What Is The Purpose Of I Have A Dream Speech
Purpose
This persuasive analysis seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the speech by Martin Luther King Jr entitled “I Have a Dream,” which he delivered on August 28, 1963 at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in front of an enthralled crowd. This speech had a remarkable impact both nationally and internationally since it addressed some of the contentious social issues that were affecting the nation during that time. The analysis will primarily focus on the specific elements employed in the speech including heuristic processing, systematic processing, and the semantic elements that compose the persuasive nature of the speech from both the orator’s perspective and the recipient’s perspective. It will also dissect some myths that are evident in the speech such as the American dream, race, as well as identity. Additionally, it will cover the challenges that King’s speech had to overcome in order to influence such a diverse audience. Finally, it will attempt to analyze the ‘technique’ through which King is able to inspire such a massive change in beliefs—a ‘schema shift’—regardless of how much they thought they have given it; that is, how much they have used heuristics versus issue-relevant thinking. Through the analysis, readers will be able to understand and draw a parallel on the speech’s messages in relation to the contemporary worldviews. This will potentially inform them about the …show more content…
best ways to immortalize King’s speech that hit the headlines more than five decades ago.
Additionally, readers will be able to develop a better understanding of the milestones that continue to inform the plight suffered by many people of color despite concerted efforts by people such as King to bring about change in society and end the racial subjugation that had faced the community.
Readers will also be better able to comprehend the persuasive techniques and strategies that they can use to pass their messages through in order to capture audience attention, and they will learn the mechanisms of integrating such positive techniques into their messages for their own
benefits.
General Description of the Persuasive Artifact
King’s speech entitled “I Have a Dream” is a landmark presentation that he made while addressing a huge crowd in Washington at the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial. The speech sought to bring to light the various inequalities that defined the American society at the time (King Jr., 1963). In this speech, the main message that the orator aspired to pass through was that all people are born equal, and that therefore Americans need to embrace all the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and respect the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This would ensure that people of color have full participation in the social, political, and economic development of the nation. Basing his arguments on the racial injustice that was pervasive during the time, King rightly argued in favor of dispensation of social justice to all individuals regardless of their personal attributes.
The speech by Martin Luther King has had a tremendous social significance. Fifty years after the delivery of this speech, we are still feeling the profound impact this one speech has had on our society. Still, the segregation and discrimination that were prevalent during his time continue to persist to date. These problems confront many marginalized communities in the nation and the people of color have yet to receive the full liberation that the orator wished for them in the future. Through this persuasive analysis, the reader should be able to better understand King’s personal hopes for the audience to take away from his speech, and what a monumental task he had accomplished by swaying so many people of diverse backgrounds and upbringings.
Theoretical Lens
In order to provide a comprehensive understanding and critique of the artifact, I will explore it primarily through the theoretical lens of the elaboration-likelihood model—which essentially deals with how the audience absorbs information—as well as semantics, which relates to the way in which the orator attempts to create meaning in his propositions. The elaboration-likelihood model attempts to help explain how individuals process and receive persuasive messages. This model acknowledges that people can process knowledge either systematically or heuristically. According to Simons & Jones (2011), heuristic processing relies upon the judgmental rules learned and consequently stored in memory. This approach requires minimal cognitive effort on the recipient’s part when receiving the message.
Heuristic information processors have a higher likelihood of agreeing with messages endorsed by others or those delivered by experts without processing the message’s semantic content fully. Such individuals often judge the message’s validity simply by relying more on non-content cues or accessible context information, for example the identity of the person providing the information (Griffin, Neuwirth, & Giese, 2002), or the way in which others react and feel about the message. This is also known as a peripheral route to persuasion. To them, such non-content cues are more persuasive than the message itself. In contrast, systematic information processing involves analytic and comprehensive cognitive processing of information. This approach values message content and source reliability, which might exert a stronger influence on persuasion in determining the validity of the message (Griffin et al., 2002). This is also known as a central rote to persuasion. Judgments derived through systematic processing respond according to the message’s semantic content.
According to Simons & Jones (2011), systematic processing is likely to take place in situations where the participants are in a better position to scrutinize the message, for example where there no time constraints and where the topic has a high relevance to the listener. Recipients who develop attitudes from the systematic basis tend to often be those who strive to evaluate and comprehend the arguments in the message through exerting considerable cognitive effort. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that while recipients who utilize systematic processing often rely heavily on the content of the message, heuristics (including non-content and source characteristics) inevitably will still supplement their assessment of the message’s validity (Griffin et al., 2002).
Furthermore, while both processes might occur independently, they can and typically do occur simultaneously. Persuasion in the systematic mode is mediated by the individual’s cognitive elaboration and understanding of the persuasive message (Simons & Jones, 2011). The recipients also evaluate the validity of the message through the relations of the information to their prior knowledge of the subject matter. This stands in stark contrast to persuasive effects during heuristic processing where single beliefs or simple rules mediate the processing of information.
The other theoretical underpinning that I will employ to analyze the persuasive elements of King’s speech is the use of semantics. As envisaged by Griffin et al., (2002), this is the branch of linguistics concerned with meaning. The primary focus of semantics is the relationship between signifiers such as words, signs, symbols and phrases and their denotation, that is, what they really stand for. Using semantic persuasion methods also includes the use of ambiguous words, sentence structures, and metaphors that add huge meanings to the messages conveyed by the speaker or orator. Not only does the use of such vivid imagery make the message more impactful, semantics can often cause the audience to perversely hear what they want to hear in a message, rather than hearing the true meaning that the sender of the message actually holds. This can be both intentional and unintentional.
