Thursday, October 2, 2008

Paine's "Plainness"

Persuasion can be a powerful political tool, especially during a time of war. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine masters the art of persuasion by appealing to a wide variety of American colonists, insisting on independence from Britain. As an effective rhetorician, Paine utilizes Aristotle’s classic lines of argument, including logos, ethos and pathos. In addition to invoking Aristotle’s arguments, Paine also adds a touch of his own persuasive style – simplicity and plainness.

In line with many other effective arguments, Paine begins Common Sense with logic. As a form of logos, Paine initially points out several different reasons to not break with England, and then rationally refutes those reasons. For example, some colonists believed America should stay loyal to the crown because England had been and would continue to be a reliable source of protection from other countries. He notes, “But she has protected us, say some” (632). Paine shifts this argument to his advantage by claiming England’s protection comes from her own self-interest, not attachment to the colonies. “She did not protect us from our enemies on our account; but from her enemies on her own account,” Paine refutes. Paine logically outlines his argument, making it hard to oppose his reasoning.

After grounding his argument in logic and reason, Paine uses ethos to show moral character. By establishing himself as a trustworthy, credible and honorable leader, Paine can persuade more people to align with his cause. In order to grab the attention of his readers, Paine boldly proclaims all loyalists to be cowards. “You have the heart of a coward and the spirit of a sycophant,” he writes (635). He then quickly reclaims his name-calling by explaining his lack of intention to offend anyone. Rather, Paine was trying to show how grave the colonists’ situation really was. This use of ethos builds Paine’s credibility as a capable and caring leader of the revolution.

One of the strongest lines of argument is the appeal to personal emotions, with human-interest stories and abstract ideals. Paine’s writing becomes more emotionally inspired as the pamphlet progresses. In detail, he describes the “wretchedness” of Britain’s six-month blockade on the city of Boston. “The inhabitants of that unfortunate city had no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to starve. Endangered by the fire of their friends…in their present situation they are prisoners without the hope of redemption, and in a general attack,” Paine passionately depicts. By placing his readers into the troubled hearts and minds of those colonists suffering in Boston, Paine effectively uses pathos to emotionally engage the colonists in his revolutionary cause.

Above all else, Common Sense was able to persuade colonists to unite against England due to Paine’s “plainness.” By using simple, plain and logical language, he was able to transform the arguments of other influential leaders, such as Franklin and Jefferson, into a message that resonated with all colonists on all educational levels. The introduction emphasizes this strength. Paine says, “It is my design to make those who can scarcely read understand, and to put arguments in language as plain as the alphabet, so as to bring out a clear conclusion that shall hit the point in question and nothing else” (630). It is hard to refute an established leader who begins his work with, “In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense” (631). If it is common sense, it must be true – right?

1 comment:

Jan McStras said...

"Plain" speaking is also an "American" invention--a way to show our difference from Britain and the other European forms of writing and speaking. Paine's is the first in a long line of innovators of all genres of writing in early America that diverges from the more flowery and highly educated rhetoric of the British texts of the time. Fenimore Cooper (whom we will read a bit of later) keeps the language of British novels in his own, but others were anxious to distinguish themselves as different from the standard British models. There is also the implication that the flowery word choices disguised an attempt to hoodwink the colonists.