Antonys Rhetorical Superiority Analysis Essay

Using Logos, Antony’s logical argument that Caesar was not ambitious made the mob begin to doubt their current suppositions that Caesar deserved death for his ambition. With the emotive appeals of Pathos, Antony used a wide variety of props, rhetorical tricks and cleverly worded lies to incense the mob against the conspirators whom had killed the apparently unambitious Caesar. Most importantly, however, Antony’s greatest ability was the way that he presented himself almost simultaneously as both a common man and the mighty noble that he was, using Ethos to its utmost effect and connecting to the mob in ways that Brutus and even Cassius could not. When Antony insisted that Brutus tell him why they had killed Caesar, his motive was not to see if their cause was justified or not. Antony’s real aims were to decipher their logical argument behind killing Caesar, in order to understand how to combat it in his upcoming monologue. He then paid close attention during Brutus’ speech, to reaffirm his knowledge of how to refute the shallow logic that Brutus unknowingly used. From these two sources, Antony was able to construct a counter-argument that was both precise and effective. Brutus had claimed, speaking for all the conspirators, that they had killed Caesar for his ambition that threatened to enslave all of Rome, leading to destitution and sadness for all. Antony knew the way to respond, however, in his â€Å"Friends, Romans, Countrymen†¦Ã¢â‚¬  speech. He stated his refrain early on: â€Å"[Caesar] was my friend, faithful and just to me; but Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man† (III. ii. 86). He would then proceed by providing factual evidence that Caesar was in fact not ambitious, and then return to his theme by stating that in spite of all the proof to the contrary, Brutus still accused Caesar. Using parallelism, and continuing to juxtapose the incontrovertibility of Caesar’s innocence to Brutus’ drastic and unnecessary actions, Antony was able to defeat the arguments of the conspirators. Despite this, Brutus had used other reasons why they had killed Caesar in his speech, which Antony did not address within his own. Wherein lies one of his greatest victories: the ability to recognize the essential, underlying argument that was the lifeline of all other logic that the conspirators used, that Caesar’s death was warranted by his ambition. Antony reasoned that if he could disprove just this one point, all the other points that the conspirators had made would be immediately invalidated, granting him a complete victory. The mob’s sudden loss of confidence in the conspirators and Caesar’s guilt would leave the crowd with a void of trust, unsure why â€Å"honorable† Brutus, Cassius, and the others would kill Caesar, if not for his ambition. Antony, anticipating this void, planned to fill it with anger and rage against his enemies, by harnessing the subtle and powerful art of Pathos. The turbulent and powerful qualities of emotion have the capacity to control its host entirely. To translate the anger he was creating from the crowd into action, Antony needed to stoke it much as one does a fire. Many times, Antony played with the emotions of the crowd, and he began by reinforcing his victory of logic. He states in his first speech, â€Å"You did all love [Caesar] once, not without cause; what cause withholds you then to mourn for him? † (III. ii. 103) Since he had already convinced his audience of Caesar’s innocence, he then makes them feel ashamed for having ever doubting the man’s obvious virtue and benevolence. He also used this rhetorical device when he subsequently states, â€Å"O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason! (III. ii. 105) Through subtly lamenting that the crowd was acting without judgment, its members became earnest to rectify their mistake in listening to the conspirators. Antony knew that the crowd felt this way, and suggested to them a solution: â€Å"O masters! If I were disposed to stir your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage, I should do Brutus wrong and Cassius wrong†¦ I rather choose to wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you† (III. ii. 122). This quotation reveals another concept that Antony places upon the Romans: the concept of two distinct sides. He places himself, the crowd, and the dead Caesar upon one side, and the conspirators upon the other. The crowd then realized that the conspirators, through killing Caesar, had wronged every single one of them. Having the mob come to accept Caesar as on their side might have proven difficult for Antony, but he was able to use exceptional props to accentuate his points. His strongest prop was the body of Caesar himself, which resembled much more a â€Å"carcass fit for hounds† than a â€Å"dish fit for the gods† as Brutus, hoping for the opposite, had said earlier. Antony placed his mentor’s body in plain view of the crowd, in the humble pose that death imposes. He then describes the man in startlingly personal and human terms, bringing the crowd closer to Caesar. He tells them, â€Å"For when the noble Caesar saw [Brutus] stab, ingratitude, more