This persuasive analysis seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the speech by Martin Luther King Jr entitled “I Have a Dream,” which he delivered on August 28, 1963 at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in front of an enthralled crowd. This speech had a remarkable impact both nationally and internationally since it addressed some of the contentious social issues that were affecting the nation during that time. The analysis will primarily focus on the specific elements employed in the speech including heuristic processing, systematic processing, and the semantic elements that compose the persuasive nature of the speech from both the orator’s perspective and the recipient’s perspective. It will also dissect some myths that are evident in the speech such as the American dream, race, as well as identity. Additionally, it will cover the challenges that King’s speech had to overcome in order to influence such a diverse audience. Finally, it will attempt to analyze the ‘technique’ through which King is able to inspire such a massive change in beliefs—a ‘schema shift’—regardless of how much they thought they have given it; that is, how much they have used heuristics versus issue-relevant thinking. Through the analysis, readers will be able to understand and draw a parallel on the speech’s messages in relation to the contemporary worldviews. This will potentially inform them about the …show more content…
best ways to immortalize King’s speech that hit the headlines more than five decades ago.
Additionally, readers will be able to develop a better understanding of the milestones that continue to inform the plight suffered by many people of color despite concerted efforts by people such as King to bring about change in society and end the racial subjugation that had faced the community.
Readers will also be better able to comprehend the persuasive techniques and strategies that they can use to pass their messages through in order to capture audience attention, and they will learn the mechanisms of integrating such positive techniques into their messages for their own
benefits.
General Description of the Persuasive Artifact
King’s speech entitled “I Have a Dream” is a landmark presentation that he made while addressing a huge crowd in Washington at the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial. The speech sought to bring to light the various inequalities that defined the American society at the time (King Jr., 1963). In this speech, the main message that the orator aspired to pass through was that all people are born equal, and that therefore Americans need to embrace all the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and respect the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This would ensure that people of color have full participation in the social, political, and economic development of the nation. Basing his arguments on the racial injustice that was pervasive during the time, King rightly argued in favor of dispensation of social justice to all individuals regardless of their personal attributes.
The speech by Martin Luther King has had a tremendous social significance. Fifty years after the delivery of this speech, we are still feeling the profound impact this one speech has had on our society. Still, the segregation and discrimination that were prevalent during his time continue to persist to date. These problems confront many marginalized communities in the nation and the people of color have yet to receive the full liberation that the orator wished for them in the future. Through this persuasive analysis, the reader should be able to better understand King’s personal hopes for the audience to take away from his speech, and what a monumental task he had accomplished by swaying so many people of diverse backgrounds and upbringings.
Theoretical Lens
In order to provide a comprehensive understanding and critique of the artifact, I will explore it primarily through the theoretical lens of the elaboration-likelihood model—which essentially deals with how the audience absorbs information—as well as semantics, which relates to the way in which the orator attempts to create meaning in his propositions. The elaboration-likelihood model attempts to help explain how individuals process and receive persuasive messages. This model acknowledges that people can process knowledge either systematically or heuristically. According to Simons & Jones (2011), heuristic processing relies upon the judgmental rules learned and consequently stored in memory. This approach requires minimal cognitive effort on the recipient’s part when receiving the message.
Heuristic information processors have a higher likelihood of agreeing with messages endorsed by others or those delivered by experts without processing the message’s semantic content fully. Such individuals often judge the message’s validity simply by relying more on non-content cues or accessible context information, for example the identity of the person providing the information (Griffin, Neuwirth, & Giese, 2002), or the way in which others react and feel about the message. This is also known as a peripheral route to persuasion. To them, such non-content cues are more persuasive than the message itself. In contrast, systematic information processing involves analytic and comprehensive cognitive processing of information. This approach values message content and source reliability, which might exert a stronger influence on persuasion in determining the validity of the message (Griffin et al., 2002). This is also known as a central rote to persuasion. Judgments derived through systematic processing respond according to the message’s semantic content.
According to Simons & Jones (2011), systematic processing is likely to take place in situations where the participants are in a better position to scrutinize the message, for example where there no time constraints and where the topic has a high relevance to the listener. Recipients who develop attitudes from the systematic basis tend to often be those who strive to evaluate and comprehend the arguments in the message through exerting considerable cognitive effort. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that while recipients who utilize systematic processing often rely heavily on the content of the message, heuristics (including non-content and source characteristics) inevitably will still supplement their assessment of the message’s validity (Griffin et al., 2002).
Furthermore, while both processes might occur independently, they can and typically do occur simultaneously. Persuasion in the systematic mode is mediated by the individual’s cognitive elaboration and understanding of the persuasive message (Simons & Jones, 2011). The recipients also evaluate the validity of the message through the relations of the information to their prior knowledge of the subject matter. This stands in stark contrast to persuasive effects during heuristic processing where single beliefs or simple rules mediate the processing of information.
The other theoretical underpinning that I will employ to analyze the persuasive elements of King’s speech is the use of semantics. As envisaged by Griffin et al., (2002), this is the branch of linguistics concerned with meaning. The primary focus of semantics is the relationship between signifiers such as words, signs, symbols and phrases and their denotation, that is, what they really stand for. Using semantic persuasion methods also includes the use of ambiguous words, sentence structures, and metaphors that add huge meanings to the messages conveyed by the speaker or orator. Not only does the use of such vivid imagery make the message more impactful, semantics can often cause the audience to perversely hear what they want to hear in a message, rather than hearing the true meaning that the sender of the message actually holds. This can be both intentional and unintentional.