| Revolutionary Suicide: A Rhetorical Examination of Jim Jones' "Death Tape" |
|||||
|
On November 18, 1978 in a jungle in the
middle of Guyana, more than 900 American people ended their own lives and the
lives of their children in a mass suicide. What would move that amount of
people to murder themselves? How could this extreme action be justified? Most
importantly, where does the responsibility for this massacre lie?
The answer is with James Warren “Jim”
Jones, leader of Peoples Temple, a radical new-religious movement that began in
the 1950s and rapidly developed through the 60s and 70s. From its conception in
1955, Peoples Temple claimed to be the saving grace of those who chose to
follow its leader, Jim Jones.
Although the movement began with good
intentions, Peoples Temple quickly changed from a welcoming society that
advocated fresh gardening and family-building communes to a religious movement
that allegedly manipulated members into abiding by every word of their
“father.” Many believe Jones knew exactly what he was doing, and that he was
clearly a man orchestrating a plan to prove a point. Others believe Jones was
deranged: a delusional man who was able to find and captivate individuals even
more lost than himself.
Regardless of his motives, it is apparent
that Jones was successful in having the final word. No amount of analysis will
bring back the people who were lost in the massacre, but as researchers, we can
break down Jones’ rhetorical methods. If we learn to recognize the patterns and
signs of cult rhetoric, we are more equipped to stop tragedies like this in the
future.
Of Jones’ many sermons available online
and in libraries, one of the most interesting was Jones’ final performance.
Recorded in the hours leading up to the mass suicide, the “Death Tape” contains Jones’ last words to
his people. As Jones rhetorically positions his followers to commit suicide, he
glorifies himself to his people, presents both the problem as he sees it and
his solution to it, and dispels his audience’s concerns.
This essay will first explain the context
in which the speech was given, provide an overview of the method of generative
criticism, and then give a thorough account of my findings. Finally, I will
give a summary of my conclusion and methodological implications.
I will be especially interested to see
how Jones’ use of the categories within Aristotelian artistic and inartistic
proofs influenced his audience. To handle a topic with such gravitas indicates
Jones is no stranger to ethos, pathos, and logos.
Context
We committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the
conditions of an inhumane world. (Jim Jones, “Death Tape,” 1978)
It is impossible to comprehend the
reasons behind the tragedy at Jonestown. No one can know for sure what a person
is thinking in the moments before he endures death at his own hand. However,
the rationale behind the deaths in Guyana is widely misunderstood. The context
under which Jones persuaded his followers to drink Flavor-Aid spiked with
cyanide is of vital importance when studying his last speech.
Congressman Leo Ryan, along with a
reporting crew from NBC, flew into Jonestown in mid-November 1978 to
investigate supposed human rights violations within the Peoples Temple commune.
The commune had been established and functioning for four years, but most of
the members had migrated there in the summer of 1977. Jones had moved his
people from California in an effort to isolate them from the probing questions
of the media after several defectors criticized the motivations behind his
leadership.
During Ryan’s visit, several members made
it clear that they wished to leave Jonestown. They claimed that they were being
held against their will and wanted to go back to the United States. When it was
time for Ryan to depart, he took fifteen people with him. Unfortunately, before
they could get on the plane, several of Jones’ loyal followers gunned down the
congressman, two reporters, a cameraman, and one Peoples Temple defector.
The suicides were in response to what
happened with the congressman. They were not performed in hopes of eternal life
and they were not random. Jones knew that when the American government
discovered what happened to Congressman Ryan, his involvement would be
questioned and Peoples Temple would come to an end. The events in 1978 happened
just as Jones had planned them to happen. He had bought and shipped cyanide for
months before November 18. He even held mock suicide drills in events called
“White Nights.” Jones was well aware what he was going to ask his people to do,
and he knew that they would do it.
The speech itself takes place at the
Jonestown compound in Guyana and begins with Jones assuring his people that he
has tried everything he can in order to assure their safety. He says he has
given his whole life to give them “the good life.” He then employs a common
rhetorical device by creating a “us vs. them” scenario between those who
remained at the compound and those disloyal “defectors” who left with the
Congressmen. He clarifies that there is no other option for his people, that
they must die in dignity and take the potion. Throughout the speech, he invites
and responds the criticism. After 45 minutes, the tape ends with silence from
the crowd and Jones citing their actions as “an act of revolutionary suicide
protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.”
