Rhetoric, As a Discipline, Has Inspired Much Discussion and Debate Over the Years
1
Passion and Prayers
Running Head: PASSION AND PRAYERS
Passion and Prayers:
An Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies Used in the
Rev. Dr. Anna Howard Shaw’s Sermons and Suffrage Speeches
Dacia Charlesworth, Ph.D.
Director, University Honors Program
Associate Professor, Department of Communication
RobertMorrisUniversity
6001 University Blvd.
Moon Township, PA15108
412.262.8282
Abstract
This essay examines the rhetorical strategies used by the Rev. Dr. Anna Howard Shaw as both a Methodist minister and an orator within the woman’s suffrage movement. Four of Shaw’s most popular speeches are analyzed (two suffrage speeches and two sermons) by combining feminist rhetorical criticism and narrative criticism. Findings indicate that Shaw’s rhetorical strategies as a minister included adding her own commentary to narrative events, making connections between the lives of women who lived in the past to women who live in the present, inviting her audience to identify with the characters in the narratives by relating the events in the character’s lives to their own, and making women’s experiences seem valuable. The strategies Shaw used as a minister are also found in her suffrage speeches. Shaw’s use of rhetorical strategies lent her a vast amount of credibility and these strategies are perhaps the main reason Shaw was such an accomplished orator within the woman’s suffrage movement.
Passion and Prayers:
An Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies Used in the
Rev. Dr. Anna Howard Shaw’s Sermons and Suffrage Speeches
The Rev. Dr. Anna Howard Shaw was, and remains, a significant— but overlooked—historical figure. Shaw was born in England, but her parents immigrated to Michigan when she was a young child. Rebuking the trends of the time, Shaw studied at AlbionCollege (where the college’s Women’s Center bears her name) and then went on to earn two degrees from BostonUniversity—one in theology in 1878 and the other in medicine in 1886, and became the first female minister to be ordained by the MethodistChurch (Campbell, 1989). Reviewing all of Shaw’s accomplishments, it seems that she was able to succeed by performing two roles that were usually reserved for men: Orator and Minister.
As an orator, Karlyn Kohrs Campbell notes that those involved with the woman’s suffrage cause generally acknowledged “that Shaw won more people for equal suffrage than any other advocate” (1989, p. 159). Shaw was dubbed the movement’s orator:
For forty years Shaw protested existing social conditions and proclaimed
equal rights for women in every American state and in most European
countries. She spoke to the English, the Swedes, and the Germans; she
addressed leading American colleges and universities; she presided at packed meetings in Carnage Hall and Cooper Union; and she pleaded with numerous congressional committees and state legislatures. She delivered several hundred speeches a year, and often spoke as many as eight times a day, often for temperance but mostly for woman suffrage. (Campbell, 1989, pp. 159, 409)
She also served as president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association for 11 years (Shaw, 1915).
In her role as a minister, Shaw served as the National Superintendent of franchise for the Women’s Christian Temperance Union from 1886-1892, and served as the minister for several parishes—sometimes three at a time (Shaw, 1915). Shaw was also the chairperson of the Women’s Committee of the Council of National Defense during World War I and was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross from Congress for her work with this committee.
Clearly, Shaw accomplished a great deal in her life. Yet, historians downplay or even negate her role within U.S. history. Some historians have even gone so far as to write that Shaw’s “mental ability apparently was moderate in spite of her two degrees” (Riegel, 1963, p. 179), that “her mind seems to be slow in reacting; she had little originality and exhibited almost no sense of humor” (Riegel, 1963, p. 179), and that “men admired Shaw least of all. Leading feminists usually had at least a few male supporters; Dr. Shaw, however, seems to have had none” (O’Neill, 1989, pp. 121-122). Rhetorical critics, however, have examined Shaw’s impact on the woman’s suffrage movement and generally acknowledge her to be a successful orator.
What historians and rhetorical critics alike have yet to focus on, however, is Shaw’s role as a minister. While Shaw’s role within the suffrage movement is substantial, classifying her only as a suffrage orator negates her other prominent public role as a minister and overlooks an important opportunity to research the rhetorical strategies she used as a speaker in both contexts. In an effort to direct attention to and stress the importance of Shaw’s role as a minister, I examine the styles and strategies Shaw utilized as a ministerand as an advocate for woman’s suffrage. I first delineate the process of rhetorical criticism and discuss the values of its pluralistic nature. Next, I identify the rhetorical methods to be utilized for this study. Third, I analyze four of Shaw’s sermons and suffrage speeches. Finally, I draw conclusions as to the significance of Shaw’s role as a minister.
