Differences in Rhetorical Energy

In his article “A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric” George Kennedy argues that, “Rhetoric in the most general sense may perhaps be identified with the energy inherent in communication: the emotional energy that impels the speaker to speak, the physical energy expended in the utterance, the energy level coded in the message, and the energy experienced by the recipient in decoding the message.”  As an example of varying levels of energy, Kennedy talks about the difference between someone saying, “Shut the window.” as opposed to a person saying, “Shut the window. It’s cold in here.”  In the first instance, the speaker gives no reason for his request and in the second, he gives a reason, opening up the question for deliberation.  The second utterance has less rhetorical energy, Kennedy claims because, “authority is less obvious, appeal to the judgment of the recipient is implied. There is recognition of the possibility for deliberation.”   

This reminded me of a speech that I have been looking this semester by former Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell.  In a comparison between this speech and a speech given by fellow Tea Party candidate Rand Paul, I found that O’Donnell’s speech had much more of an emotional impact.  This can largely be explained by the difference in the amount of reasoning given by the candidates.  O’Donnell gives very little reasoning for her claims.  For instance, she says, “Will they attack us? Yes. Will they smear our backgrounds and distort our records? Undoubtedly. Will they lie about us, harass our families, name call and try to intimidate us? They will.”  This quote illustrates the rhetorical energy that Kennedy talks about.  The claims are not open to deliberation and O’Donnell’s authority must be taken at face value.  Contrast this with a quote from Rand Paul’s speech: “But there is one thing-- people complain and they say, “Oh the Tea Party is so divisive.” But there are things that we can say that I think can bring people together. For example, during George Bush’s administration...”  Paul then goes on to explain ways in which the Tea Party is not divisive, opening up the claim for deliberation and thus giving it less rhetorical energy.  O’Donnell’s verbal energy is supplemented by a physical and vocal energy.  Her voice is much stronger than Paul’s, and on her face, one can see her emotions written on her face.  Paul’s voice, in contrast, is much more measured and his face much more still.  The difference in energy was reflected in the public, as O’Donnell seemed to inspire much more of an emotional reaction-- good or bad-- than Paul did.