Uppsala, Sweden connects with Stanford on Global Leadership Speeches
Right now, students are connecting across a 9 hour time zone to discuss the rhetorical strategies that global leaders use in speaking to different audiences. There are six small groups on each side, analyzing speeches by figures such as Obama & Prime Minister Reinfeldt, the Dalai Lama & Christopher Hitchens, Mona Sahlin & Nyamko Sabuni, Obama & McCain on gay marriage, Al Gore & David Keith & Jill Sobule. See the lesson plan here: http://ccr.stanford.edu/workshops/042209.html
Together, the students wrestled with analyzing the rhetorical strategies utilized in these speeches, with special attention to Doxa -- or the cultural values underlying the oratory -- and a particular focus on how speakers handled elements of gender, race, and religion.
For everyone who participated, we now invite you to leave a reflection on this cross-cultural encounter as a comment to this entry. In particular, you might answer some of the following questions:
- What did you think of today's activity?
- What did you learn about global leadership or ways in which leaders use rhetoric across diverse audiences (be specific if you can; share something that your group discussed!)
- How will your experience in the video conference today enrich your own research project or approach to oral rhetoric and presentation?
Comments
I discussed the topic of Obama and McCain on gay marriage in my group. I think the biggest thing I learned is that having a politician, president, etc. speak on their personal faith/religion may seem fine in the US, but could be very shocking or inappropriate in different countries.
Though we spoke about this when all the groups came together at the end, I think it is important to keep in mind. Being a leader for the entire world clearly requires a broader perspective than being a leader strictly for one's own country.
Posted by: Byron Milligan | April 27, 2009 05:49 PM
My group discussed gender and politics. It was interesting to learn that even though the salary gap between men and women is less in Sweden than in the US, people appear more opinionated and aware of the situation than here in the US. It seemed like it was a very controversial issue in Sweden. In America, however, we rarely even discuss this issue.
Overall, I really enjoyed conversing with students from Uppsala =)!
Posted by: Chun Pan | April 27, 2009 05:57 PM
Greetings,
Last week's video conference was very interesting and a lot of fun. In my group we analyzed the rhetorical techniques of President Obama and PM Reinfeldt, and explored the cultural differences between the U.S. and Sweden that could explain the striking differences in their rhetoric. I look forward to more constructive cross cultural conferencing in the future.
Posted by: Ty McCormick | April 27, 2009 06:33 PM
I took a few things away from our discussion, but what interested me most was the part about Christopher Hitchens and atheism. I don't think Americans realize how much we are bombarded with religion on a daily basis. We claim to have a separation of church and state, but when compared to Sweden, religion is a much larger part of our life. Everyone in my group, besides myself, was really thrown off by Hitchens and his unusual topic. To the Americans this was a shock that someone would dislike religion so much. We see religion on a daily basis that I believe is much more extreme than Hitchens. The Swedes seemed to express that religion plays a very little role in everyday life, and for them to see this was more intense than the religion they usually see. It was interesting to see that even in a largely atheist country, like Sweden, people were still afraid to call themselves atheists, out of fear of being perceived like Hitchens, however the way they described their believes made them seem like atheists to me.
Posted by: Charley Henrikson | April 27, 2009 06:56 PM
Hello,
I was in the group that compared Obama's rhetoric to that of the Swedish prime minister. I found it very interesting how their language is much more reserved than ours. For example, in our revisions of a statement from each politician's speech, we made their prime ministers speeches more severe and they made Obama's more tempered. We concluded that this rhetoric is ingrained in their cultural values, and the prime minister was appealing to those values.
Posted by: Jonathan Shea | April 27, 2009 07:40 PM
I really enjoyed our chat last week comparing Obama and McCain's use of rhetoric when discussing gay marriage. I learned two important differences between American and Swedish rhetoric from our discussion. First, the American political style is, in general, much more relaxed than Swedish. Swedish politicians tend to act formally in public and not expose their personal lives. This also related to the issue of gay marriage which is very important to many Americans but less important to most Swedes. It seems this is because personal life is not a critical political concern in Sweden. Second, our group discussed the separation of church and state which seems to blur in the U.S. given phrases such as "God Bless America" and the overall importance of a politicians religion. In contrast, any religious references are usually avoided in Swedish politics.
I really enjoyed the discussion and look forward to speaking again soon.
Posted by: Avery | April 27, 2009 08:04 PM
Hi Uppsala,
It was nice speaking to you all last week! We had some constructive conversation on what kind of rhetoric is effective for leaders in the US (such as Obama) and what rhetoric is more effective in Sweden, as in the case of your Prime Minister. We also determined that students are somewhat less involved in politics - something I thought was fascinating. I look forward to meeting you all again through CCR!
Posted by: Clare | May 2, 2009 11:38 AM