Rhetorical Analysis of Mao

Purpose: To explain the intentions of the communist party; to identify the dangers of the opposing party (the Kuomintang); to persuade the chinese people to vote for the Communist party; to convince the rest of the world that the Communist party will stand up to America once it is in power.

Audience: The Chinese people, other major international powers.

Context: Concluding speech at the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China.  Given by Mao Tse-tung near the end of WWII (June 11, 1945).

Section I: The Party

             Purpose: To inform the Chinese people of the CPC's plans and establish a bond between the people and the party.  This section shows that Mao and the Party understand the people and want to help them and their country.  Mao presents a plan for the country and tells people how they can help.

              Appeals: Appeals mostly to ethos, especially the first paragraph.  Includes a list of the successes of the communist party to demonstrate the effectiveness of the party.  Also includes appeals to pathos in the form of diction and themes that create a feeling of unity.  Very little logos; mostly establishes ethos.

              Technique: repetition of "we" and "our" (epizeuxis) => unity; we're all in this together.  buzzwords/phrases such as "successful congress" "congress of victory" "congress of unity" => CPC is the best choice.  "will defeat" "will surmount every difficulty to win victory" "we, too, will touch god's heart" => certainty; strength of decision; determination.

• old fable of The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains (allegory) => old, well known fable of Chinese tradition => common bond between CPC and Chinese people (sense of "we all come from the same background; we are one of you").

• Foolish Old Man actually visionary and strong (CPC)
• Wise Old Man desperately clinging to the past (Reactionaries)
• Mountains represent imperialism and feudalism
• God is the Chinese people (major suck up points)

Fable shows the role the PCP sees for itself in China, while stressing the fact that it cannot get there without the help and support of the Chinese people.

               Effectiveness: Very effective.  Draws support from audience and successfully establishes unity, while connecting this feeling to the CPC.

Section II: The World

             Purpose: to demonstrate to the world that the PCP will not allow China to be walked all over.  The paragraph challenges America, which shows that China is serious about gaining power.

             Appeals: Generally appeals to pathos, but includes some logos as well (quotes from Patrick J Hurley).

             Techniques: diction

• "we forbid you" " we will not permit you to nose around everywhere" communicates strength of will and power

               Effectiveness: Very effective.  The paragraph communicates strength and confidence well and clearly states a warning for America and any other world powers.

Section III: The Fate of China Hangs in the Balance

             Purpose: to inform the audience of the evil intentions of the rival party.  To persuade citizens to vote for the CPC.

             Appeals: strong appeal to pathos.

             Techniques: "the aim of one is to liquidate the Communist Party and all the other democratic forces in China and thus to plunge China into darkness" (hyperbole) => portray rivals as evil; links Communist Party to everything good about China (by destroying CPC, China will be plunged into darkness) "reactionary" "scheming" => opposition is just reacting; is not proactive, just reacting without considering actions; scheming sounds dark and menacing  "the Kuomintang's counter-revolutionary line will inevitably fail" (last line) => leaves audience with the thought that Kuomintang's approach will not succeed  either or tactics (Either vote for us or China will fall)

            Effectiveness: Very Effective.  It is a strong end to the speech, with a definite guarantee of glory in the wake of triumph for the CPC, and ruin as an effect of victory by the opposition.

Overall Effectiveness: Very Effective.  Mao carefully chooses his words in order to communicate his message, whether that be strength, unity, or the dangers of the opposition. He plays on people's paranoia in order to turn them off of the opposition while preserving their loyalty to the CPC.  He communicates strength throughout the entire speech, especially when directly addressing the US.  The audience can also connect to him very well, most notably through his inclusion of a fable which is well known among Chinese people.

Cold Logic, or Fiery Emotion?

            Protest comes in many forms.  It can be done silently, or at a loud and excited rally.  It can be peaceful, or violent.  It can function mostly based on logic, or appeal mostly to emotions.  For this reason, protest speeches also come in many forms.  Aung San Suu Kyi’s “Freedom from Fear” speech appeals mostly to the first, while Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech focuses on the latter option.  Often times, while speeches based on logic can be persuasive, they often pale in comparison to speeches that focus on emotional appeals. 

            Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech is powerful.  It points out flaws in government and offers solutions, and many of its lines are concise yet moving, intriguing in the ideas they present.  However, it is based entirely on logos.  The speech is nice for an acceptance speech, nice for saying “hey this should change”, but it lacks the ability to make an audience leap to its feet in enthusiasm.  It does not give the reader the desire to go out and make a change, nor does it really change one’s life.  It just is.  She lacks stylistic techniques such as short sentences and anaphora (both of which emphasize a point).  She rarely repeats herself, and while this is nice for a tired AP student who has read speeches which say the same thing over and over again for 20 pages, it admittedly does lack the power of a speech that does repeat itself, or that does sneak in short, powerful sentences. 

            Malcolm X, on the other hand, accomplishes an effective protest speech through the use of the very techniques that Aung San Suu Kyi ignores.  On the first page, in the first paragraph, he already is using anaphora.  He repeats “I’m not here”, “problem”, “catch hell”, and “white man” three times each, which truly drives home the point of the paragraph: We all have a problem that will bring hell: the white man.  He also repeats the phrase “the ballot or the bullet” frequently throughout the speech.  The phrase is simple, yet elegant.  The length gives it extra power, because it emphasizes the ideas within the sentence. 

            Another technique used by Malcolm X is the use of rhetorical questions in order to engage the audience and make them think about what he is saying.  “What is a Dixiecrat?” he asks.  “What does this mean?” “Why can’t they pass something that will help you and me?”  All of these questions make the audience pause for a moment to reflect on his words.  This time to think makes his message more powerful, because it allows the audience to agree.

            While I wish that Aung San Suu Kyi’s speech was the best speech of all time, it is not.  It uses heavy logos, which is great in theory (and something oddly lacking in wartime propaganda), but drives people away.  It makes writing feel uncaring and cold.  The best protest speech will include logos and pathos, similar to how Malcolm X does.

The People or The Princes? Thoreau vs Machiavelli

The ends justify the means.

This idea has been used to justify many controversial decisions, both on a personal level - such as skipping school in order to prevent an illness from escalating - and on a larger scale - such as dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in order to end World War II.  Is this statement always true?  Do you really fight off illness by staying home when you could have gone to class?  Did dropping the bomb really save more people than it killed?  Thoreau and Machiavelli each take opposing stances on this idea (a result can justify any action), although they frame this in the context of human nature, government, and its powers: What are the qualities a person should value most?  What is the place of an individual?  When should one act?  How Machiavelli and Thoreau answer these questions differs greatly, but some common threads are woven into their ideologies, making the two more similar than they initially appear to.

What are the qualities a person should value most?

Thoreau lauds the man who is honest, independent, and active. Machiavelli, on the other hand, sees the most worth in a man who can “hold his own to know how to do wrong, and make use of it or not according to necessity.”  Thoreau strongly dislikes people who lie through action, meaning that should a person say they oppose something then they should oppose it through action as well as words; his example of this is the elites of the south, who are “petitioning the State to dissolve the Union” and to whom he asks, “why do they not dissolve it themselves?”  Thoreau believes that these men should live up to their talk and go through with what they call for.  Machiavelli opposes this view because “deceit always succeeded” for many past rulers.

What is the place of the individual?

Thoreau is a true romanticist in his view of the individual.  He believes in the power of a person, and his or her ability to make a difference.  Thoreau encourages people to throw their “whole influence” behind something they believe in, and believes that when this occurs it can bring about great and glorious change.  An example he provides is America; he says that America leads in many fields because of “the character inherent in the American people”, not because of the government.  Machiavelli’s opposing view is apparent based almost exclusively on his audience.  He advocates the use of fear and violence, as “long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal” to a Prince, which shows that he believes that the individual has little worth other than a part of the system.

When should one act?

Here is where the similarities between Machiavelli and Thoreau really show.  Each believes that one should act when there is a problem.  Each advocates throwing everything into the opposition of whatever is causing the problem.  Neither of endorses violence as a primary measure, but neither do Machiavelli or Thoreau rule it out.  The only difference is that action according to Machiavelli should be taken against uprisings against the government, while Thoreau believes the action should be against the government itself.

Thoreau and Machiavelli each view the question of “do the ends justify the means?” differently.  Thoreau believes that honesty, dedication, and action is best, and warns against taking rash action.  He believes in situations where the ends would not justify the means.  Machiavelli thinks differently; he believes that power should be kept at all costs, even if that means lying and committing violence against innocents.  However, small connections can be made between the two, which lead to the conclusion that the two are not quite as different as they at first appear.