Jones led his people to believe that in
death, they were claiming respect for their lives. He told them in the final
tapes that they had to kill their own children in order to save them. He told
them an army that would torture and kill the children after finding Ryan dead.
Only a few women questioned his reasons, and their protests were quickly met
with rationalizations.
It is vital to understand the background
of verbal and mental abuse that Jones subjected his followers to as well as the
history of the religious sect. Taken out of context, there is no way a critic
could possibly understand the impact that Jones’ words had on his followers.
There are events, people, concepts, and jargon used within the speech that only
make sense if we take this artifact as a part of something much larger: a
multi-decade period of social conditioning that these people participated in
under the watchful eye of Jim Jones.
Method
The most notable of all the artifacts in
the Peoples Temple archive is known as the “Death Tape,” so called because it
is the last audio recording of Jim Jones, recovered after he and his followers
committed mass suicide. Its contents, which are available to the general public
via several online resources, are both fascinating and disturbing.
The infamous success of Jim Jones’ last
speech has been studied from multiple angles outside of the sphere of
communication. Fielding McGehee has conducted an
investigation of the authenticity of the tape. Joseph Dieckman and Kyle Ray have discussed the music on the
tape. Researchers have also studied the motivations behind an audience member
who protested during the taping (Michael Bellefountaine, 2005). Although
these are all included in an online collection of “Death Tape” analyses compiled by
researchers at San Diego State University, it appears there is a serious lack
of in-depth discussion of Jim Jones’ rhetorical patterns.
Some may argue that this is due to the
fact that Jones was indisputably effective. Obviously through whatever
rhetorical skills he possessed, he did convince a large amount of people to
poison themselves and their children. A 1991 study by Marcia Stratton used
narrative method to determine that while Jones’ rhetoric was indisputably
powerful, a variety of factors such as history, biography, culture, and
demographics played a role in the outcome of this case. Stratton claims Jones’ rhetoric was appealing, in part, because the
values in the rhetoric were positive, Jones never lost credibility as a speaker,
and the audience was strongly committed.
This speech is but a small sampling of
the hundreds of orations compiled in online databases. The reason I have chosen
it is that it was effective and ultimately intriguing. However, it is only one
speech in a long career of Jones and Peoples Temple. I am not claiming that it
is the best example of his rhetoric, nor am I determining that this be the sole
representation of his rhetorical skills. I am simply aiming to analyze this one
speech through the generative method.
One of the most valuable assets to this
study is the fact that not only am I able to read the transcripts of this
particular speech, but I am able to listen to the audiotape. This advantage
will be invaluable in analyzing the delivery of the speech.
Essentially, generative criticism begins
with an artifact that intrigues the critic in some way. Rather than focusing on
a particular technique and applying it to the artifact, generative method calls
on the critic to identify aspects of the artifact that are particularly
interesting, puzzling, or incite some otherwise uncommon emotion before
selecting a coding technique.
According to Sonja K. Foss’s book, Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and
Practice, generative criticism uses frequency and intensity identification
to analyze artifacts. Intensity refers to aspects that seem important or
significant, while frequency refers to the number of times a particular word or
phrase is mentioned. Frequency also encompasses the number of times a
particular emotion is evoked in the audience or simple patterns within the
speech.
In my initial analysis of the Death Tape,
I noticed several patterns within Jones’ speech. Because the speech is so rich,
it was difficult to select just a few meaningful portions that defined it. For
this reason, I chose to specifically focus on items that were high in frequency
– that is, those words or items that occurred more than once or ideas that he
referred to recurrently.
I settled on the three areas of study
because they were all mentioned several times within the speech. I identified a
recurrent use of ethos and a tendency to identify with his audience, a strong
desire to convince his audience that suicide was the only way to absolve
themselves of sin, and Jones’ skillful handling of objections and interruptions
from the audience.
After identifying the features in the
speech, the next step is to interpret their meanings. Because Jones
consistently entertains comments from the audience, clearly he must have a
reason to do so. Apart from the necessity of addressing their concerns, he must
have needed to again exercise his rhetorical strategies. His repeated
clarification of his role as a friend, confidant, and eventual god-like figure
to his people enforces his confusion as to the various ways in which he wanted
to be perceived.
Through this method, I will make a
thorough case for Jim Jones’ rhetorical choices on the day of his last and most
powerful speech performed.