The first step a rhetorical critic should engage in is formulating a research question or series of questions. In this case, the analysis will be guided using the following questions: What rhetorical strategies did Shaw use as a minister? Did these strategies “carry over” to her suffrage speeches? If so, did these strategies help or hinder her credibility as a speaker? After the research question or questions have been generated, the next step a critic must complete is deciding upon a method to use for analysis of the rhetorical artifacts. For this study, the rhetorical artifacts will consist of two of Shaw’s most popular sermons and two of Shaw’s most popular suffrage speeches.
Given the various methods of criticism available to the rhetorical critic, it is best for the critic to assume the stance of a pluralist. That is, one who does not rely on a specific method at all times and is able to consider using a plethora of rhetorical methods. Since rhetorical artifacts are so diverse, it is best for the critic to wait until a research question has been developed before selecting a method. Some individuals may claim that the notion of being a pluralist is too idealistic and exists only in theory and not in practice. I disagree with this claim and feel that a successful rhetorical critic will be able to use various forms of criticism when analyzing artifacts. Pauline Kael expands upon this claim and asserts:
I believe we respond most and best to work in any art form [and to
other experience as well] if we are pluralistic, flexible, relative in our judgments, if we are eclectic. But this does not mean a scrambling and confusion of systems. Eclecticism is the selection of the best standards and principles from various systems of ideas. It requires more orderliness to be a pluralist than to apply a single theory…criticism is exciting because you must use everything you are and everything you know that is relevant. (as cited in Brock & Scott, 1980, p. 138)
To follow Kael’s argument, a rhetorical critic would not be engaging in “good” criticism if she or he always called upon the Neo-Aristotelian model of criticism. Since criticism is conducted just as much for the critic as for the critic’s audience, the critic is expected to benefit from the analysis as well. Plus, a critic who only relies upon one type of criticism will certainly experience an instance when she or he encounters an artifact that cannot be critiqued from that particular mode. Thus, since the research questions a critic will ask will never be the same, a critic should not rely on one model to try and answer the questions posed. Having discussed the steps a rhetorical critic should follow and the pluralist nature of rhetorical criticism, I now identify and describe the methods to be used for this analysis.
To analyze Shaw’s strategies as a minister and a suffragist, one may think that feminist criticism would be the most appropriate method to use. While this method is appropriate for this analysis, after closely examining the artifacts, I determined that feminist rhetorical criticism should be used in conjunction with narrative criticism. This is not to suggest that just because Anna Howard Shaw was a feminist, one must conduct a feminist analysis or that a feminist method of criticism is the only method to be utilized when analyzing feminist texts; rather, given the assumptions undergirding feminist criticism, this method seems best suited to answer the questions generated by this project.
The assumptions of feminist criticism include the belief that women are oppressed by patriarchy, that women’s experiences are different from men’s, and that women’s perspectives are not currently incorporated into our culture (Foss, 1996, pp. 166-167). Certainly Shaw believed that women were oppressed by patriarchy, which is why she struggled to obtain the right to vote for herself and other women—she viewed the ballot as a tool for liberation. Shaw’s experiences, and thus her speaking strategies, will perhaps differ greatly from men’s and the strategies that Shaw employed are not incorporated into our culture or, perhaps even more distressing, the culture of the woman’s movement as she is, for the most part, a forgotten historical figure. These three assumptions, therefore, seem to coalesce with Shaw’s beliefs and experiences. Feminist criticism, as described by Sonja Foss, involves two basic steps: “(1) analysis of the construction of gender in the artifact studied; and (2) exploration of what the artifact suggests about how the patriarchy is constructed and maintained or how it can be challenged and transformed” (1996, pp. 169-170).
I also chose to use narrative criticism because of the assumptions postulated in this method. Narrative criticism falls under what Walter Fisher has deemed the “narrative paradigm.” According to Fisher,
the narrative paradigm sees people as storytellers—authors and co-authors who creatively read and evaluate the texts of life and literature. It envisions existing institutions as providing ‘plots’ that are always in the process of re-creation rather than as scripts; it stresse[s] that people are full participants in the making of messages, whether they are agents (authors) or audience members (co-authors).” (Fisher, 1985, p. 86)
Within this paradigm, Fisher has also identified five presuppositions that structure the narrative paradigm, they are:
(1) humans are essentially storytellers; (2) the paradigmatic mode of human decision-making and communication is ‘good reasons’ which vary in form among communication situations, genres, and media; (3) the production and practice of good reasons is ruled by matters of history, biography, culture, and character…; (4) rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings—their inherent awareness of narrative probability, what constitutes a coherent story, and their constant habit of testing narrative fidelity, whether the stories they experience ring true with the stories they know to be true in their lives … [and] (5) the world is a set of stories which must be chosen among to live the good life in a process of continual recreation. (Fisher, 1984, p. 8)
As a minister, Shaw certainly told stories to her congregation and her audience would have judged her stories based on her narrative’s coherence and fidelity. Also, as a minister, Shaw would select from numerous stories to tell her congregation, and the stories she chose to narrate were perhaps read so that her congregation could, as Fisher writes, “live the good life in a process of continual recreation.” Thus, Shaw adhered to Fisher’s conceptualization of the true storyteller and, as such, the true storyteller’s “contribution to public dialogue is to impart knowledge, like a teacher, or wisdom, like a sage” (Fisher, 1984, p. 13). As a minister, Shaw had the opportunity to impart both knowledge and wisdom through the narratives used in her sermons.
