Written by Steve Hinkson.
What can a 1974 metaphysical travelogue and an 18 year-old communication theory tell us about speechwriting? Plenty.
"And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" This quote, borrowed from Plato, is the famous epigraph from Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It is one of my favorites, and I have used it in speeches, papers, and even conversation. As speechwriters, we are expected to have an incredible mental repository of quotes, literary allusions, and anecdotes that can be employed in any speech at any time to draw a connection between the theme of the speech and the audience's frame of reference. This attempt to connect with the audience - to construct a narrative that fits with what audiences know and believe - turns speechwriting into storytelling.
In 1987, communication scholar Walter Fisher posited a theory called the "Narrative Paradigm," which is explained in his book, Human Communication: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. The basic premise of Fisher's theory is that human beings are storytellers and to communicate with one another, we construct narratives that "ring true" and possess "good reasons." In searching for quotes, allusions, and anecdotes that will connect our speeches to our audiences, we are seeking story elements that "ring true" with what these audiences know and believe. This element of speechwriting/storytelling is what Fisher terms "narrative fidelity" - fidelity being a quality in a story that causes the words to strike a responsive chord, to "ring true," with the listeners' experience. When we, as writers, truly tap into the social reality of an audience, the narrative we construct is no longer a story told to them, but for them. Thus, every choice we make - the quotes, frames, anecdotes, and language we select - must pass the test of fidelity if our narrative is to be accepted.
One of the most recent examples of a failure to account for narrative fidelity occurred in the 2004 Presidential election. Senator John Kerry hoped to use his military experience in Vietnam to bolster his claim against a sitting, war-time president. This strategy, however, was problematic because of the position Vietnam occupied in the national memory. As constructed by films, such as Oliver Stone's Platoon, the Vietnam War produced angry, drug addicted, social misfits who fought because they had to, for a cause that Kerry, himself, would later call "the greatest nothing in history." To reconcile this social reality with his election strategy, Kerry was forced to become a serviceman of Shakespeare rather than Stone, rallying his "band of brothers" and hitting the campaign trail.
By using very specific language, allusions, and references, Kerry attempted to ally his boat crew and the Vietnam War with Stephen Ambrose's "Easy" Company and World War II. This connection is first made in Kerry's announcement of candidacy:
As I look around at my crewmates and the veterans here today, I am reminded that the best lessons I learned about being an American came in a place far away from America - on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta with a small crew of volunteers. Some of us had been to college; others were just out of high school. But we grew up together on that tiny boat. It was our sanctuary - and a place for bridging distances between California and South Carolina, Iowa and Massachusetts. We were no longer the kid from Arkansas or the kid from Illinois. We were Americans - together - under the same flag - giving ourselves to something bigger than each of us as individuals. We arrived as strangers; we left as brothers." ("Announcement")
This passage tells a different "story" of Vietnam. The men of Kerry's crew, while from different origins, shared common ideals. Views of Vietnam are usually influenced by the draft and draft dodgers, but here was a boat crew of men who volunteered to serve. According to Kerry, they all fought for their country - proudly - and as they stood side by side, they were on equal footing, no matter where they came from. The meaning and language employed in this passage is mirrored in the opening lines of Stephen Ambrose's book, Band of Brothers:
The men of Easy Company. . . . came from different backgrounds, different parts of the country. They were farmers and coal miners, mountain men and sons of the Deep South. Some were desperately poor, others from the middle class. One came from Harvard, one from Yale, a couple from UCLA. Only one was from the Old Army, only a few came from the National Guard or Reserves. They were citizen soldiers. (13)
In using the same framework and formula as Ambrose, Kerry and his writers have attempted to connect Kerry's experience in Vietnam to the experience of the "Greatest Generation" in World War II. The rhetorical situation, as it was shaped by the election and the war in Iraq, called for some kind of re-classification of Vietnam if it were to be used as a positive experience. Kerry, however, does not account for the element of fidelity when making his narrative choices. By linking the virtues of World War II with Vietnam and only citing the experience of his all-volunteer boat crew, Kerry deviates from the characterization of Vietnam that has been popularized by history, literature, and cinema. Ignoring this widely held memory of Vietnam allows a group like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) to provide a counter-narrative that speaks to what audiences - and voters - remember as "true."
Additionally, Kerry violated his own narrative fidelity by telling a story that did not fit with his personal experiences. On April 22, 1971, Kerry testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. A part of his opening statement describes how most veterans felt upon returning from the war:
The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped. As a veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country. ("Testimony")
The contradiction between Kerry's two narratives regarding Vietnam was exposed by SBVT in a series of commercials in August 2004. Most of these commercials used Kerry's own words to show his inconsistency. It can be argued that had Kerry and his writers paid more attention to narrative fidelity, they might have avoided a controversial engagement with SBVT. Instead, the campaign chose to place Vietnam on par with World War II, use "band of brothers" to describe Kerry's crew, and make numerous references to the "Greatest Generation." These narrative elements, while attractive in their connotations and signified images, violated the standard of fidelity. It was a violation that could have been prevented had the speechwriter stopped to think: what is good, and what is not good?
For speechwriters, time constraints and deadlines are facts of life. It may take a little extra time to ensure a speech meets the test of narrative fidelity, but as exemplified by the case study of Senator Kerry's campaign, it's well worth it. The point of Pirsig's book is that we need not ask someone to tell us what is good, or what has fidelity; rather, we know the difference. The discovery lies in our realization of that fact. So, the next time you are struggling to find that perfect quote or anecdote to connect your speech to your audience, take a moment and think of motorcycle maintenance - think of "goodness" - think of narrative fidelity.
Works Cited
Ambrose, Stephen E. Band of Brothers. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.
Fisher, Walter. Human Communication as Narration: Towards a Philosophy of Reason,
Value, and Action. Colombia: University of South Carolina Press, 1987.
Kerry, John. "Announcement." Patriot's Point, South Carolina. 2 September 2003.
"Testimony." United States Cong. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations.
Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia. 92nd Cong., 1st sess.
S Res. 381. Washington: GPO, 1971. http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Steve Hinkson is a former Senate and freelance speechwriter. He is currently employed by Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research Companies as a writer.
This article was inspired by his Master's thesis, "Political Controversy and the Narrative Paradigm: John Kerry and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Tell the Story of Vietnam," recently completed at Wake Forest University.
Comments? See what other speechwriters are saying about this article - and leave your own comment in our "Members Only" Comment section. Only members who have submitted an article to this site have access:
http://www.washingtonspeechwriters.com/blog/_archives/2005/9/4/895155.html
(The link will fail if you don't qualify).