Analysis
The most common thread among interviews
and books produced by survivors of Peoples Temple is their declaration of Jim
Jones’ notorious charisma. Up until the days before the planned execution of
hundreds in Guyana, Jones displayed a tremendous magnetism and allure through
his interactions and sermons that is rarely observed. While his appeal is worth
noting, Jones could hardly have orchestrated such a tragedy on charisma alone.
It is important to note that this speech
was not an isolated event. Jones was preaching to a group of people who, for
lack of a better term, were already committed to him. They followed him to a
different country in hopes of a better life. The audience is not hearing these
propositions for the first time, nor are they drones, void of any agency.
The scene was this: Congressman Ryan and
a news crew from NBC had just left the site of Jonestown, where more than 900
U.S. citizens had gathered and lived under the rule of their leader, Jim Jones.
Along with Ryan, several Peoples Temple “defectors” had exited the campsite
with hopes of returning home to their families. Jones had sent orders for a few
of his most devout followers to execute the congressman and the defectors
before they were able to board the small plane back to civilization. Knowing
that this scandal would inevitably disrupt his kingdom, Jones delivered his
final speech to the members of Peoples Temple.
Ethos/Identification
Typically, the rhetor announces the
subject and purpose and then establishes his credibility with the audience
(Gideon O. Burton, “Silvae Rhetoricae”). The very first thing Jones does is
establish his connection with the audience: “I have loved you, how very much I
have tried my best to give you the good life.” He goes on to explain his
version of the circumstances. He does not disclose exactly what he knows has happened
nor his part in the murder of the congressman, but he outlines the situation.
One of the most interesting portions of
this last speech is Jones’ unwavering and self-glorifying use of ethos. His years of rule over these
people have created a scenario in which he truly is their supreme dictator
disguised as a “best friend.” It is chilling to hear the ways in which Jones
designated himself as the people’s salvation: “Without me, life has no meaning…
I’m the best friend you’ll ever have… I’d never detach myself from any of your
troubles. I’ve always taken your troubles right on my shoulders and I’m not
gonna change that now.”
The most startling quote from this
section comes when Jones proclaims, “I am a prophet.” At this point, he has
elevated himself from loyal friend to true divinity. Interestingly, nowhere in
his speech does Jones refer to himself as their leader. In fact, he goes on to
say, “I’m speaking here not as an administrator, I’m speaking as a prophet
today… I wouldn’t sit up in this seat and talk so serious if I did not know
what I was talking about… I cannot separate myself from the pain of my people…
We’ve walked together too long.” The evolution of speech here is amazing. Not
only is he best friends with the audience, but apparently he is also a
disciple. He is man who cannot separate himself from his people, who chooses to
share his divine light with them. His self-proclaimed deity status is further
perpetuated by the staged “faith healings” that he infamously integrated into
his sermons. He re-instills the idea of standing together later in the speech:
“I can’t separate myself from your actions or his actions. If you’d done
something wrong, I’d stand with you. If they wanted to come and get you, they’d
have to take me.” Never does he claim responsibility for the situation they are
in. He consistently highlights how hard he has worked for his people and how he
would do anything for them. He never acknowledges that he may be the one to make a mistake.
The most noteworthy aspect of Jones’ tone
is that he seems so desperate to appear as one with his people. This is
demonstrated in a passage from the beginning of the speech: “They’ve gone with
the guns and it’s too late. And once we kill anybody, at least… that’s the way
I’ve always… I’ve always put my lot with you. And when one of my people do
something, it’s me. Understand, I don’t have to take the blame for this, but I
don’t live that way.” On the one hand, he asserts his power and authority by
telling them a shrouded truth of what he knows to be happening with the
congressman. He then informs the audience that people from the settlement have
gone after the congressman and that, although he isn’t personally responsible
for this, he will voluntarily be held accountable for their actions: “I don’t know
who killed the congressman. But as far as I am concerned, I killed him. You
understand what I’m saying? I killed him.” Again, he will not separate his
personal actions from those of his people. Yet because he is a prophet, and he
is one with his people, the actions taken by his people, however heinous, are
not wrong. The killing of the congressman was a means to an end, and although
Jones was not the one who pulled the trigger, he claims that he may as well
have.
