Nelson Mandela: A Global Appeal
Figure 1. Nelson Mandela released in 1990.
The image presented of Nelson Mandela on the opening page portrayed him as a leader, a member of the ANC who is accessible and open to all children and adults & whites and blacks. His left hand in raised in victory as well as a symbol of his left wing sympathies. Mandela's opening remarks reveal his audience as a troupe of supporters, but also perhaps an audience that is on a grander scale: the international interphase. However, his primary audience--because he addresses his ANC relations--is still the large crowd before him. Secondarily, Mandela is addressing all the people around the world, his adversaries as well as his allies.
In the context of his speech, Mandela is just released from prison and is using the opportunity of the speech to acknowledge and express his gratitude for the efforts his supporters--and perhaps his enemies--have made on his behalf thus far. The speech also points out the "irreversible moment" in time that they are suspended in forever--in lieu of film. He is encouraging his supporters to defeat once and for all: totalitarianism.
Mandela's effectiveness lies in his downplaying of his own importance and in presenting himself as a humble and sympathetic man to the needs of The People. Mandela is an accessible character and approachable. He is merely a "servant" of the people who has given a public face to the movement for democracy. Also, Mandela's appeal is very different from those used by e.g. the Iranian authorities addressing their public audiences.
Mandela's speech is very rhetorically loaded, powerful in diction, but encompassing of a wide audience. The humanitarian tone to his voice and speech is universably accessible to all people who believe in freedom and human dignity. The speech also reflects his culture's value for family and bettering the world for future generations.
However, if Mandela were to attempt at appealing at a larger audience: He already has!
But, if he were only targeted at an American audience, he would have perhaps refrained from attributing the movement's success to the aid of specific political parities. For other countries, Mandela's speech would need to adapt not only based on cultural levesl, but also based on the nature of the political regimes in power in that country (i.e. democracy vs. authoritarian, etc.)
Comments
Very nice interpretation for his left hand and nice analysis!
Posted by: Jamie | March 10, 2008 10:05 AM
The thing I love most about Mandela is his ability to garner admiration and respect for his significant work for his cause while remaining humble and attributing any success the movement for democracy has back to the people who support him. This is the best kind of leadership, and the type most likely to earn unshakable loyalty from those who follow. The way Mandela called out and spoke to specific factions of his supporters really made the point that the movement for democracy is a people's movement, not a faceless machine pushing toward arbitrary change.
Posted by: Michelle | March 10, 2008 10:10 AM
So it was super fun to work with the peeps from Egypt as well as with Hannes again! =D
I really enjoyed our discussion on Mandela and it was interesting to find his appeal was so universal. I personally knew very little about him prior--because I don't pay attention to the news or most things--but I learned a lot during our discussion and look forward to more like this!
Posted by: Lilian | March 10, 2008 10:10 AM
I really enjoyed reading your prose-form analysis, particularly of the image of Mandela raising his left fist. The word "left" has a lot of different connotations in English speech. You mentioned the powerful rhetoric that Mandela used in his speech (which I have no doubt he used)--what are some examples?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 10:14 AM
I love the analysis of his humble presentation being consistent with his message and appeal to pathos. I want to go watch the speech!
Posted by: Gemma | March 10, 2008 10:16 AM
Nice job for pointing out what might've been different had Mandela specifically targeted the US in his speech (especially mentioning the governmental/political issues so 'dear' to Americans). Usually it's the other way around - going from specific to broad audience - but this time, it's the opposite.
Posted by: Ben-Zhen Sung | March 10, 2008 10:17 AM
Anonymous is Karen, by the way.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 10:18 AM
I think it's interesting how he mentions specific political parties in his speech, whereas politicians in the US--and several other countries--would probably not take that risk, particularly in a speech that is meant to unite. If he were to thank any one particular political party in the US, it may be considered controversial and polarizing. I believe our friends in Egypt said the same applies over there.
Posted by: Saima Hasan | March 10, 2008 05:59 PM
How important it was for Mandela to emphasize unity at a time when the politics of South Africa were drastically changing and could have lead to deep resentment on either side of the Apartheid struggle!
The content of his speech (in the context of the time) reminds me of other great political leaders, like my favorite, Abe Lincoln, who also favored unity (absolving the South of its guilt by reconstituting them into the Union) in the wake of the disasterous Civil War. That is a good thing to point out.
Also Saima: good point! The fact that he's able to do both- set apart different factions while having an agenda for unity shows that he is THAT GOOD. Mandela is the man!
Posted by: Kyonne | March 11, 2008 04:06 AM