Aristotle, Classical Rhetoric, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Happy New Year from the Appellate Advocacy Blog team. We are in the process of updating our blog team and schedule, so please be patient as we work those details out. If you are interested in joining our blog team, please feel free to email me.
As I was thinking about MLK Day, I wanted to repost this piece from five years ago. Since my original post, Professor DeForrest has passed away, but his article remains timeless.
***
Today our country remembers Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, this year the observed holiday falls on Dr. King’s actual birthday–January 15. While there is much to reflect on from Dr. King’s life and career, I wanted to focus today on how his writings–specifically his Letter from a Birmingham Jail–can be used to teach persuasive argument.
Dr. King wrote the letter in April 1963, after being arrested for participating in a march without a permit (and in violation of a court order against such demonstrations). The letter was written in response to a statement published in a Birmingham newspaper by eight Alabama Clergymen criticizing the march. The interdenominational group of clergy urged the African-American community in Birmingham to “withdraw support form these demonstrations” and pursue their cause “in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders.”
The Letter, which was written in four days, serves as a strong justification for defying unjust laws. It also vividly demonstrates Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion: (1) logos (appeal to logic); (2) ethos (appeal to character); and (3) pathos (appeal to emotion). Interesting, as Professor Emertius Mark DeForrest has noted, citing one of Dr. King’s associates, Dr. King “had a comprehensive mastery of the forms of classical rhetoric, obtained not directly from the classical Greek and Roman sources, but from the religious patrimony of scripture and pulpit.” Still, as Professor DeForrest demonstrates in his article, Dr. King’s Letter “can function effectively as an introduction to classical methods of persuasion because the strategies
and tactics of his presentation exemplify those rhetorical tools.”
For example, Dr. King demonstrates logos early in the Letter when “he explains to his readers why it is he came to Alabama to engage in non-violent direct action.” As Professor DeForrest explains,
The clergy claimed that the situation in Birmingham was one of “new hope,” and that such “extreme measures” as non-violent protests were unnecessary. King effectively
thwarts that argument by noting that Birmingham’s civil rights situation was far from hopeful—the city was, in his words, “probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States.” King then focuses on the recurring and insistent call by the clergymen for local negotiations to solve the racial difficulties in Birmingham.
After reciting a litany of abuses heaped upon the African-American community in Birmingham, King notes that African-American leaders had sought to negotiate with the leadership of the city, but to no avail. He goes on to recount that efforts to talk to members of the business community also were fruitless. In the end, King states, “[W]e had no alternative except to prepare for direct action. . . .” Yet, he explains, the purpose of direct action was not to prevent dialogue, but to create the conditions necessary for real negotiation to occur.
Dr. King also uses ethos in the Letter, especially in explaining the need for civil disobedience. Professor DeForrest writes,
King addresses the issue head on and notes that the clergymen had “express[ed] a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws.” This concern went to the heart of King’s character and credibility. After all, could it not be inferred from his selective embrace of the law—supporting the enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education while refusing to follow the ordinances of Birmingham, Alabama—that he was a dangerous hypocrite, a radical who would speak out of both sides of his mouth in order to get what he wanted? King does not try to minimize or explain away the clergymen’s concern, but acknowledges that it was “legitimate.” It appeared “paradoxical,” he writes, to insist
on obedience to Brown v. Board of Education while at the same time advocating the non-violent violation of laws pertaining to marches and other forms of demonstration. King then launches into a sustained explanation of the moral basis of the Civil Rights Movement’s use of civil disobedience, pointing out that the paradox
was resolved once one understood the distinction between just laws, which should be obeyed, and unjust laws, which “one has a moral responsibility to disobey. . . .”
Finally, with respect to pathos, Professor DeForrest notes that Dr. King uses it in the Letter to support his logical and factual arguments. Professor DeForrest specifically points to “one of the most moving passages in the letter” where Dr. King uses history and vivid examples of segregation and it’s impact of segregation on the African-American community to challenge the clergymen’s call to just wait.
In addition to discussing Dr. King’s use of classical rhetoric, Professor DeForrest points out other ways in which Dr. King uses persuasive tactics to convince his audience–including Dr. King’s use of authorities and “evocative, plain language.” For those looking for a new teaching tool this spring, Dr. King’s Letter and Professor DeForrest’s article provide an excellent framework.