strong than traitors’ arms, quite vanquished him. Then burst his mighty heart†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (III. ii. 185) Possibly the most brilliant of Antony’s portrayals, he described Caesar not as a mighty ruler, but a kind and honest man. Antony brought the moment of the assassination to the Romans, and illustrated for them how it was not the daggers that killed Caesar but the extraordinary pain of seeing his best friend among his killers. He showed them how the great Caesar took their vicious thrusts with the grace and dignity of a hero, and not with regal contempt of a dictator. The crowd could now feel what the great Caesar felt, and welcomed him as one of them as a result. Antony then revealed his final prop: the very â€Å"will† of Caesar. At the end of all his speeches, when the populace is at the point of revolt, he reads, â€Å"Here is the will, and under Caesar’s seal. To every Roman citizen he gives, to every several man, seventy-five drachmas† (III. ii. 241). Despite the fact that the will was only a figment of Antony’s boundless imagination, he did not need it to be real in order to cause the mob to riot. When the crowd beheld that the conspirators had killed a man who was their great and just leader, who cared for them all enough to give them each a large sum of money upon his death, their emotions and anger exploded into the desperate and near unstoppable desire to act. Antony knew he had succeeded with making the crowd emotional enough to kill the conspirators, as he says with a grim satisfaction, â€Å"Now let it work: Mischief, thou art afoot, take thou what course thou wilt† (III. ii. 262). This undisputed mastery of the Pathos rhetorical technique that Antony wielded gave him the advantages he needed to quickly and efficiently accomplish his ends. The right hand man of Julius Caesar had another gift as well, one that enabled him to even dare to say most of the things he did to the crowd. The gift was a deep understanding of not just what to convey to an audience, but how to convey it: Ethos. From the very first sentence he spoke to the crowd, he had already received their rapt attention and their unconditional trust. He said, simply and honestly and without condescension, â€Å"Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (III. ii. 74) In only seven-words, Antony’s genius for communication can be easily viewed. He began by placing himself and the crowd within three groups that they all belonged to, creating a sense of unity among the gathered Romans. In addition, Antony respectfully requests permission for those assembled to listen to what he had to say, making the crowd truly feel that Antony was a common Roman like them. However, Antony is able to maintain, through both how he identifies himself and the way he speaks, to command respect like a noble or emperor would. This balance that Antony strikes between modesty and arrogance allows him to speak with authority, and not appear to be giving orders even as he does so. A clear demonstration of that ability is when Antony tells the mob, â€Å"I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts; I am no orator, as Brutus is; but (as you know me all) a plain blunt man that love my friend†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (III. ii. 218) Incredibly, Antony is able to mask his immense eloquence behind some of that very eloquence, casting himself and his tremendous words as the honest and simple words of a man whom loves his friend. Through this same passage, Antony distances himself from Brutus, whom he alleges as a practiced orator and politician trying to trick the people. The crowd, when then comparing Brutus to Antony, can connect to and hence trust the word of Antony far more, allowing him to widen the range of things he could say. Employing all of these tactics and many more, Mark Antony confirms how effective the correct usage of Ethos is as a tool of manipulation. It is unequivocal that the character in William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar whom commanded the most extensive arsenal of manipulative weaponry, and used it to its fullest potential, was Mark Antony. With the Rhetorical Triangle of Aristotle as an evaluator, it is clear that Antony’s communicative methods blend together a seamless mix of logical, emotive, and ethical strategies. In only a few minutes, he turned the entire population of Rome against men whom had formerly had their unmitigated support. His efforts and success led to one of the most significant events in Western Civilization’s history, the collapse of the Roman Republic and the creation of the monstrous Roman Empire. Antony, in almost five minutes of incomparable excellence, accomplished all of this. His manipulative skills included the ability to, as Caesar put it, â€Å"†¦[look] quite through the deeds of men† (I. ii. 203). Ironically, virtually the only mistake that Antony made was how he trivialized his own success as fate, remarking to Octavian’s servant, â€Å"Fortune is merry, and in this mood will give us anything† (III. ii. 267). His modesty was most likely false: even fortune could not have done what he was able to.