Jones is conflicted, and it shows in his stylistic
evolution. He is constantly straddling the line between enforcing unity and
identification within his church and establishing himself as above his people.
He wishes to maintain physical and spiritual authority, but he strives to give
his people the illusion that he is their social equal. When speaking of peace,
he says, “I tried to give it to you. I’ve laid down my life, practically. I’ve
practically died every day to give you peace.” He also asserts that if they
chose to live, their life will be meaningless: “I certainly don’t want your
life in my hands. I’m going to tell you, Christine [Miller], without me, life
has no meaning.”
Jones isn’t the only one who asserts his
power. Comments from those in the audience prove they truly accept the glorified
position Jones has carved for himself. Jim McElvane is recorded speaking to
Christine Miller, one of the few dissenters that day, saying, “Christine,
you’re only standing here because [Jones] was here in the first place. So I
don’t know what you’re talking about, having an individual life. Your life has
been extended to the day that you’re standing there, because of him.”
McElvane’s testimony serves to prove that those involved in the Temple see
themselves not as individuals, but as a collective: a whole body of people
acting as one. They live together, and they die together. This is made possible
by the sole efforts of Jim Jones.
Later in this essay, I will further
comment on how comments from the audience enforced Jones’ authority and
showcased his rhetorical abilities.
Absolving
of Sin
The concrete result of Jones’ speech was
death. The goal of his speech, in essence, was to convince his followers to
participate willingly in a mass suicide. However, this is not how he frames his
objective. There is gap between the reality of his goal (mass murder and
suicide) and his presented idea of solution, absolving his followers of
responsibility and sin through peaceful death.
His use of logos, or logical appeals, forces his audience into only one
conclusion. Jones uses the phrase “revolutionary act” a total of six times
within this recording alone to pitch the idea of suicide to his audience. His
argument lies not in convincing his people to kill themselves and their
children, but rather to persuade them that, not only are they out of choices,
but their only option left is a courageous one. Towards the beginning of the
speech, Jones quotes the Bible: ““No
man may take my life from me; I lay my life down.” In doing this, Jones’
challenges their individual pride. Either they can make the decision to end
their own lives, or someone can and will do it for them.
In earlier speeches, Jones claimed that
if necessary, he would airlift his whole colony to Russia, where they would be
safe with his Communist allies. In this last speech, he states several times
that although he has never lied to them, this alternative is not possible.
Their only choice left to pursue their lifelong search for peace is suicide.
Jones claims they “have no other road” and that there is “no way, no way we can
survive.”
Jones uses pathos, to generate polarizing emotions of fear and love within his
audience. On one hand, if they disobey his logic and credibility and choose to
live, they will do so only in fear for the rest of their days. Not only would
they be fearful, they would have lost the sole family which they now identify
with. Jones, their “father,” would have eliminated his ties with them after
they refused his instructions, and they would be isolated from the man they
have invested their lives to follow. On the other hand, they can choose to
follow in his instructions and die in love and peace.
Jones utilizes hypothetical threats
directed towards parents, recognizing that the strongest bond an individual can
have is with their child. He claims that if they do not commit this
revolutionary act, armed forces will “start parachuting out of the air, they’ll
shoot some of our innocent babies.” Several times Jones uses children as
rationale to kill: “I don’t think we should sit here any more time for our
children to be endangered, for if they come after our children and we give them
our children, then our children will suffer forever.” In the beginning of the
speech, Jones even claims that if their children are left alive, they will be
“butchered.”
Jones perpetuates an “us vs. them”
mentality, painting himself and his followers as the good side while the
congressman and the defectors are wrong: “I have never, never, never, never
seen anything like this before in my life. I’ve never seem people take the law…
in their own hands and provoke us and try to purposely agitate murder of
children. It’s just not worth living like this.” Jones implies that by leaving
the compound, the defectors and the congressman are directly responsible for
the murders that were about to occur. This is almost to say that despite the
“White Night” rehearsals that had taken place and the fact the he ordered the
cyanide months prior, he never intended to follow through with the suicides.
The only reason to carry out the suicide plan was because those outside the
“ingroup” of the Temple are forcing this fate. He reiterates this toward the
end of the speech, “This is a revolutionary suicide. This is not a
self-destructive suicide. So they’ll pay for this. They brought this upon us.
And they’ll pay for that. I leave that destiny to them.”
