Analysis of Patrick Henrys Speech on Liberty - Assignment Example

Gee’s Seven Building Tasks (Discourse Analysis) Introduction The selection chosen for this exercise is the penultimate paragraph of the famous speech by Patrick Henry, entitled “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” It was delivered on March 23, 1775, at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, and is generally cited as the reason for the Virginia House of Burgesses to approve of the participation of the state of Virginia in the American Revolution. This selection was chosen for this exercise, because it is dramatic and fiery in style, strongly worded and, in a sense, extreme in the position it takes on the highly controversial issue of war. These render it interesting to submit to a Discourse analysis. Text Analysis The analysis of the text shall be in accordance with the theory by James Paul Gee that “interaction with text is necessarily a socially mediated process” (St. Clair & Phipps, 2008:91). Actually, social context circumscribes not only words but other elements of communication, such as readings (Knoester, 2009, p. 677) and actions (Gee, 2005, p. 590). What we say, are interpreted by society based not only on the practice (what is actually said and done), but also on social or historical attributes (such as race or religion) and belief or ideology (Gee, 2005:590). It is generally agreed that An Introduction to Discourse Analysis (Gee, 1999) is one of James Paul Gee’s truly significant treatise on the nature of Discourse, as acknowledged by Rodina (2007), Stibbe (2006), Jarvis (2006), Collins (2000), and Holmes (2000). On the other hand, Davies (2000), while lauding the simplicity and ease of approach of Gee in this book, stated that the latter’s informal writing style and simplicity of discussion tends to dilute the power of his message. The fundamental theory developed in this book is Gee’s seven building tasks for discourse analysis. The challenge of the exercise lies in not only relating the form and function of the text, but in finding specific “form-function correlations” that are in themselves juxtaposed with specific social practices indicative of social relationships (Gee, 2004:19). This paper shall attempt to apply this theory to the selection chosen for the purpose. Significance The selection, Patrick Henry’s speech on Liberty, hereto attached as Appendix A, is unmistakably intended to highlight the significance of Virginia’s participation in the war against the British colonizers, during the American Revolution. In fact, it is a particularly good example of “making a mountain out of a molehill”. Coming into the convention, it is easy to imagine that many among the representatives then about to cast their vote would not want to enter the war, would have preferred to sit in the sidelines and take the safe position of not taking sides. It was Patrick Henry’s intention to make a big thing about matters remaining as they were, under British subjugation, but to make it appear worse than it was in order to goad the representatives into action. The molehill in this case was British rule. Patrick Henry used images to create his “mountain” – “…a British guard shall be stationed in every house…our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot…” are certainly exaggerations in the scheme of things, because the British would not have the complement necessary to have each house guarded by a British soldier, nor would there be any sense in actually binding people hand and foot. Activities In this aspect, Gee requires us to identify the social activity the text wishes the listener to enact. Again, this is not difficult to discern. Patrick Henry delivered this before the Virginia Convention, precisely to convince them to perform a specific task – to vote for the inclusion of Virginia in the Revolution and to authorize by resolution the sending of troops to participate in the war. It is but natural for the body to opt for inaction; after all, which political body would voluntarily opt to send their brothers, sons and grandsons to war? And which politician would risk being remembered by the voting public as the one who voted to send their husbands, fathers and offsprings to get killed? I think whatever era we are in, politicians would usually opt for the conservative and the mundane. However, Patrick Henry wanted the “ayes”, and at the risk of being singled out, it was important to ensure a majority vote so that those who truly believed the war was the right way would vote their conscience and send the resolution off with their stamp of approval. Identities At this point, the task is to identify what identity the speaker (Patrick Henry) is trying to enact. Most definitely, from the very first words of the selection, Henry assumes the role of a compatriot who languishes under the same hardships and aspires for the same dreams as all the other members of the convention. Henry’s identity is one with the body of representatives then present, the we, in contradistinction to the British who is the enemy, the they : “THEY tell US WE are weak…” More than that, he puts himself, together with his colleagues, at the lead in front of the citizenry (“The millions of people…”) and as agents of God’s will (“There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations…who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”). In summary, Henry takes the identity of