Conflicting_Perspectives

The expression of contrasting views of a given topic is represented through intense opinions by either separate presenters or a single presenter capable of expressing opposing sides to a view. The contrasting view of a presenter employs persuasive language techniques to encourage readers to adopt the meaning of their representation to a topic. In order for the presenter to succeed, their optimal medium lies in their representation and in their perceived status before the audience Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Letter to President Bush on the War On Terror by Project for the New American Century and A Self-defeating war by George Soros from the Wall Street Journal will show the use of persuasive language and form and how profound the effect can be in persuading the audience to adopt the meaning of a presenter’s intense opinion. Persuasive techniques and forms used in these three texts are the appeals to national values, fear, freedom and a sense of justice. Also used are Logos, Pathos, sarcasm, quotes, rhetorical questions and differing styles and tones. Act III Scene II of William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, is the quintessence of how representation and perceived status affect how meaning is conveyed to the audience. Observe Brutus; a humble man passionate in preserving Rome. Brutus is a character who can invoke love and respect towards him simply because of his moral scruple. Observe Antony; Antony’s perceived status is shown when the Plebeians quote “There is not a nobler man in Rome”. Brutus’ speech demonstrates a forthright tone with a declarative style. Attempts of Pathos by Brutus seem only to be Logos, for example Brutus says “There is tears, for his love; joy, for his fortune; honour, for his valour; and death, for his ambition. Who is here so base that would be a bondman'” and by using a rhetorical question his forthright manner complements his use of Logos to project his representation for the audience to adopt his meaning for killing Caesar. Similarly the Letter to President Bush on the War On Terror by Project for the New American Century, abbreviated to PNAC, like Brutus’s speech, shows the same use of Logos in place of Pathos. The PNAC is perceived as of high status through their global links to various governments and officials. In their letter to George Bush; their tone is businesslike and written in a formal style. The use of bold subheadings depicts Logos to a reader making the reader believe this is a structured argument with solid evidence. Like Brutus, PNAC appeal to national values and even appeal to a sense of justice, quote “We agree with the Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11”. In effect, whilst there are no other forms of representation to compete with Brutus’ Logos in killing Caesar, Brutus’ appeal to national values and freedom, persuading the crowd that had Caesar lived, they would have become slaves, justifies his reason to kill Caesar. Similarly PNAC instil fear through negative emotive language in nouns such as “Taliban”, “Osama Bin Laden” and “Hezbollah” thereby creating a catharsis to the reader when the prospect of war is brought up. Antony’s use of Pathos captivates the crowd immensely till one Plebeian says “Poor soul! His eyes are red as fire with weeping.”In this way Antony is clever in using Pathos rather than Logos before a crowd as crowds generally tend to react emotionally to given topics hence the initial assembly in outrage of Caesar’s death. Antony also uses Logos for example when he says “I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition'” contrary to Brutus, Antony seems to be using Pathos more throughout his speech from the very start as Brutus begins his speech with “Be patient till the last” whilst Antony says “Friends, Romans, countrymen lend me your ears”. Also the use of Antony’s sarcasm is profound as he sequentially debases the connotations of the word honourable through his repetition of “But Brutus says he was ambitious/ And Brutus is an honourable man” causing the crowd to swiftly denounce Brutus’ claims for Antony very similar to George Soros’ A Self-Defeating War when he says quotes “Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi Army are very different forces but President Bush’s global War on Terror prevents us from differentiating between them…”. Soros’ perceived high status is qualified through his affiliation with the Wall Street Journal and in conjunction with his representation through a cynical tone, he quotes “The War on Terror was uncritically accepted by the American Public as the obvious response to 9/11” and then appealing to majority view he says “..Now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder” thereby enticing readers with weak opinions to join the majority against the War on Terror. Conclusively, like Antony debasing Brutus’ argument, Soros’ attempted Logos of bullet point form is mixed with his Pathos in words with connotations like “innocent victims”, “humiliation of civilians” hence it debases the arguments of PNAC by substituting the catharsis with the end result and therefore achieving a more sustained and engaging opinion. So in conclusion the statuses of Antony and Brutus are equal but their representations define their success or failure in persuading the audience. Brutus fails to engage in Pathos yet Antony does and persuades the crowd to adopt his meaning thus driving Brutus out of Rome. Of similarly high statuses, Soros and PNAC state polarised opinions in supporting the War On Terror but Soros’ argument has an approach with more Pathos that, like Antony does incorporate Logos but invokes an emotional response and one that is stronger in persuading the audience to adopt that particular meaning than one with Logos.