Kennedy on Emotional Energy

          Although I’ve never personally wondered what rhetoric means, after reading George A. Kennedy’s discussion of the possible definition of the term, I can safely say it’s an excellent question to ponder. In the most general meaning of the word, Kennedy speculates that rhetoric may be understood in terms of the energy involved in communication (p. 2). Kennedy presents this definition as a something of a generalization, but I suspect he underestimates the astuteness of his observation; I’ve yet to hear a more apt description of such an equivocal art.

          Kennedy spells out the various forms of rhetorical energy, including “the emotional energy that impels the speaker to speak, the physical energy expended in the utterance, the energy level coded in the message, and the energy experienced by the recipient in decoding the message” (p. 2) Indeed, each of these aspects is likely to be overheard as the subject of an engaging, philosophical or scientific discussion in any rhetoric classroom. He discusses these aspects first in terms of literary devices, like the reiteration of the Beatitudes and metaphors of Shakespeare, exploring questions like: What emotional energy compels a speaker or writer to use such a device, and what sort of mental energy is involved in interpreting the author’s meaning? Here, I couldn’t help but be reminded of political jargon, hearing echoes of Obama’s “Yes we can!” as I read.

          Obama’s phrase strikes me as particularly interesting because it places side-by-side three of the shortest, simplest and comprehensible words in the English language. Yet in doing so, it somehow conveys more meaning, evokes more emotion, and derives from more energy than seems feasible. Imagine the emotional energy that compelled Obama to speak these words was based in his desire to succeed, to seem optimistic, and to present himself as an ambitiousness and capable leader. The physical energy expended while saying “Yes we can!” seems like it would be minimal, but to say the words each time in the compelling and charismatic way that Obama did surely required more energy than if he were simply asking the question, “Can we balance our cheque book now?” The level of energy coded into the message is remarkably high, given the simplicity of the phrase. Obama used his voice, the placement of the words within the context of his speech, and repetition to transmit to his audience a surge of positive emotion. This phrase, spoken in this way, tells the listener that the sky is the limit, if Obama is president. The message is not difficult to decode, owing to the effectiveness of its delivery. Accordingly, the listener is in the ultimate position to experience all of the positive affect contained in the message.