Running head: GENRE OF KING AND GANDHI ASSASSINATION SPEECHES            

Discovering a Genre between Political Speeches Given Immediately

Following the Assassinations

of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi

Ryan J Allred

Dr. Jennifer Peeples, CMST 4460

October 15, 2013

Utah State University

     

Leaders in the fight for Civil Rights have been considered some of the most influential people in directing others toward particular ideals.  The rhetoric that they provide has been both praised and critiqued and for the most part, we understand how to analyze it because of the specific genre from which it comes.  However, the similarities in the assassinations of two of these great leaders cause us to wonder if there is also a necessary genre among the rhetorical responses immediately following their deaths.  Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were two of these Civil Rights leaders who possibly had as much in common in death as they did in life.  Using the process of critique known as generic description I will analyze these two artifacts to determine if a genre exists among rhetoric given by political leaders immediately following the assassination of an important activist leader. If a genre does exist, I will then discuss the main characteristics of that genre.

The importance of this generic analysis is clear as we realize the necessity to understand the appropriate reaction to the assassination of popular activists.  Determining the specific attributes of such a genre will make it easier to prepare the proper rhetorical responses.  We may decide to follow the rules of the genre or to blatantly disregard them in order to accomplish any particular goal.  Either way, we need to know if the genre exists and what characteristics it may have.

Situational Similarities

Generic Description begins as one recognizes similarities among rhetoric that comes from particular situations (Foss, 2009).  This process includes finding similar situations as well as similar responses to rhetoric that would cause one to speculate that a genre exists.  Being curious to discover whether or not there is a uniting genre among speeches given directly after the assassinations of King and Gandhi, we find quite a few comparable circumstances.  First, both King and Gandhi were well known civil rights leaders who were recognized in their own countries as well as in large parts of the world. They were also both assassinated because of their efforts.  The first situational similarity therefore is the death of a well-known activist.  The second similarity was the need for a response from a well-known political leader because of the importance of the assassination.  In the case of Martin Luther King, that response came from Robert F. Kennedy who was at that time campaigning for United States Presidency.  For Mahatma Gandhi, the speech came from Jawaharlal Nehru, who was serving as the prime minister of India.  The third similarity was the emotional strain on the rhetors immediate audience.   In both cases, there were committed followers who felt the need for violent action.  They were sad and filled with anger at the same time.  The final similarity was the importance of a quick response to the public, requiring both of these speeches to be impromptu (Mukherjee, 2011).

Description of Artifacts

The second step of generic description is the collection of artifacts that come from these specific situations.  In this case we would look for speeches that were required following the assassination of a well-known activist.  Although there are possibly other situations that fit all four of the previously mentioned similarities, I have chosen to analyze Kennedy’s response to King’s death and Nehru’s response to Gandhi’s death because they fit the situational requirements most appropriately. Kennedy’s response came on the evening of King’s assassination, April 4, 1968 (Rosenberg, 2011). He had just completed campaign speeches at the University of Notre Dame and at Ball State University and was on his way to address a crowd on the streets of Indianapolis. Along the way, he heard news of King’s death and subsequently gave an impromptu speech from the back of a pick-up truck rather than his prepared address.  He was the first to inform the crowd of King’s assassination and was able to pacify the crowds which, as we saw in other major cities, prevented any mob violence on that evening. Nehru’s response also came on the evening of Gandhi’s assassination, January 30, 1948 (Vaidya).  Using the media of national radio, he attempted to address the entire grieving nation with his spontaneous message now known for his first line, “The light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere” (Nehru, 1948).  This was not his only address given following Gandhi’s assassination, in fact he would give other very powerful messages within that same week, but this was the most personal message that had to occur immediately under the restrictions of the situation.

