(This article is adapted from a paper written for Communication 441: Critical and Cultural Foundations, taught by Chuck Goehring at San Diego State University. Another article on the \u201cDeath Tape\u201d in this edition of <\/i>the jonestown report is Jim Jones and Christine Miller: An Analysis of Jonestown\u2019s Final Struggle<\/a>.)<\/i><\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n The answer is with James Warren \u201cJim\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cfather.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n Of Jones\u2019 many sermons available online and in libraries, one of the most interesting was Jones\u2019 final performance. Recorded in the hours leading up to the mass suicide, the \u201cDeath Tape<\/a>\u201d contains Jones\u2019 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\u2019s concerns.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n I will be especially interested to see how Jones\u2019 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.<\/p>\n \n Context <\/b><\/p>\n \n We committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world. (Jim Jones, \u201cDeath Tape<\/a>,\u201d 1978) <\/i><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n During Ryan\u2019s 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\u2019 loyal followers gunned down the congressman, two reporters, a cameraman, and one Peoples Temple defector.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cWhite Nights.\u201d Jones was well aware what he was going to ask his people to do, and he knew that they would do it.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cthe good life.\u201d He then employs a common rhetorical device by creating a \u201cus vs. them\u201d scenario between those who remained at the compound and those disloyal \u201cdefectors\u201d 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 \u201can act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n \n Method <\/b><\/p>\n The most notable of all the artifacts in the Peoples Temple archive is known as the \u201cDeath Tape,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n The infamous success of Jim Jones\u2019 last speech has been studied from multiple angles outside of the sphere of communication. Fielding McGehee<\/a> has conducted an investigation of the authenticity of the tape. Joseph Dieckman<\/a> and Kyle Ray<\/a> have discussed the music on the tape. Researchers have also studied the motivations behind an audience member who protested during the taping (Michael Bellefountaine<\/a>, 2005). Although these are all included in an online collection of \u201cDeath Tape\u201d analyses<\/a> compiled by researchers at San Diego State University, it appears there is a serious lack of in-depth discussion of Jim Jones\u2019 rhetorical patterns.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n According to Sonja K. Foss\u2019s book, Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice<\/i>, 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.<\/p>\n In my initial analysis of the Death Tape, I noticed several patterns within Jones\u2019 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 \u2013 that is, those words or items that occurred more than once or ideas that he referred to recurrently.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 skillful handling of objections and interruptions from the audience.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Through this method, I will make a thorough case for Jim Jones\u2019 rhetorical choices on the day of his last and most powerful speech performed.<\/p>\n \n Analysis <\/b><\/p>\n The most common thread among interviews and books produced by survivors of Peoples Temple is their declaration of Jim Jones\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cdefectors\u201d 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.<\/p>\n \n Ethos\/Identification <\/b><\/p>\n Typically, the rhetor announces the subject and purpose and then establishes his credibility with the audience (Gideon O. Burton, \u201cSilvae Rhetoricae\u201d). The very first thing Jones does is establish his connection with the audience: \u201cI have loved you, how very much I have tried my best to give you the good life.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n One of the most interesting portions of this last speech is Jones\u2019 unwavering and self-glorifying use of ethos<\/i>. His years of rule over these people have created a scenario in which he truly is their supreme dictator disguised as a \u201cbest friend.\u201d It is chilling to hear the ways in which Jones designated himself as the people\u2019s salvation: \u201cWithout me, life has no meaning\u2026 I\u2019m the best friend you\u2019ll ever have\u2026 I\u2019d never detach myself from any of your troubles. I\u2019ve always taken your troubles right on my shoulders and I\u2019m not gonna change that now.\u201d<\/p>\n The most startling quote from this section comes when Jones proclaims, \u201cI am a prophet.\u201d 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, \u201cI\u2019m speaking here not as an administrator, I\u2019m speaking as a prophet today\u2026 I wouldn\u2019t sit up in this seat and talk so serious if I did not know what I was talking about\u2026 I cannot separate myself from the pain of my people\u2026 We\u2019ve walked together too long.\u201d 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 \u201cfaith healings\u201d that he infamously integrated into his sermons. He re-instills the idea of standing together later in the speech: \u201cI can\u2019t separate myself from your actions or his actions. If you\u2019d done something wrong, I\u2019d stand with you. If they wanted to come and get you, they\u2019d have to take me.\u201d 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<\/i> may be the one to make a mistake.