As a rhetorical method, practitioners of narrative criticism view narratives as,
frame[s] upon experience, [that] function as an argument to view and
understand the world in a particular way, and by analyzing th[e] narrative, the critic can understand the argument being made about the likelihood that it will be successful in gaining adherence for the perspective it presents. (Foss, 1996, p. 400)
The narrative critic is to survey the narratives she or he is evaluating and try to code it for eight features identified by Sonja Foss. These features include: Setting (What is the setting or the scene of the narrative), Characters (Who are the main characters? Are they predictable or unpredictable?), Narrator (Is the narrative presented directly to the audience or is mediated by the narrator? Does the narrator engage in commentary? How reliable is the narrator?), Events (What are the major and minor events of the story?), Temporal Relations (Do events occur during a brief amount of time or over a period of years?), Causal Relations (What cause-and-effect relationships are established?), Audience (Who is the audience to which the narrative is addressed? Is the audience a participant in the events recounted? What seems to be the narrator’s evaluation of the audience’s knowledge, personality, and abilities?), and Theme (What is the major theme of the narrative? Is the theme articulated through events, characters, or setting? How obvious is the theme?) (Foss, 1996, pp. 402-405). After the critic has coded for the eight features in the narrative or narratives, she or he must determine which of these elements seem most significant in terms of the research question she or he is asking (Foss, 1996, p. 405). It is then that the critic is able to answer the research question.
Because the research question for this particular analysis seeks to examine the strategies Shaw used when delivering her sermons and suffrage speeches, the methods to be utilized include narrative and feminist criticism. I have discussed the methods to be drawn from for this analysis. I now proceed by analyzing Shaw’s sermons and suffrage speeches.
Shaw’s sermon entitled “The Path is Plain” was probably first preached on September 30, 1877. Shaw wrote this sermon so that she would be granted a license to preach from the presiding elder (Farmer & Hunter, 1990, p. 22). This sermon begins with the following scripture from the Bible: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Shaw, 1990, p. 22). Shaw then elaborates on this passage and tells of the events that transpire between Moses and his followers. In sum, Moses’ followers, having grown tired of wandering, begin complaining to Moses: “Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt—to die in the wilderness, for there is no bread here, neither is there any water, and our souls [loathe] this…light bread” (Shaw, 1990, p. 23). In response to these complaints, God is said to have sent fiery serpents among the people; the Hebrews were bitten by these serpents and were dying. Moses, sick at the loss of his people, prayed to God for forgiveness; he asked God to realize that his followers recognized that they sinned when they spoke against Moses. God then instructed Moses to make a fiery serpent and put it on a pole and have those who were bitten by the serpents look upon the pole so that they might live. Moses did so and those bitten lived.
What becomes central to this narrative is its theme: “Good triumphs over evil.” This theme is articulated by the events in the narrative: the people are evil for complaining about Moses, but Moses, who is good, is able to save his people from the serpent’s evil bite. This theme is also articulated by the rhetor’s (Shaw) commentary. After she tells this story she then implicates her audience by comparing how Moses’ followers were encouraged to look at the pole and save themselves from evil by returning to God but had to do so of their own free will to the idea that her congregation must also turn to God, but of their own free will as well:
…there was no human or possible cure except in obedience to [God’s] command so must every man work out his own [soul’s] salvation. No one can do it for him…. The [remedy] was simple and easily comprehended by all and within the reach of all. So is salvation placed within the attainment of every individual of the human family?” (Shaw, 1990, pp. 27-28)
Shaw stresses that just as the individuals in the scripture were required to make their own choice, so is her congregation.
In terms of the audience, Shaw expects them to be familiar with the story of Moses and his followers. She states, “All doubtless are familiar with the history of the Hebrews while in bondage in the land of Egypt, of their deliverance by Moses and their wanderings in the wilderness” (Shaw, 1990, p. 22). Shaw’s assumption that her audience would know the story makes sense, as her audience is hearing a sermon and is mostly churchgoers. This audience, while not a direct participant in Shaw’s narrative, is directly implicated by the suggestion that unless they freely allow God into their lives a metaphoric fiery serpent could bite them too. The theme of this narrative is clear and becomes even more obvious once Shaw begins to offer her own commentary. As do most sermons, this narrative contains a moral that the audience is expected to understand and internalize.