An analysis of 12 angry men - Essay Example

An analysis of "12 angry men" Note how the leadership in the movie depend on that which Aristotle had previously given . Also note that Aristotle's formation of rhetoric makes it a component of every human effort, apart from (perhaps) those aspects of technical discussion which are so famous as to be established practically without question. In groups, large or small, the identity and make up of who becomes the leader and who becomes the follower is difficult to explain. In the case of the movie "Twelve Angry Men," the small group is the jury and the verdict they have to find.

There is an underlying assumption that the jury will judge their fellow man fairly and without any personal bias. However the imperfections of man make this process less than perfect. It is here, when emotions and logic are inserted into the thought process, that conflict, doubt and questioning of motives start to occur. When the leader, in this case the foreman, takes charge we see his influence and power over the other members of the group (jury) start to take place and eventually the power shifts to another individual, in this case another jury member, an architect.

On first look, the jury probably would have unanimously voted for conviction, however, as the discussion progressed, the architect gets the rest of the members to question their quick decision. While the foreman was relying on his legitimate place of power as the foreman, the architect keeps the group talking and discussing the facts of the case, and listening to each other. The foreman stayed focused and kept the discussion going and wanted all voting procedures to be fair, while the architect used rationality and logic and wanted the others to discuss their way to a still unanimous decision, but better defended.

The fear of disappointing the group is stronger than perhaps their own judgment, and after the vote was not unanimous for a guilty verdict, each member tried to convince the architect, the dissenting vote, as to why they feel the suspect is guilty. After much discussion, another vote is taken, only this time it is done by secret ballot, and eventually it comes back with another unanimous decision. However, this time it is opposite of its original position: not guilty, here we find Aristotle's leadership rhetoric plays an essential role here as in this scenario as the foreman bases his leadership on Aristotle's rhetoric of leadership he strongly believes that truth needs protection exactly like the perpetration of wrongs.

The bad guys will defiantly make use rhetoric.why should the good guys be powerless There is a political sense in this theory too: right thinking leaders like the jury and foreman, those who have well of the most in mind, ought to be able to take effective leadership action like the jury and foreman did in the movie (and must do so). When the group was assembled in the jury room they were polite, organized and civil to each other. They very well knew what their responsibility was as well as they collectively were thinking this was a precise case.

The expectations which most of the members of jury were that a decision of guilty would be reached quite promptly and all of them would be able to leave. Compliance with this norm was first evident with the first vote taken, only one of the jury members voted for a guilty verdict. No one wanted to disappoint the group. All of the jury's leadership strengths seem to again reflect Aristotle's leade