<\/p>\n The most noteworthy aspect of Jones\u2019 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: \u201cThey\u2019ve gone with the guns and it\u2019s too late. And once we kill anybody, at least\u2026 that\u2019s the way I\u2019ve always\u2026 I\u2019ve always put my lot with you. And when one of my people do something, it\u2019s me. Understand, I don\u2019t have to take the blame for this, but I don\u2019t live that way.\u201d 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\u2019t personally responsible for this, he will voluntarily be held accountable for their actions: \u201cI don\u2019t know who killed the congressman. But as far as I am concerned, I killed him. You understand what I\u2019m saying? I killed him.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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, \u201cI tried to give it to you. I\u2019ve laid down my life, practically. I\u2019ve practically died every day to give you peace.\u201d He also asserts that if they chose to live, their life will be meaningless: \u201cI certainly don\u2019t want your life in my hands. I\u2019m going to tell you, Christine [Miller], without me, life has no meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n Jones isn\u2019t 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, \u201cChristine, you\u2019re only standing here because [Jones] was here in the first place. So I don\u2019t know what you\u2019re talking about, having an individual life. Your life has been extended to the day that you\u2019re standing there, because of him.\u201d McElvane\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Later in this essay, I will further comment on how comments from the audience enforced Jones\u2019 authority and showcased his rhetorical abilities.<\/p>\n \n Absolving of Sin <\/b><\/p>\n The concrete result of Jones\u2019 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.<\/p>\n His use of logos<\/i>, or logical appeals, forces his audience into only one conclusion. Jones uses the phrase \u201crevolutionary act\u201d 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: \u201c\u201cNo man may take my life from me; I lay my life down.\u201d In doing this, Jones\u2019 challenges their individual pride. Either they can make the decision to end their own lives, or someone can and will<\/i> do it for them.<\/p>\n 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 \u201chave no other road\u201d and that there is \u201cno way, no way we can survive.\u201d<\/p>\n Jones uses pathos<\/i>, 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 \u201cfather,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cstart parachuting out of the air, they\u2019ll shoot some of our innocent babies.\u201d Several times Jones uses children as rationale to kill: \u201cI don\u2019t 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.\u201d In the beginning of the speech, Jones even claims that if their children are left alive, they will be \u201cbutchered.\u201d<\/p>\n Jones perpetuates an \u201cus vs. them\u201d mentality, painting himself and his followers as the good side while the congressman and the defectors are wrong: \u201cI have never, never, never, never seen anything like this before in my life. I\u2019ve never seem people take the law\u2026 in their own hands and provoke us and try to purposely agitate murder of children. It\u2019s just not worth living like this.\u201d 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 \u201cWhite Night\u201d 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 \u201cingroup\u201d of the Temple are forcing this fate. He reiterates this toward the end of the speech, \u201cThis is a revolutionary suicide. This is not a self-destructive suicide. So they\u2019ll pay for this. They brought this upon us. And they\u2019ll pay for that. I leave that destiny to them.\u201d<\/p>\n The reality is that Jones\u2019 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.<\/p>\n Jones offers logical arguments as proof. He slides into this gracefully directly after his declaration of revolutionary suicide. He says, \u201cWe can\u2019t go back. They won\u2019t leave us alone. They\u2019re now going back to tell more lies which means more congressmen. And there\u2019s no way, no way we can survive.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n He explains that death is not something to fear, but something to embrace after a life of torment. He says, \u201cDon\u2019t be afraid to die. You\u2019ll see, there\u2019ll be a few people land out there. They\u2019ll torture some of our children here. They\u2019ll torture our people. They\u2019ll torture our seniors. We cannot have this. Are you going to separate yourself from whoever shot the congressman?\u201d Again, he enforces the ideas that those \u201coutgroup\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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<\/i> to suffer eternally, is through immediate death. According to Jones, the greatest act of love is murder.<\/p>\n 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 \u201ca part\u201d of him, that this is their only option. Jones even tells his audience, \u201cI now see it\u2019s the will, it\u2019s the will of Sovereign Being that this happen to us. That we lay down our lives in protest against what\u2019s being down. The criminality of people. The cruelty of people.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201clike to choose [his] own death for a change.\u201d 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, \u201cWe win when we go down,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n \n Interruptions <\/b><\/p>\n While the transcript primarily consists of Jones talking to his followers, there are several interruptions from audience members who protest or question Jones\u2019 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.<\/p>\n As Burton explains in \u201cSilva Rhetoricae,\u201d arrangement consists of six parts: exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, refutatio<\/i>, and peroratio<\/i>. Upon analysis, we see that Jones\u2019 speech actually does loosely follow this framework, he just executes it in an unusual way. The most relevant of these parts is \u201crefutatio,\u201d the portion that deals with refutations.