Neo-Aristotelian Criticism of Obama's Campaign Speech

Introduction: Choosing the Right Critical Framework

The Neo-Aristotelian method of criticism is the most appropriate framework for analyzing Obama's speech, for several reasons. Most importantly, the speech appears to be constructed around the five canons of classical rhetoric that Aristotle identified. The use of invention is essential: the story Obama tells does not necessarily need to be literally true, but it serves as an excellent introduction and a way to draw the audience toward the real purpose of the speech. That purpose only emerges in the second part: the slogan intended to carry the state of Virginia into Obama's camp.

The organization of the speech, as well as its style and delivery, are also significant elements that only the Neo-Aristotelian method can properly emphasize. Together, these elements allow the audience to become part of Obama's experience. When he tells the story about Greenwood, listeners can feel as though they are standing outside in the rain, meeting the small, five-foot-tall woman from that town. This illustrates precisely why style is so central to the senator's speech.

The Five Canons of Classical Rhetoric in Obama's Speech

The method of delivery also warrants careful analysis, because it reveals the importance of body language and the ways in which the speech is amplified in both intensity and significance by additional elements such as intonation. These non-verbal and paralinguistic features double the impact of the spoken words, making the message land more forcefully with a live audience.

This is also the most suitable critical method because it illuminates Obama's rhetorical style — an important consideration for audiences seeking to understand how that style is developed and how it works toward its intended goals. The Neo-Aristotelian framework makes this development most transparent.

Style, Delivery, and Audience Engagement

The final element of the Aristotelian framework, memory, is equally fundamental to a complete analysis of the text. Obama uses the Greenwood story to ensure that the central point he is making — reinforced by the slogan that emerges from the story — remains in the collective memory of the crowd gathered in Virginia. As one can see, the Neo-Aristotelian method is well suited here precisely because the categories it employs are essential to the speech's success. Whether consciously or not, Obama draws on all five canons to convey his messages, which means the analytical framework has a strong chance of identifying the speech's key elements and helping readers or listeners understand its rhetorical underpinnings.

Memory and the Greenwood Slogan

Feminist criticism is not an adequate method for analyzing this speech, first and foremost because the speech's primary objective is not directed toward the feminist movement. The aim is not to appeal specifically to female voters, but to rally the entire population of Virginia by demonstrating the state's importance in electing Obama. The message is therefore addressed to all voters, not only to women or feminists in the audience.

Conclusion: Neo-Aristotelian Criticism as the Best Fit

The Neo-Aristotelian method of criticism is thus much better adapted to drawing out all the necessary elements of Obama's rhetorical construction and to showing readers or listeners how Obama deploys the tools available to him in order to make an impact on his audience and achieve his political objectives. For all these reasons, the Neo-Aristotelian method of criticism is significantly more appropriate for analyzing this speech than any alternative framework, including feminist criticism.