The reality is that Jones’ followers are
not at fault; they have not done anything wrong. Therefore the nature of the
situation is not dire for them. Jones knows that if he tells his audience the
truth, there would be no reason for them to commit suicide. So he frames the
situation in such a way that despite their ignorance to the murders, they and
their children will eventually suffer unimaginably just by living.
Jones offers logical arguments as proof.
He slides into this gracefully directly after his declaration of revolutionary
suicide. He says, “We can’t go back. They won’t leave us alone. They’re now
going back to tell more lies which means more congressmen. And there’s no way,
no way we can survive.” He goes on to dismiss every other plan of action that
the group had discussed as possible options should an emergency situation
occur. Jones twists the facts and outwardly lies to his people in order to
uphold logic.
He explains that death is not something
to fear, but something to embrace after a life of torment. He says, “Don’t be
afraid to die. You’ll see, there’ll be a few people land out there. They’ll
torture some of our children here. They’ll torture our people. They’ll torture
our seniors. We cannot have this. Are you going to separate yourself from
whoever shot the congressman?” Again, he enforces the ideas that those
“outgroup” members will destroy the church that they so readily identify with,
hurt their children, and that if they chose not to die, they will be separating
themselves from the organization that they have, up to this point, pledged
their life to be a part of.
Once again, there is a remarkable gap
between reality and the rhetoric that Jones is feeding his masses. If the
people were to continue living, they would inevitably be returned to the United
States after the shooting of the congressman was discovered. Jones plays on
every parent’s fear that his or her child will suffer in any way. He eloquently
twists reality to show that the only way for their children not to suffer eternally, is through
immediate death. According to Jones, the greatest act of love is murder.
To further elaborate on a point I made in
the section on ethos, Jones has claimed his status as a prophet and is using
that to excuse the actions of his people. Assuming status as a deity, he is
telling his people, who are “a part” of him, that this is their only option.
Jones even tells his audience, “I now see it’s the will, it’s the will of
Sovereign Being that this happen to us. That we lay down our lives in protest
against what’s being down. The criminality of people. The cruelty of people.”
Therefore, the audience is getting approval to kill themselves and their
children from someone who they assume to be in direct connection with God. If
they are receiving instruction from someone who is assumed to be in connection
with God, they are automatically absolved of all of the moral sin associated
with taking a human life.
By the conclusion he is using the desire
for pride to manipulate his audience. He wants them to believe that taking the
lives of their children is the only way to live and die with their pride. He
comments several times that he would “like to choose [his] own death for a
change.” Those in life have tormented him, and now it is up to him and his
people to take a stand and actively choose their own fate. Jones says, “We win
when we go down,” enforcing the idea that by committing suicide, they will be
victorious. One of the last comments Jones makes is one that prompts his people
to believe that, not only are they doing the right thing, but also they are
setting a valuable example for the world. Their suicide is an important means
to an end.
Interruptions
While the transcript primarily consists
of Jones talking to his followers, there are several interruptions from
audience members who protest or question Jones’ proposed plan of action,
prompting him to customize his speech to meet their objections. The transcript
and the audio of the event could be interpreted more as a dialogue between
Jones and his audience, given the amount they interject during his speaking.
As Burton explains in “Silva Rhetoricae,”
arrangement consists of six parts: exordium,
narratio, partitio, confirmatio, refutatio, and peroratio. Upon analysis, we see that Jones’ speech actually does
loosely follow this framework, he just executes it in an unusual way. The most
relevant of these parts is “refutatio,” the portion that deals with
refutations.
As mentioned earlier, frequency observation
is a good way to evaluate an artifact. Although initially he invites criticism,
Jones is interrupted a number of times during the tape. Traditionally, a rhetor
may incorporate questions into his speech that counter the point he is trying
to make, then he will immediately follow up with an answer for his audience
proving the logic of his personal stance. This speech is unique in that Jones
actually allows members of the audience to come up and ask questions that
denounce his theories, inviting, “anyone who has any dissenting opinion, please
speak.” He then deconstructs their questions, systematically contradicting
their claims for survival until he thoroughly convinces them that suicide is
the only viable option.
Immediately after inviting the audience
to speak, he follows up with this comment, “You can have an opportunity, but if
our children are left we’re going to have them butchered.” Already he has
clarified his intentions. While he is inviting commentary, it seems to be more
of a formality.
