Questions regarding one’s right to ownership of land and property has been an issue much discussed, debated and responsible in creating a stir of conflict in the attempt to find a conclusive answer on subject. In John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government, published in 1690, Locke addresses the matter in question in the fifth chapter titled: ‘Of Property’. In his work, Locke builds an argument that displays how an individual obtains an ownership of property by means of labor.
Locke is able to justify his position on the point at issue through the word of God and through simplistic scenarios he illustrates to his reader. Moving forward, in 1874, Chief Seattle conducted a powerful speech to Govenor Isaac Stevens and to the nation, a speech which was grounded by an effort to convey the pursuit of claiming land ownership as calamity upon indigenous people and their rights. When one analyzes these two works side by side, they juxtapose each other in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, readers and scholars alike continue to study these antiquity pieces into the modern age.
Despite of their clashing prospects, the two share a commonality in that they both contain entheymatic arguments that which engage the emotions of their audiences to persuade them into believing their appointed arguments. By examining how each writer, Chief Seattle and John Locke structured their works in relation to the appeal of their intended audience, this paper will show how Chief Seattle’s ‘Speech to the U. S President’ proves to be the more effective enthymematic argument rather than John Locke’s ‘Of Property’.
This claim will be supported through Aristotle’s definition and favor of the enthymeme as a crucial feature in the study of rhetoric. By means of Aristotle’s of description of the enthymeme and critical analysis of each work, evidence will validate that Chief Seattle’s speech proves to be the most persuasive. First, we shall explore the work of Aristotle in relation to his contributions to the study of rhetoric and his definition of the enthymeme. The enthymeme is type of argument that which resembles syllogism, establishing a rhetorical argument founded on a shared premise by the rhetor and audience.
In other words, an argument could be designed to be enthymematic by engaging the intended audience’s values, beliefs and emotions. The perfect enthymeme is modeled to go unnoticed – it should appear invisible by the way it is connected to the assumptions of an audience, it should be “grasped internally” by both parties, the rhetorician and audience, such was a feature advocated by Aristotle. “For Aristotle, all rhetoric was characterized by such enthymematic exchanges, by transactions between the speaker and the audience involving agreements rooted in deeply held or “heartfelt” convictions. (75 Herrick).
In response to Plato’s criticism on the subject of rhetoric, Aristotle provided a systematic approach in its defense, illustrating it as a process of invention, discovery, and investigation toward constructing arguments and learning the ways in which people think. Aristotle’s vision of the ideal rhetorician was required to have an understanding of emotion and good character. The three artistic proofs – ethos, logos, and pathos – that he theorized, were necessary to employ in order to construct a persuasive argument.
Not only was it important for the rhetor to invoke the emotion of his intended audience to put them in the right frame of mind, it was of equal importance to understand exactly why his audience experiences such an emotional response. Although the appeal to emotion was at times dismissed by other theorists, Aristotle would argue that the inability to make an audience care would be considered an insufficient performance by the rhetor. Aristotle asserted that emotion was a reasonable and rational reaction toward compelling situations, he also exerted that the feeling of anger served as a reasonable response to injustice.
Henceforth, having established the teachings of Aristotle – that which is still considered the most influential and insightful by scholars and historians of rhetoric – and having a concrete definition of the term enthymeme, we are able to advance into further analysis and determine the work that abides by these regulations. We will now examine how John Locke assembled his argument in ‘On Property’ to appeal to his White-European audience of the 16th century. The English philosopher structured his arguments in favor of an individual’s ownership right to property.
John Locke describes the world as common property to mankind gifted by God. The substance of Locke’s position caters to the notion that since man is in ownership of himself, he is also in ownership of the fruits of his labor his body applies. Locke describes simplistic and relatable premises to his readers, banking on the notion of a shared premise by rhetor and audience, the sensible progression of his arguments allow the reader to move from point to point. By this description of his work, the presence of the enthymeme appears.
Aristotle’s definition of the enthymematic argument revolves around presenting an argument that which is a shared assumption by both the audience and the rhetorician. For example, however, the perfect enthymeme is an argument grasped internally by the audience. John Locke often expresses the assumed without it being necessary. Through his lengthy narration of oversimplified scenarios such as gathering apples but only taking as much as needed, otherwise, they will rot – the audience can already presume if one takes too much of what one needs, the remaining will eventually spoil.
Locke goes on and on and frequently repeats the ideas he has already set up for the sole purpose that can bring the audience to agree with his summation from point to point. The stylistic choices regarding language show how John Locke put a deliberate effort into making the tone of his work come off as concrete in the certainity of his beliefs and ideas. As much as Locke is striving to deliver his argument with critical and persuade his audience, it is almost as if Locke does not trust that the audience to recognize his stance on the subject without his calculative guidance.
It is evident to see that his arguments are fashioned to fit an appeal to logic but it is also evident Locke does not considerably appeal to the emotional response of his audience. As previously mentioned, the enthymeme depended on appealing to the audience’s beliefs, values and emotions. Locke does attempt to persuade his audience through the word of god as an appeal to their emotions and beliefs, however, Locke appears to bring God into the equation as a means to legitimizes his position, rather than connect with the audience as Aristotle prescribed.
The natural reasoning he presents refers that God recommends the way of life and entitlement to property he is commending. Lastly, we come to analyze the speech made by Chief Seattle to the present the ways in which he constructed enthymematic arguments effectively in relation to his intended audience. The language in Chief Seattle’s ‘Speech to the U. S President’ is a metaphorical and imaginative one. Seattle uses metaphorical and imaginative language in his speech.
The figurative language and imagery of nature allow the audience to receive his argument in a way that enables them to sympathize with him and the people he campaigns on behalf of. In lines such as: “”Whatever Seattle says the great chief at Washington can rely upon with as much certainty as he can upon the return of the sun or the seasons. ” Seattle presents an enthymeme in which the audience understands that the changing of the seasons is a constant gurantee without Seattle having to state that fact for them. The shared belief between rhetor and audience is there.
The sole foundation of Seattle’s speech relies heavily upon it’s strong binary complex, the ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them’ standpoint. The binary complex he employs presents the White Man’ and the ‘Red Man’ on two different spectrums, illustrating the distinctions to the audience in a way so that they can understand the emotional side of their circumstance. Although Seattle’s stylisitic formation of his speech most would consider appealing to the emotion on his intended audience, he critically uses the imagery of nature as means of tracing a logical reasoning behind his metaphorical language.
The metaphors and imagery Through a contemporary perspective, the stereotypes associated with Native Indians view them as spiritual and magical rather than scientific. The metaphorical language is linked to the culture Chief Seattle emcompassed. His speech is littered with logical statements, but they are wrapped up in a style of language that is in a way poetic, invoking an emotional response from the audience as they listen to his speech.
