Introduction
This essay presents a rhetorical analysis of Shirley Chisholm’s speech advocating for equal rights for women, delivered on 10 May 1969, as part of her efforts to support the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the United States Congress. As the first African American woman elected to Congress, Chisholm’s advocacy carries significant historical and political weight, reflecting the intersectionality of gender and racial discrimination. This analysis aims to explore how Chisholm employs rhetorical strategies—namely ethos, pathos, and logos—to persuade her audience of the urgent need for legal equality. By examining her use of personal experience, emotional appeals, and logical argumentation, this essay will assess the effectiveness of her rhetoric in addressing systemic gender inequality within the socio-political context of the late 1960s. The discussion will also consider the broader implications of her arguments for contemporary debates on equality.
Contextual Background of Chisholm’s Speech
Before delving into the rhetorical strategies, it is essential to situate Chisholm’s speech within its historical context. The late 1960s marked a period of intense social change in the United States, with the civil rights movement and the second-wave feminist movement gaining momentum. The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, sought to guarantee equal legal rights for all citizens regardless of sex, yet it faced significant opposition due to entrenched gender norms and fears of disrupting traditional roles (Mansbridge, 1986). Chisholm, representing a predominantly African American district in Brooklyn, New York, brought a unique perspective to this debate, highlighting not only gender discrimination but also the compounded effects of racial prejudice. Her position as a trailblazer in American politics lent her a distinctive voice, which she wielded effectively to challenge systemic inequities. Indeed, understanding this dual oppression is critical to appreciating the depth of her rhetorical approach.
Establishing Credibility through Ethos
One of Chisholm’s primary rhetorical tools is her use of ethos, establishing her credibility and authority as a speaker. From the outset, she acknowledges her identity as a woman and a member of a racial minority, stating, “As a black person, I am no stranger to racial prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black” (Chisholm, 1969). This admission serves a dual purpose: it underscores her personal experience with discrimination, thereby positioning her as a credible witness to the issues at hand, and it challenges the assumption that race is the sole axis of oppression she faces. By aligning herself with the struggles of women across racial lines, Chisholm builds a bridge to her broader audience, fostering trust and relatability.
Moreover, her status as a Congresswoman—a role few women, and fewer still women of colour, occupied at the time—further enhances her ethos. She speaks not merely as an individual but as a representative of the disenfranchised, a role that lends weight to her arguments. However, while her ethos is compelling, it is arguably limited by the political climate of the era, where women’s voices were often marginalised in legislative spaces. This constraint suggests that her credibility, though strong, may not have universally resonated with a predominantly male Congress (Freeman, 1995).
Emotional Appeal through Pathos
Chisholm’s speech is also rich with pathos, as she employs emotional appeals to underscore the human cost of gender discrimination. She vividly describes the indignities women endure, such as being “relegated to the lowest-paying, least-rewarding jobs” and facing societal expectations that confine them to domestic roles (Chisholm, 1969). Such imagery evokes empathy, inviting listeners to consider the lived realities of countless women. Furthermore, her repeated emphasis on the pervasive nature of prejudice—“prejudice against women is still acceptable”—strikes an emotional chord, highlighting the normalisation of inequality as a profound injustice (Chisholm, 1969).
Beyond personal anecdotes, Chisholm appeals to shared values of fairness and justice, questioning why society tolerates discrimination against women when it condemns other forms of bias. This rhetorical question serves to provoke moral reflection among her audience, particularly those who might otherwise remain indifferent. While her emotional appeals are generally effective in humanising the issue, they risk being perceived as overly subjective by a legislative audience accustomed to prioritising detached reasoning. Nevertheless, her ability to blend personal narrative with broader societal critique adds a poignant layer to her advocacy (Burke, 1969).
Logical Argumentation through Logos
In addition to ethos and pathos, Chisholm employs logos to construct a rational case for the Equal Rights Amendment. She presents concrete evidence of systemic inequality, such as disparities in employment opportunities and wage gaps, to illustrate the tangible consequences of gender discrimination. For instance, she notes that women are often denied promotions or hired only for “jobs that men do not want,” grounding her argument in observable realities (Chisholm, 1969). This data-driven approach appeals to the logical sensibilities of her audience, particularly policymakers who value empirical justification.
Additionally, Chisholm counters potential objections to the ERA by arguing that legal equality would not eradicate societal differences but rather ensure a foundation of fairness from which individuals can navigate their roles. This preemptive reasoning demonstrates her awareness of opposing views and her ability to address complex problems systematically. However, her reliance on broad generalisations occasionally limits the depth of her analysis; for instance, she does not delve into specific policy mechanisms through which the ERA would function. While this may reflect the speech’s intent as a call to action rather than a detailed proposal, it somewhat curtails the robustness of her logical appeal (Mansbridge, 1986).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Shirley Chisholm’s 1969 speech on equal rights for women exemplifies a powerful blend of rhetorical strategies that collectively advocate for systemic change. Through ethos, she establishes her credibility as a firsthand witness to discrimination and a pioneering political figure; through pathos, she elicits empathy by illuminating the personal toll of gender inequality; and through logos, she constructs a reasoned argument supported by evidence of systemic disparities. While her speech is not without limitations—namely the potential for emotional appeals to be dismissed and the lack of detailed policy discussion—its overall impact lies in its ability to humanise a legislative issue and challenge societal norms. Chisholm’s rhetoric remains relevant today, as debates over gender equality continue to evolve, reminding us of the enduring need to address intersectional inequalities. Her speech thus serves not only as a historical artefact but also as a call to critically evaluate the structures that perpetuate discrimination, urging contemporary audiences to pursue justice with renewed urgency.
References
- Burke, K. (1969) A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press.
- Chisholm, S. (1969) Speech on Equal Rights for Women. American Rhetoric.
- Freeman, J. (1995) Women: A Feminist Perspective. Mayfield Publishing Company.
- Mansbridge, J. J. (1986) Why We Lost the ERA. University of Chicago Press.
