By 1992, two hundred thousand U.S. citizens were dead or dying from AIDS, and almost a million more were infected. Some people noticed how much we necessitated better HIV and AIDS treatment, including AIDS activists Elizabeth Glaser and Mary Fisher. In 1992, both women delivered a speech at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions about the importance of joining the fight against HIV. Glaser and Fisher command attention from the crowd because of their masterful display of rhetoric. Glaser focused on creating a pathetic appeal with repetition and juxtaposition, while Fisher emphasized the tragedy of reality with the use of antithesis and personification. Although both speeches resonated with the audience due to their similar establishment of ethos with the utilization of Kairos and Commonplaces, they differ in their implementation of rhetorical devices.
To inaugurate, Elizabeth Glaser and Mary Fisher use their credibility, timing, and topic to make an impression on the audience. First of all, ethos appeals to credibility, which both authors express quite efficiently. For example, Glaser used pronouns such as ‘we’ or ‘America’ while Fisher repeats “I am one with […]”. The two similar approaches achieve the same effect; giving the audience a sense of relationship with the author. Furthermore, both speakers either introduced themselves or were introduced by someone else. In Glaser’s speech, she introduces herself, her history with childbirth, and how the AIDS virus complicated the procedure. Before Fisher’s speech, she played a video to introduce herself and her children, explaining how all three of them contracted HIV and must live with the consequences. Therefore, both speakers demonstrate their credibility on the topic as well as why they are speaking on it. As if the introduction did not suffice, they furthered their ethos with their kairos, otherwise known as a rhetorical opportunity. Glaser and Fisher gave their speech in the same year, 1992, less than twelve months after the death of Freddie Mercury (a public figure who passed due to AIDS-related pneumonia). The nation still mourned the death of one of the most common household names at the time. The speeches were also given in the same place, the National Convention for their respective parties. Thus, the audience of the speech already wanted change or action, which allowed the addresses to create a greater overall effect. Lastly, the speakers’ implored the ideology of commonplaces, shared beliefs amongst a community, to further their arguments. Both Glaser and Fisher related different subtopics to the overarching idea of gaining support for the treatment of HIV or AIDS. The subjects included relating children to their vulnerability to the disease, deaths of thousands and infection of millions, as well as more affordable healthcare. Children, death, and healthcare all connect with the audience and pique the interest of the viewers.
Despite the similarities between the speakers’ ethos, the speeches differ in the employment of rhetorical devices. Elizabeth Glaser primarily makes use of repetition to expose the urgency of the subject matter. Glaser begins her paragraphs with her patriotic phrase “I believe in America” followed with a restriction of “but not one […]” (Glaser). The repetitive phrases change the pace of information dispelled and arguments made, both appealing to the audience’s recognition of time and timing. Serious matters usually connect themselves to urgency, convincing the audience that there is a sense of it present in the speech. In addition to repetition, Glaser deploys antithesis to build up her argument. Glaser mentions the current administration and the idiocy of their decisions because “while they play games with numbers, people are dying” (Glaser). She uses antithesis to unveil the stark contrast in President Bush’s actions and results. Mirroring the last example, Glaser describes the epidemic of HIV and AIDS as “not about being a Republican or an Independent or a Democrat. It’s about the future”(Glaser). The speaker contrasts the subjects of the argument with antithesis, thereby directing the audience to the, in the eyes of the speaker, true subject. Glaser employs repetition and contrasts with antithesis to cement the effect imposed on the audience.
Rather than Elizabeth Glaser’s repetition and antithesis, Mary Fisher pushes her focus onto parallelism and personification to enhance her argument. Parallelism allows the speaker to capture the audience’s attention and hold it while explaining her argument. To demonstrate, Fisher uses similar wording when saying that “we cannot love justice and ignore prejudice, love our children and fear to teach them” or when describing the infected as “not evil, deserving of our judgment; not victims, longing for our pity — people, ready for support and worthy of compassion.” (Fisher). By rearranging the phrases to follow a similar pattern, she reinforces her memorable effect on the viewers. Her arguments stand out and appear to lead or direct the audience towards her main point of supporting the fight against HIV. Manipulation of word choice changes the way the listeners hear her and is much different than changing the way they understand her. Fisher also incorporates personification to paint a visual for the audience. The author carefully models the urgency of her argument in saying “Tonight, HIV marches resolutely toward AIDS in more than a million American homes, littering its pathway with the bodies of the young” (Fisher). She visualizes the ever-present danger of HIV as an army marching toward something terrible, leaving a trail of the literal bodies of the young. Additionally, Mary Fisher characterizes the disease imploring parents “if you do not see this killer stalking your children, look again” (Fisher). The image exposed to the audience serves as a warning to illuminate the significance of Mary’s address. Fisher’s capitalization of the audience’s attention with parallel word structure and vivid personification combine to create a powerful rhetorical force.
Generally speaking, good use of language and timing helps to create an effect on the viewers or listeners. Elizabeth Glaser recognized this and focused on rhetorical strategies centered around word choice and appeals to time to strengthen her effect on the audience. In contrast with Glaser, Fisher utilized comparative language and devices to make her point and create an impact on the audience. Rhetoric connects multiple groups of people and can move mountains when used correctly.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
Work Cited
“A Timeline of HIV and AIDS.” HIV.gov, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 16 Aug. 2019, https://www.hiv.gov/hivbasics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline.
Fisher, Mary. American Rhetoric: Mary Fisher — 1992 Republican National Convention Address (“A Whisper of Aids”), AmericanRhetoric.com, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/maryfisher1992rnc.html.
Glaser, Elizabeth. American Rhetoric: Elizabeth Glaser — 1992 Democratic National Convention Address, AmericanRhetoric.com, https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/elizabethglaser1992dnc.htm.