Rhetorical Analysis — Clare Boothe Luce
How Luce's 1960 speech to the Women's National Press Club uses contradiction to disarm an audience before criticizing it.
Criticizing the integrity of one’s audience proves difficult: one has to ensure their audience understands the underlying message and constructiveness of the criticism, the devastating impacts in the absence of truth, as well as the paradoxical nature of truth. In the introductory portion of her 1960 speech to the Women’s National Press Club, politician and journalist Clare Boothe Luce elaborately constructed her speech as an extended metaphor of contradictions to highlight the nuanced and subjective nature of truth-seeking. By first reminding the audience that they recognize prevalent issues in journalism as they asked the speaker for criticism, relating “good” journalism as the act of making an effort to seek the truth, and finally persuading the audience to accept, and therefore challenge, the “bad” parts of journalism, Luce ensures that the audience will likely be motivated to examine their own acts of journalism and determine whether improvements may be made in their journalistic integrity.
Luce begins the start of her introduction by claiming to be “flattered” as a “guest of honor,” only to quickly contradict herself by stating that she is “less happy” than what the audience may think, and “more challenged” than the audience may anticipate. This seemingly paradoxical claim allows the audience to acknowledge the difficulty of the task of making a speech to criticize her audience, despite her gratefulness for the opportunity. Then, she follows up by reminding the audience that it was them who asked her to “tell you [the audience] what’s wrong with you,” but that the speeches aren’t meant to demean the audience, as the task of giving “an audience hell” is best left for religious figures such as “Billy Grahams and Bishop Sheens.” This joke serves as a humorous attempt to lighten the mood of the audience to prevent backlash at her criticisms following the end of the introduction, as well as a gentle reminder that she is here to provide well-intentioned feedback meant to improve the quality and integrity of journalistic writing, rather than merely demeaning her audience.
In an elaborate effort to de-escalate potential tension from her audience, Luce then continues by reminding the audience that they “asked for” the truth and any speakers attempting to “exaggerate it” would be quickly seen through. Moreover, she defines “good” journalism as the “pursuit of and the effort to state the truth.” This is meant to not only remind the audience of their purpose as journalists, but also her purpose in giving the speech. This plays a vital part in her overall metaphor that the American press is full of contradictions, since it is ironic that she is here to point out that journalism is synonymous with seeking the truth, yet her very own speech must prepare the audience to accept the “truth” that the American press is sacrificing the pursuit of truth. Reminded of the very purpose of the press, members of the audience are sure to self-reflect on their professional integrity, perhaps even questioning whether their presence as an audience signifies room for improvement in the area.
She further extends this irony in the concluding sentences, in which she extends the paradoxical metaphor with a similar structure. First, she claims that the “pursuit of truth” is “exacting,” yet the most “inexact” of tasks. She then claims that “there is much wrong with the American press,” though there is equally as much “right with it.” Finally, she highlights a fact she believes is “plain” — that while American journalism is not “inspiringly good,” it is “the best press in the world.” This extension serves various purposes: the seemingly contradictory terms “inexact” and “exacting” extend the author’s message, with the former proclaiming that journalism is a nuanced profession in which the very pursuit of truth may be subjective, while the latter — a verb — explains that it is the actions of the journalists themselves that define what it means to always seek and prioritize truth. Similarly, the idea that there are equally enough “good” and “bad” things in the American press is a perpetuating theme best exemplified by her speech itself, where the sacrifice of journalistic integrity represents the bad, while the intent to fix problems within the field by asking for the speech highlights the good. Generally, the conclusion reinforces prior ideas and praises the audience to avoid expressing hostility and to raise the audience’s standards, ultimately convincing them to hold themselves to a higher standard of journalism.
Thus, by complimenting and persuading the audience to sympathize with her, and by relating journalism itself to the act of truth-seeking, Luce masterfully avoided potential tension that may have been caused by her criticisms following the introduction. Any listener in the crowd is sure to feel respected and willing to listen to her critiques, if not motivated to reevaluate their past actions as truth seekers.