<\/p>\n 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, \u201canyone who has any dissenting opinion, please speak.\u201d He then deconstructs their questions, systematically contradicting their claims for survival until he thoroughly convinces them that suicide is the only viable option.<\/p>\n Immediately after inviting the audience to speak, he follows up with this comment, \u201cYou can have an opportunity, but if our children are left we\u2019re going to have them butchered.\u201d Already he has clarified his intentions. While he is inviting commentary, it seems to be more of a formality.<\/p>\n One of the first to speak is a woman named Christine Miller, who asks if it\u2019s \u201ctoo late for Russia.\u201d 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, \u201cHere\u2019s why it\u2019s too late for Russia. They killed. They started to kill. That\u2019s why it makes it too late for Russia. Otherwise I\u2019d say, Russia, you bet your life. But it\u2019s too late. I can\u2019t control these people. They\u2019re out there.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Still, Jones encourages the dissent. He tells Miller, \u201cYou\u2019ve always been a good agitator. I like agitation, because you have to see two sides of one issue, two sides of a question.\u201d 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, \u201cI have no quarrel with you coming up, I like you. I personally like you very much.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Miller pushes the idea of making an airlift to Russia. At this point, Jones turns around and takes himself out of the equation. \u201cHow are we going to do that? How are you going to airlift to Russia?\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n Miller: <\/b>I think that there were too few who left for twelve hundred people to give them their lives for those people that left.<\/p>\n Jones: <\/b>Do you know how many left?<\/p>\n Miller: <\/b>(Casual) Oh, twenty-odd. That\u2019s \u2013 That\u2019s a small (Jones speaks over)<\/p>\n Jones: <\/b>Twenty-odd, twenty-odd.<\/p>\n Miller: <\/b>Compared to what\u2019s here.<\/p>\n Jones: <\/b>Twenty-odd. But what\u2019s gonna happen when they don\u2019t leave? (Pause) I hope that they could leave. But what\u2019s gonna happen when they \u2013 when they don\u2019t leave?<\/p>\n Miller: <\/b>You mean the people here?<\/p>\n Jones: <\/b>Yeah. What\u2019s going to happen to us when they don\u2019t leave, when they get on the plane and the plane goes down?<\/p>\n Miller: <\/b>I don\u2019t think they\u2019ll do that.<\/p>\n Jones: <\/b>You don\u2019t think they\u2019ll go down?<\/p>\n Crowd: <\/b>Murmurs<\/p>\n Jones: <\/b>I \u2013 I wish I could tell you were right, but I\u2019m right.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n He further diminishes the idea of going to Russia by asking, \u201cYou think Russia\u2019s gonna want us with all this stigma? We had some value, but now we don\u2019t have any value.\u201d Again, he fails to point out he is at fault for delivering instructions that reduced their \u201cvalue.\u201d<\/p>\n 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 \u201csaved so many people.\u201d 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\u2019 ethos, calling him \u201cDad\u201d and \u201cFather.\u201d<\/p>\n 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 \u201cmanner of presentation\u201d (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\u2019 vocal characteristics.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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, \u201cWe didn\u2019t commit suicide. We committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world,\u201d are said, we are left with only eerie meditation music playing.<\/p>\n \n Conclusion <\/b><\/p>\n Unfortunately, it is a well-documented truth that Jones\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \n Implications <\/b><\/p>\n The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius once remarked \u201cThe robber of your free will does not exist.\u201d 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n \n \n Bibliography <\/b><\/p>\n Bellefountaine, M. (2005). \u201cChristine Miller, a voice of independence.\u201d Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=32381<\/a>.<\/p>\n Burton, G. O. (n.d.) The canons of rhetoric<\/i>. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Brigham Young University, Silvae Rhetoricae Web site: http:\/\/rhetoric.byu.edu\/Canons\/Canons.htm<\/a>.<\/p>\n Dieckman, J. (2008). \u201cOne misconception down, countless to go.\u201d<\/i> Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=32348<\/a>.<\/p>\n Foss, S. K. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice<\/i> (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.<\/p>\n Jones, J. (Speaker). (1978). The Jonestown death tape<\/a> (Cassette Recording FBI No. Q 042). Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.<\/p>\n Matthews, D. (2008, November 13). \u201cJim Jones followers enthralled by his skills as a speaker.\u201d Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2008\/US\/11\/13\/jonestown.jim.jones\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n McCloud,\u00a0S.\u00a0(2007). \u201cJonestown: The life and death of Peoples Temple.\u201d The Journal of American History,<\/i>\u00a094<\/i>(3),\u00a01043-1044. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from Research Library Core. (Document ID:\u00a01435938621).<\/p>\n McGehee, F. M. (2001). \u201cCommentary on Q 042.\u201d Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?p= 29215<\/a>.<\/p>\n Ray, K. (2008). \u201cReversed speech and soul music on Q 042.\u201d Retrieved October 28, 2009 from http:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=33236<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reiterman, T. (2008). Raven: The untold story of the Rev. Jim Jones and his people<\/i>. New York, NY: Penguin Group.<\/p>\n\n