being one of the members of the convention, who should see themselves as vanguards of the citizenry and doers or executors of God’s will, thereby imposing on himself – and his colleagues – the duty and obligation to act and vote in favor of sending troops to war. Relationships This is related to the earlier section on “identities”, because by defining his identity as doer of God’s will and guardian of the people’s well-being, Henry defines his relationship with these persons as servant to the first and protector to the other. As with regards to his fellow representatives, Henry in effect invites them to assume the same role as he himself avows to assume. Henry relates to his colleagues not as their better nor as their leader, but someone who sees the body as tasked with a mandate which they cannot avoid doing (“it is now too late to retire from the contest… war is inevitable – and let it come!”) Politics (the distribution of social goods) The implication for the distribution of social good in this piece is, at the onset, not readily evident. War is associated with death, destruction, and a hatred that could spawn acts of vengeance and retribution. However, Henry’s language makes it clear that the choice to go to war is not longer a choice for them to either make or forego: the war is imminent. Whether they choose to actively contribute to the war effort is immaterial to its occurrence (“Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest”). Henry has successfully maneuvered the discourse to the point where he says there is no choice (“no election”). The social good here is the refusal of submission and slavery, and the affirmation of freedom and self-determination. The distribution of the social good is in the hands of the representatives who were at that time in a position to vote in the convention. The social good is equated to life; the denial of this good is death. Connections Quite deftly, Henry makes the connection between certain victory and the decision fight. His mention of the elements in their favor, though by no means tactically assured of victory, nevertheless paints the picture of it. First is his mention of God being their source of power, and their cause (of liberty) being holy. Secondly, Henry points out that their forces are in the millions (though not necessarily fighting forces, if one were to view it from a practical perspective). Third, he mentions quite directly their invincibility “by any force the enemy can send against them.” This is, of course, only rhetoric, because the American forces were poorly armed and equipped, poorly trained, and comprised in large part by militia. Because of such connections made in the skilful deployment of language, Henry had been able to dissociate the concept of war with death and defeat, and helped form in the minds of the representatives the possibility of victory. Sign systems and knowledge There appears to be a preference of images vs words, the use of mental pictures that speak directly to the emotion rather than appeal to the logic of the intellect. Henry made full use of this when he conjured up the guard at every door, people bound hand and foot, lying supinely on our backs as the enemy comes, and so on. Such powerful images become hard to dispute in argumentation, because as was said before, their basis does not spring from logic but from sentiments that are triggered deep in the collective psyche. Tools of Inquiry Together with the building tasks above discussed, Gee also describes certain tools of inquiry that he identifies as social languages, discourses, intertextuality and conversation. These tools are used to varying degrees, sometimes foregone when not required, in the text, and for varying effects. Social languages in Patrick Henry’s text is evident in the manner he addresses the gathering of representatives; his choice of words are distinguished and deferential, with an air of formality as befitting an august body. Discourse may be imagined through the use of body language, most likely through emphatic gestures and lively gesticulations with the hands in order to stress the major points when the speaker comes to it. The use of intertextuality was described by the use of words that remind us of something else. In the text chosen, Henry makes use of several questions asked end-to-end, one after another. This is clearly reminiscent of one who is being interrogated and made to account for his shortcomings, which, in effect, what the listeners would have felt as this part of the speech was being delivered. Finally, as is most evident in this speech, the Conversations (or the big issue being talked about in society) refers to the impending war, that the war is impending and, therefore, joining in the war effort is imminent, whether pro-actively or reactively. Implications for Practice In an adult literacy course, the text that had been dissected and analyzed here would be useful in portraying the use of language skills in the task of persuasion. If there is anything uppermost in the minds and hearts of people, it is the desire to preserve one’s life and those of his family, one’s possessions, and one’s peaceful existence. However, Henry was able to touch the hearts of his colleagues and arouse in them the very sentiments that would compel them to vote in favor of joining the war. This gift of persuasion is one that could be quite useful to the participants in an adult literacy class. Another