When Hilary Clinton delivered her speech at the United Nations Fourth World Conference, it was attributed as one of the more influential speeches. While some people were of the point of view that Hilary Clinton needed to do a lot of things on her own to make sure that she actually delivers what is propagating in her speech, there were many people who were of the point of view that speech kind of embodied the sort of problems women face and what they need to do about it. In this paper, in the context of ethos, pathos and logos, the analysis of her speech is going to be carried out. Based on that analysis, the effectiveness of her speech is going to be measured.
Ethos and Ethical Quotients of the Speech
Despite the fact that Clinton has been criticized a lot of times in the past regarding her skills as a narrator, there is no doubt that she had past experience in working on the issue. During the course of this speech, she draws on her past experience and historical events to make sure that she gets to appeal to her audience as well as transmits her belief that Women’s rights are the same as Human Rights (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). At that point in time, the criticism was levied was that in what capacity she is speaking in the United Nations as it was her husband that was President at that point in time. But the key thing that can be seen there is that if her husband had delivered the speech, the likelihood that people would not have given it enough credence as it message would have been coming from a man (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). Thus when the message came from women, the reliability factor and empathy combined with the past record of Ms Clinton as work provided additional insight into this issue. Her confidence stemmed from her past work on the issue, and it is that confidence that plays a huge part in making a speech a decent success (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998).
Pathos and Emotional Quotients in the Speech
Coming towards the way emotional appeal is being used during the course of the speech, it can be seen that how emotional quotient plays a big part in the credence of the speech (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). To make sure that she tends to get an emotional response from the people in the audience, she uses direct imagery as well as repetition to make sure that her audience is able to visualize the system that is unjust towards women (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). For instance, in one of the instances of her speech, she points out that
““It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines are broken, simply because they are born girls.”
In another instance, she sheds light on the prospect of why it is the violation of the human rights when women are sold into the slavery and prostitution (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). She is adamant about the fact that there are justifications presented for this whole practice which is not justified, and effort is needed to make sure that the tolerance for this practice should be no more (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). During the course of the speech, she uses the term “violation of human rights” a lot of times to make sure that the message of human rights of women and how they are violated, thus creating enough emotional nuisance and appeal for all the people who are partaking in the speech (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998).
Logos and Logical Quotient of the Speech
Coming towards some of the logical facts that are presented during the speech, which is a very important part of the way the whole message is formulated, it is an interesting aspect. One of the reasons that she provides good logical context to the speech is that she is herself an informed authority on the same issue (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). Being in the public service and also being the first lady, she had a fair idea of what are some of the issues. Not only that, it was important that she shed light on how it can be made sure that the problems that are being faced by women can be resolved (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). One thing that can be seen through that she has not provided enough numbers or fats to make sure that some sort of credibility can be created towards what is being stated on her part. Being a part of the public sphere is one of the things that she could have carried out in a better manner. Another thing that is missing from her speech is that she does not talk about diversity issues and the instances of harassment that are being faced by women (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998). Thus at times, the logical connection that seems to be an important part of any speech is missing, and the message comes across as a bit forced to say the least (Akhavan and Ramaprasad, 1998).
There are many things that work to her advantage when she is conducting that speech. And being an articulate speaker herself, not only she delivers the right sort of emotional message, she is able to develop credibility as a speaker to make sure that the audience is able to connect with the message that is given to her in the given time period.