One of the first to speak is a woman
named Christine Miller, who asks if it’s “too late for Russia.” Previously,
Jones had told his people that in case of an emergency, their communist allies
in Russia would arrange for their safe escape. While Jones did have contacts in
Russia, it is highly unlikely that he ever intended for his people to move
there. Jones responds to Miller by saying, “Here’s why it’s too late for
Russia. They killed. They started to kill. That’s why it makes it too late for
Russia. Otherwise I’d say, Russia, you bet your life. But it’s too late. I
can’t control these people. They’re out there.” He is saying that because
members of the Temple have killed the congressman, an escape to Russia is not
an option. He is cleverly leaving out the fact that he ordered the execution of
the congressman and the defectors. He is also separating himself from those who
did the killing. Rather than acknowledging his part in the situation or
confessing that his plan to go to Russia was never a realistic option, he deflects
attention onto the members who gunned down the congressman.
Still, Jones encourages the dissent. He
tells Miller, “You’ve always been a good agitator. I like agitation, because
you have to see two sides of one issue, two sides of a question.” So confident
in his speaking skills is Jones that he confirms to his audience that he is
willing to acknowledge that there may be two sides to this issue. Later in the
speech, he even remarks to Miller, “I have no quarrel with you coming up, I
like you. I personally like you very much.” Not only is he effectively
answering their questions, Jones is flattering his people, confirming that he
has no reason to personally attack them, it is their logic that he is
disenfranchising.
Miller pushes the idea of making an
airlift to Russia. At this point, Jones turns around and takes himself out of
the equation. “How are we going to do that? How are you going to airlift to
Russia?” While he had been passing it off as a viable option up until now,
Jones knows there is no way he can get 900 people to Russia, so he places the
responsibility of an escape on his people. Either they can take his route and
commit suicide, or they are forced to act without him and come up with a plan
that is virtually impossible.
When faced with reasonable questions,
Jones continues a pattern of turning questions around on his audience that he
knows they have no answer to. When they admit they are unsure, he then
reasserts his authority. This is shown in an exchange with Miller:
Miller: I think that
there were too few who left for twelve hundred people to give them their lives
for those people that left.
Jones: Do you know how
many left?
Miller: (Casual) Oh,
twenty-odd. That’s – That’s a small (Jones speaks over)
Jones: Twenty-odd,
twenty-odd.
Miller: Compared to
what’s here.
Jones: Twenty-odd. But
what’s gonna happen when they don’t leave? (Pause) I hope that they could
leave. But what’s gonna happen when they – when they don’t leave?
Miller: You mean the
people here?
Jones: Yeah. What’s
going to happen to us when they don’t leave, when they get on the plane and the
plane goes down?
Miller: I don’t think
they’ll do that.
Jones: You don’t think
they’ll go down?
Crowd: Murmurs
Jones: I – I wish I could tell you were right, but I’m right.
He further diminishes the idea of going to Russia
by asking, “You think Russia’s gonna want us with all this stigma? We had some
value, but now we don’t have any value.” Again, he fails to point out he is at
fault for delivering instructions that reduced their “value.”
Jones also has a tendency to allow others in the
crowd speak for him. When Miller continues to fight the idea, saying that she
think they all have a right to their own destiny as individuals, Jones says
nothing except that she has a right to he own opinion. He comments that he is
not criticizing, and instead, lets another member do it for him. This is when
Jim McElvane remarks that Jones is the only reason she is living now. An
unidentified woman also comments that Jones has “saved so many people.” While
he is no stranger to asserting his own authority, Jones is also comfortable
allowing other people do it for him. Several times through the tape, audience
members emphasize Jones’ ethos, calling him “Dad” and “Father.”
Up to this point, I have primarily been
analyzing this speech from a written transcript provided by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. Because the fourth canon, delivery, is primarily concerned
with “manner of presentation” (Foss), it is essential to listen to the audio
recording. There are no video recordings of the event, so it will not be
possible to observe body movements. However, audio will allow us to better
assess Jones’ vocal characteristics.
To listen to the tape is a spectacularly
horrific experience. Jones, who is widely known to be a powerful speaker, is
visibly fatigued. His tone is tired, but reeks of ersatz sincerity. His voice
does not reach high volumes and he does not employ rowdy techniques; he does
not want to ignite the crowd into a frenzy. Rather, he is attempting to calm
them. In fact, the audience responds to his comments with applause and cheers,
but his voice remains stable and controlled. The audience interjects with loud
comments, but his mode of operation is unnervingly tranquil.
