Frederick Douglass

Douglass, a former slave, and subsequently uneducated individual, became an important icon for rhetoric. Known for his oration, he didn't let his image work against his credibility. At the time of his anti slavery rhetoric, his credibility or rhetorical image, if you will, was very low. Being a slave himself, it would be tough for him to gain a rhetorical following.

Douglass decided to change his oration, mainly the way he spoke and his diction, in order to sound smarter. This inadvertently shows how naive an audience can be. Can the inflection of someone's voice, or the manner in which they speak, really influence how well of a rhetorician they are? For Douglass, it helped him.

I'm not saying he wasn't intelligent, or he shouldn't have been listened to. Instead, I am merely pointing out the fact that he used alternate ways of gaining respect rhetorically. Instead of relying on his ability to move an audience ("pathos") or his evidence and backing ("logos"), he tried his hardest to act more professionally.

This reminds me of learning about the presidential debates when JFK was running. According to the people who watched the debate, JFK won. However, people who listened over the radio, thought that he lost. Why was there a disconnect? It marked the beginning of what I will call the "rhetorical image." If a person looks more attractive than their opponent, they already have the upper hand. In the job market this is true as well. In rhetoric, there is no denying that it helps to a degree.

Bringing into modern day politics and rhetoric, we can look at President Obama. Obama is often criticized by fellow African Americans for being "too white," or "white-washed." I think that this shows how someone's image can have an effect on their rhetorical appeal.