Community Policing Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Community Policing - Research Paper Example Within the broad field of public administration, there is a need for administrators to understand how to better function in the public sector. Where service-oriented work is the watchword, and no visible product is offered as a measure of successful productivity, it becomes incumbent upon the administrator to make a concerted effort to evaluate service and citizen impact on that service. This seems to be a good fit with the reinventing government concept of the 1990s where there was a greater emphasis on customer service by public administrators to treat the customer right (Bach, 2009). In the field of law enforcement, it is imperative that successful administrators make every effort to foster a cooperative liaison with the (customer) citizenry. Citizen cooperation will nourish the police-community alliance. Needs can be identified, and efforts to meet those needs can be addressed by citizens and police administrators alike. This attitude of cooperative appraisal of needs fits well i nto the model of community policing (Tilley, 2010). Community Policing Police roles that grew out of the reform era (patrol services, rapid response to calls, etc.) may sometimes lead to roadblocks. These more traditional police practices sometimes encounter a public paradox (Radelet & Carter, 1994). The paradox states that crime control functions collide with due process ideals, in that citizens recognize the need for a social contract (a need for police) that occasionally can run counter to the basic freedom that they seek. So, this conflict (or paradox) between the need for police and the desire for the protection of due process can remain between police and the public (Radelet & Carter, 1994). The winds of change are moving through the hallways of many police organizations in America. For some, these winds are like a summer breeze that opens the door to new possibilities. For others, they signal the onset of a cold, uncertain winter. Regardless of how one experiences it, somethi ng is happening, and this "something" is an attempt to rethink and restructure the role of police in society (Rosenbaum in Bordeur, 1998 p.1). Inability of existing police infrastructures to cope with greater than ever complexities of our fast changing society and increasing demands on police by their rapidly growing constituencies forces police organizations to look for new ways to serve their communities (Tilley, 2010). Increased bureaucratization and over- specialization of police forces and separation from the community amplifies the need for implementing a community-driven police force. Police organizations face increased costs and pressure from the community and interest groups to do more with fewer resources. As a consequence, police administrators are forced to cut some services in order to address priority needs (Tilley, 2010). Reduction and elimination of police services due to budget cuts and increasing operational costs creates community discontent. A new cost efficient approach to prevent and deal with crime is needed in order to cover eliminated services. Community Oriented policing is recognized as a viable solution to reducing crime and efficiently solving community problems (Chacko & Nancoo, 1993). Murphy labels proactive policing as the dominant ideology and organization mode of progressive policing (Murphy, in Chacko & Nancoo, 1993, p. 1). Community policing philosophy and research suggests traditional bureaucratic, crime-attack policing has failed. The police have lost their community context and this loss inhibits the police in their order maintenance and crime control functions (Tilley, 2010). Critics of traditional policing argue, police are mystifying their role and manipulating public expectation. Reactive policing "promotes poor policing management, leading to the issuance of more traffic tickets, the growth of an unofficial quota system, and 'fudging' of crime statistics" (Thibault, Lynch, & McBride 1985, p. 50).

Killer Bureaucracies Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Killer Bureaucracies - Essay Example Henninger in the article explicates that people have wrongly accused poor response to problematic issues to insufficient funding (para. 7). However, this is not the case. In fact, more funding only creates the need for additional accountability and therefore more layers are created in the system to deal with accountability issues. In my opinion, lower level representatives in the government as well as elected officials ought to be allowed to make independent decisions in terms of emergencies. In doing so, problematic cases such as the Ebola outbreak can be responded to on a timely manner and hence curbing the situation. I also agree with the postulation from the article that introducing more rules and regulations, as is in the case with introducing additional funds, will amplify human errors hence increasing inefficiency (para. 12). In my opinion, inefficiency is contributed by the introduction of more funding that translates to more rules and regulations to account for the funds. Consequently, this contributes to the amplification of human errors as it will also involve handling more