Analysis of Artifacts

The third step involves discovering if a genre exists through the close analysis of each of the artifacts. This step may involve the use of any form of critique to discover any similarities among the artifacts.  The individual analysis allows for the artifacts themselves to suggest what the genre might entail, rather than forcing the title of the genre to give speculations as to what might be part of the genre.  As critical similarities are discovered, they are then used to describe the attributes of the genre.  Through analysis, using different aspects of Neo-Aristotelian and other criticism methods, these two artifacts presented the following similarities. First, both rhetors felt the need to position themselves at the same level as their audience from the very beginning of their addresses.  Nehru does so by addressing his “comrades” and “friends” while Kennedy spoke to his “fellow citizens.”  Perhaps more importantly, each attempted to connect with their audience through the use of pathos.  They created this emotional connection first, through the use of god terms such as “freedom,”  “justice,” and “peace,” and second, through their extemporaneous speaking style. A second similarity is that they both seem concerned with preventing any further violence.   Nehru reminds his country that no one should “misbehave because he is angry.”  Likewise, Kennedy advises anyone who is tempted to be filled with “hatred and mistrust” to seek less violent action. Along these same lines, an additional similarity is the contrast used between god and devil terms.  Both are full of devil terms that show the evil that has happened, but also contain many god terms that show the good that can happen if the audience does what is right.  Nehru’s speech is well known for contrasting light and dark as he shows that the light that has gone out can still shine.  While Kennedy’s speech does not contain this metaphor, he does address the same issue in a strait forward manner.  This would suggest that the use of metaphors is not necessary in these situations, but perhaps the ideas behind them are. Another similarity is their use of the ideals taught by those who had been assassinated.  It is true that Nehru’s speech appears as more of a eulogy than Kennedy’s, but both are consistent in reminding the audience what King and Gandhi stood for.  It seems that the focal goal in either speech is to use the assassination of the individual to further promote the ideals of that individual. For example, Nehru realized that Gandhi stood for non-violent protesting and therefore taught that “nothing would displease his souls so much as to see that we have indulged in any small behavior or any violence.” And Kennedy, knowing that King wanted equality, advised that his audience try “as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace violence.”  Both showing the audience that in order to honor their leader most, they needed to follow their examples rather than seek revenge. Finally, it is important to recognize that each artifact includes a specific call to action classifying them as persuasive speeches. Specifically, Kennedy asks his audience to return home to pray and to live life as King did.  Almost in the exact same fashion, Nehru suggests that they use the following days to pay homage to Gandhi and from there, to live life as he would have. Although there are many other similarities between these artifacts, these make up the most critical features among them.  These therefore become defining characteristics of the genre that exists among rhetoric given by political leaders immediately following the assassination of an important activist leader.

Organizing Principle

Now that we know that a genre does exist, the final step in this analysis will be the formulation of an organizing principle for the genre.  This organizing principle is used to describe the common strategies used in the artifacts and must be a defining part such that without it, the meanings of the artifact would change (Foss, 2009).  For political leaders, the organizing principle is the need to pay tribute to the individual who has been assassinated through the use of their ideals to create unity among the nation.  Perhaps we may refer to it as strategic recognition, as political leaders use the recognition of activist leader’s lives to further their own directives. Although that may be done with methods different that those used by Kennedy and Nehru, that tribute is a main aspect of the genre.  Without it, the meaning and result of both of these artifacts would change completely.

Conclusion

The discovery of this particular genre contributes to rhetorical theory by helping us understand how political leaders should respond to the assassination of any activist leaders.  Because this is a situation that does not occur regularly, it is critical to understand what needs to be a part of an address in order to follow the genre.  This will also allow us to know what times it would be necessary to disregard aspects of the genre in order to adapt to certain situations.  This helps us see the importance of using ideals to motivate and persuade when leading a large group of people.

Works Cited

Dionisopoulos, G. N., Hanson, W. D. (2012). Eulogy rhetoric as a political coping mechanism: the aftermath of proposition. Western Journal of Communication. 76. Pp. 24-43. Foss, S. K., (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice. Waveland Press, Inc. Pp 141. Hofstertter, R. (2001). Political disengagement and the death of Martin Luther King.             Public Opinion Quarterly. 33. Pp. 174. Kennedy, R. F. (1968). On the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. Retrieved from http://staff.fcps.net/wturner/MLK%20by%20RFK%20passage%20and%20Qs.pdf Mukherjee, R. (2011). The great speeches of modern India. London: Random House Publishers. Nehru, J. (1948). The light has gone out of our lives. Retrieved from: http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/the_light_has_gone_out_of_our_lives.htm Rosenberg, J. (2011). Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated. Retrieved from http://history1900s.about.com/cs/martinlutherking/a/mlkassass.htm Vaidya, C. (n.d.). Assassination of Gandhi – the facts behind. Retrieved from http://www.mkgandhi.org/assassin.html