defining turning point for his campaign, because of the dire circumstances and the leadership shown in attempts to unite a divided country. He leaves a legacy referred to as “the 82 days that inspired America” (O’Rourke). This analysis shows that while it may be particularly difficult to align the many rhetorical vehicles that allow for persuasion to occur, some individuals are particularly situated to inspire massive shifts in public perceptions and dedication to an idea; in this case the civil-rights values of peace, equality, and justice. Kennedy may indeed have been the only one that could have turned America away from division and further mass violence at this critical moment, and to rally the population around a new cultural identity the believes in the path to non-violent integration, equality, and social action despite great fear and threats to peace. Kennedy’s eulogy to MLK proves a high regard for the value of rhetoric in both crisis situations, and in shaping American ideals. This fact further substantiates the notion that our democratic system can be responsive and adaptable to required social change with appropriate responses in moments of tremendous upheaval.
Kennedy’s words were needed at that moment, not because there was a political decision to make, but because the nation needed to piece together what was happening at that cathartic moment in time. Because of his credibility, he could stand in front of a potentially hostile, all black crowd after the death of Dr. King disregarding all concerns for safety. Because he established a deep empathy with his audience, he was able to preach the values of compassion and feeling for others as central on the path to peaceful integration. In these ways, Kennedy was an agent of the kind of understanding he was calling for, and his audience accepted him as a neutral peace negotiator instead of political contender. This shows that the most influential rhetoric can come about through highly constrained situations, where only few voices prove effective by relying on a complicated balance of situational effectiveness and the use of rhetorical tools. Kennedy’s rhetorical messages of equality and civil liberty espoused during life, becomes enshrined in Democratic principles upon his death, evidenced by the use of his past speech and name shaping current Democratic ideals.
Robert F. Kennedy, through keen awareness and unique positioning, finds himself in a situation where he is the only one able to respond to the multiple exigencies that exist in the nation. He puts himself in a position to appeal directly to the audiences that can change the situation, and overcomes significant constraints in uniting two polar constituencies, the black audience, and a mostly white electorate who was also listening. The adaptation of content and successful genre shift allows Kennedy to assert his historically accumulated ethos and pathos in order to inform, console, and provide a path away from violence. Through establishing a deeply rooted empathy in verbally expressing his own unjust loss, Kennedy’s words help elucidate a rarely articulated aspect underlying the agreement to governance—that feeling for an other is foundational to peaceful democracy. Kennedy’s rhetoric goes on to define the Democratic ideals espoused in the modern politic of civil-rights.
The wake of King’s death released a tremendous exigency that had already been building as the result of decades of systematic enslavement and oppression, with the idea of non-violent integration at a seeming end, and the civil-rights movement transitioning to a violent path. All this changed when Kennedy reached out to a divided nation in order to reshape the conditions and choices that would be made in the aftermath of King’s death. Ultimately, Kennedy reveals the immense rhetorical importance of empathy during a moment of great loss, and proves that mere words can halt violence and create new opportunities for cooperation despite tremendous constraints. Concluding on the notion that ideas are integrally linked, Kennedy performs a kind of rhetorical surgery in order to save an Idea, whose loss could tear apart a nation.
Citations and References
Smith, Craig R., and Scott Lybarger. “Bitzer’s Model Reconstructed.” Communication Quarterly 44.2 (1996): 197-213. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.
Rohler, Lloyd. “In His Own Right: The Political Odyssey Of Senator Robert F. Kennedy.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5.1 (2002): 192-195. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
O’Rourke, Sean Patrick. “Bobby.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 12.4 (2009): 635-654. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Thomas, Evan. “The Worst Week.” Newsweek 150.21 (2007): 44-48. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
Stuckey, Mary E., and Frederick J. Antczak. “Campaign And Character: Robert Kennedy In The 1968 Presidential Campaign.” Conference Proceedings — National Communication Association/American Forensic Association (Alta Conference On Argumentation) (1991): 140-146. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012.
Murphy, John M. “‘A Time Of Shame And Sorrow’: Robert F. Kennedy And The American Jeremiad.” Quarterly Journal Of Speech 76.4 (1990): 401. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.
Anatol, Karl W., and John R. Bittner. “Kennedy On King: The Rhetoric Of Control.” Today’s Speech 16.3 (1968): 31-34. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2012.