lesson that would prove useful in such a class would be mastery of the creative use of imagery. People’s thoughts are largely visual, and as the saying goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” By merely describing something, one is able to evoke feelings of sorrow, joy, pity, horror, or dismay, because of the nature of the image created and how it affects the viewer. Henry put this to good use, supplementing it with phrases that pertain to the other senses – e.g. the clanking of chains. The effective use of imagery transcends the limitations of language and adds a whole different dimension to the level of discourse. The emotional relation is more profound, the message more forcefully sent. Finally, what one may find useful in this analysis for application in a literacy class is the fact that communication is more than language as words; it involves and understanding of people, what makes them act or react, what motivates or dissuades. Henry showed his understanding of people in making his speech by appealing to their most heartfelt desires and concerns. WORDCOUNT = 2,000 REFERENCES Brown, K T; Mino, M; Cooper, J E; Bertelsen, E 2007 ‘Participatory Culture, Video Gaming, and "Real World" Skills’, International Journal of the Humanities, Nov2007, Vol. 5 Issue 5, p1-10 Collins, P J 2000 ‘An introduction to discourse analysis (Book Review)’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Sep2000, Vol. 6 Issue 3, p548 Davies, D 2002 ‘Review: The Discourse Reader/An Introduction to Discourse Analysis’, Modern Language Review, Oct2002, Vol. 97 Issue 4, p1050-1051 Gee, J P 1985 The Narrativization of Experience in the Oral Style’, Journal of Education, Mar85, Vol. 167 Issue 1 Gee, J P 1999 An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, 2nd ed Routledge, New York, NY Gee, J P 2004 Discourse Analysis: What Makes It Critical? In An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, Rogers, R ed.. Routledge, New York, NY Gee, J P 2005 ‘Meaning making, communities of practice, and analytical toolkits’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 9, issue no. 4, pp. 590-594 Gee, J P 2008 ‘Learning and Games’, The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Ed. by Katie Salen. The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundatoin Series on Divital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 21-40 Holmes, J 2000 ‘Review: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, Aug2000, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p475-479 Jarvis, L 2006 ‘Review: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method’, Discourse Studies, Jun2006, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p466-470 Knoester, M 2009 ‘Inquiry Into Urban Adolescent Independent Reading Habits: Can Gee’s Theory of Discourses Provide Insight?’ Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy vol. 52 issue no. 8, pp. 676-685 Moser, B 2001 ‘Review: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method’ MLJ Reviews Modern Language Journal, Spring2001, Vol. 85 Issue 1, p586 Rodina, H 2007 ‘Review: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method by Gee, James Paul’, Modern Language Journal, Fall2007, Vol. 91 Issue 3, p476-477 St. Clair, R & Phipps, A 2008 ‘Ludic Literacies at the Intersections of Cultures: An Interview with James Paul Gee’, Language and Intercultural Communication, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 91-100 Stibbe, A 2006 ‘Review: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd edition’, Discourse & Society, Sep2006, Vol. 17 Issue 5, p686-687 Appendix A From: Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775. They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! Appendix B The Situated Learning Matrix By James Paul Gee According to James Paul Gee, games provide significant experience that are in themselves lessons, aside from the goals they set the learner to achieve. As a means to teaching, Gee developed the Situated Learning Matrix, which is encapsulized in the diagram below: Source: Gee, 2008, p.26 Gee called this the situated learning matrix, “because content is rooted in experiences a person is having as part and parcel of taking on a specific identity…learning is situated in experience, but goal-driven, identity-focused experience” (Gee, 2008:26). This is a view shared by Brown, Mino, Cooper, & Bertelsen (2007). In this selection, the actualization of the matrix in a learning environment could be made practical by assuming that the text selection comprised a speech-giving exercise in class. Students could be invited to take on the identity of Patrick Henry one at a time, while the reset of the class take on the identity of the convention participants. The goal is to deliver the speech with the force and conviction that Henry had. Tool to be used is one’s oral delivery, the effective use of his voice. Context as problem-solving space would be the Virginia convention and the situation of impending war. Finally, Content, would refer to the speech content, the message sought to be delivered by the person playing the role of Patrick Henry. After the exercise, the speaker would give his feelings during the experience, and audience’s reactions and comments are solicited. If there are several members who volunteer to play the role of Patrick Henry, then a prize for the most effective speaker, as voted upon by the class, could be given. Read More