Gone are the excited qualities of his
previous sermons, the likes of which can be compared to Southern Baptist
preaching techniques. He has replaced agitating tactics with an approach that
suggests peace and all-knowing authority. Toward the end of the tape, his voice
is reminiscent of a father reading a story to his children before bed. As the
children in the background of the tape cease crying and his final words, “We
didn’t commit suicide. We committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting
the conditions of an inhumane world,” are said, we are left with only eerie
meditation music playing.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, it is a well-documented
truth that Jones’ speech was effective, so effective that by the end of the
tape, the entire audience performed the action that Jones wanted them to. This
is a unique rhetorical study because the result of this speech was not a
campaign vote or a product purchased. His manipulations caused hundreds of
deaths that day. It is unthinkable to imagine that one man could be responsible
for the deaths of these people, but through rhetorical analysis, we can uncover
the violently compelling rhetorical techniques that Jones had perfected
throughout his career.
Ironically, the man who prided himself so
highly on being at one with his people, spared himself the cyanide-induced
death of his people. Instead, Jones was found with a gunshot wound to his head.
It is unclear whether he shot himself or had an accomplice do it for him, but
one thing is clear: in death, the self-proclaimed deity separated himself from
the people who he claimed to love so much.
Implications
The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius once
remarked “The robber of your free will does not exist.” As human beings we are
born with, and should reserve the rights to our own power of choice. Some people
say that ability is what separates us from the animals. The members of Peoples
Temple did not surrender their free will to Jim Jones, but that doesn’t mean
that Jones did not use his rhetorical abilities to guide their thought
processes in a manner that suited his desires. The influence of rhetoric is
immense. Those who foster capabilities to sway an audience as drastically as
Jones did wield a powerful sword.
The techniques can be used with good
intentions, or in this case, yield calamitous results. It is in the shadow of
the 31st anniversary of the Jonestown Tragedy that I have conducted
this analysis and submit that even those who are not classically trained in the
practice of oration can display an uncanny and meticulous understanding of
Aristotle’s canons. The results of this implementation are not only in the
hands of the rhetor, but also they are also responsibility of the audience. We
must question friends, leaders, deities, if we are to maintain our free will
and personal judgment, and thus ensure our nobility as humans for another day.
Bibliography
Bellefountaine, M. (2005). “Christine
Miller, a voice of independence.” Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume7/remem-Bellefountaine5.htm.
Burton, G. O. (n.d.) The canons of rhetoric. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Brigham
Young University, Silvae Rhetoricae Web site: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Canons/Canons.html.
Dieckman, J. (2008). “One misconception
down, countless to go.” Retrieved
October 28, 2009 from http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume7/dieckman042.htm.
Foss, S. K. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Jones, J. (Speaker). (1978). The Jonestown death tape (Cassette
Recording FBI No. Q 042). Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Matthews, D. (2008, November 13). “Jim Jones
followers enthralled by his skills as a speaker.” Retrieved October 11, 2009,
from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/13/jonestown.jim.jones/index.html?iref=newssearch.
McCloud, S. (2007). “Jonestown: The life
and death of Peoples Temple.” The Journal of American History, 94(3), 1043-1044.
Retrieved October 12, 2009, from Research Library Core. (Document
ID: 1435938621).
McGehee, F. M. (2001). “Commentary on Q
042.” Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Tapes/Tapes/DeathTape/Q042comm.html.
Ray, K. (2008). “Reversed speech and soul
music on Q-042.” Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume9/TapesRay1.htm.
Reiterman, T. (2008). Raven: The untold story of the Rev. Jim
Jones and his people. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Sachs, A. (2008, November 18). “Q&A:
A Jonestown survivor remembers.” Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1859903-1,00.html
Stark, R., and Bainbridge, W.S. (1980).
“Networks of faith: Interpersonal bonds and recruitment to cults and sects”
[electronic version]. American Journal of
Sociology, 85, 1376.
Stratton, M. (1991). “Jim Jones and the Peoples
Temple: A rhetorical analysis using narrative theory.” Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale, Illinois. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from
Dissertations & Theses: A&I. (Publication No. AAT 9219795).
|
|||||
 |
|
 |
|||
 |
 |
