Manipulation?

Kofi Annan, the 7^th Secretary General of the United Nations, gave a lecture at Colombia University in 2003 about immigration. In it he stated that both host countries and immigrants stand to benefit from interaction if immigration is handled and monitored in an efficient, successful, and humane way. Annan’s purpose behind this lecture was to remind his audience, mainly the students and faculty of a highly prestigious American University, that America was built on immigration and that immigration is needed for both a singular nation and an integrated world to be successful. He tries to persuade his audience that the world must work together “rationally, creatively, compassionately and cooperatively” in order for this success to be achieved. (85) Throughout his argument, he uses appeals to his ethos as well as appeals to the effects of pathos and logos on his audience. He draws upon each of these appeals to manipulate native-born Americans into believing in the importance of immigration for both the United States and the world at large.

Annan establishes a sense of trust amongst his audience in order to manipulate their thinking and get them to believe that immigration is essential. One way he does this by convincing them of his knowledge on the topic of immigration when he says, “New York… is a brilliant success story of migration…in the year 2000, some 175 million people, about 3 percent of the world’s population, lived outside their country of birth.”(85) This appeal to knowledge reinforces his facts and makes the audience believe, at least initially, any conclusions that he draws from numbers, examples, and assumptions. This is because if the audience believes that Kofi Annan is trustworthy in his knowledge he will most likely be trustworthy in his conclusions. Annan uses an appeal to his ethos to manipulate the students and faculty of Colombia University into believing his opinion on immigration. The audience is apt to listen to what he has to say because of his prestigious position. They automatically believe that he knows what he is speaking about and therefore trust him right off the bat. Throughout his speech he uses intelligent, articulate, and concise language to argue his point. This further adds to establishing his ethos because it shows the audience that he is an intelligent man. This reinforces the audience’s trust in his ethos. Because Annan establishes this trust with his audience, the audience is willing to hear what he has to say about the topic.

Annan further establishes his ethos by showing his audience that he is understanding of any concerns they might have. He uses this sense of understanding to manipulate his readers into believing the need for successful, lenient monitoring of immigration. He says “I am not suggesting that all these problems could be solved at a stroke simply by lifting all restrictions on migrations.”(88) By acknowledging a counter argument Annan shows the audience that he is willing to understand things from different perspectives and points of view. By so doing, Annan does not alienate his audience, but rather he draws them in. This effect on the audience enables Annan’s theory that immigration is what is best for the United States as well as the entire world to better convince the audience. The audience is more willing to listen and ultimately be convinced by his argument when they feel that the speaker is conscientious and understanding of different points of view. Annan is conscientious of the effects of using these tools and he uses them to manipulate his audience into looking at the issue from his angle.

Annan also uses appeals to the effects of logos to manipulate and persuade the audience that immigration can be beneficial for both immigrant and host country alike. He knows that if the audience is allowed to use their own minds to draw conclusions they are more likely to agree with his argument. For example, Annan gives the assumption that immigrants “perform many services that the host population is eager to consume, but is either unwilling or unable to provide for itself—from highly skilled work in research or information technology to less skilled jobs tending fields, nursing the sick and elderly, working on construction sites, running corner shops that stay open all night, or looking after children and doing housework while parents are out pursuing careers.”(86) This use of logos has the effect of making the audience believe that they are drawing their own conclusions about the positive work that immigrants can do. But in actuality, Annan is gently nudging and manipulating the audience in a way that supports his cause. Annan is able to guide his audience to his own conclusions under the guise that they are coming up with their own ideas. Therefore, this use of logos helps to persuade the audience that immigration is a needed tool for the success of a singular nation and a cooperative world.

Annan appeals to logos again as he tries to manipulate students and faculty of Colombia University into believing that immigration is necessary for a nation and the rest of the world to reap the benefits. However, this second appeal to logos is more forceful than the first. Annan uses the tool of an overstatement when he says that “migration is one of the tool’s we have to help put more of the world’s people on the right side of—and ultimately, to eliminate—the vast divides that exist today between poor and rich, and between fettered and free.” (86) This use of logos does not allow the audience to feel that they are making their own conclusions, but rather makes a dramatic conclusion for the audience itself. No measures can be taken to ultimately “eliminate” the disparities in the world today, however because Annan uses the technique of an overstatement he is able to fool his audience into believing that this is the correct step to take. This appeal to logos manipulates the reader into feeling that monitoring immigration can benefit both the host country and the rest of the world.

Kofi Annan uses many appeals to pathos in order to guide and manipulate the audience’s emotions in a way that is beneficial to supporting his argument. Annan uses these emotional appeals to make his audience agree that immigration is capable of benefiting both the United States and the rest of the world. Throughout the lecture, Annan refers to the “human rights” of immigrants and how these rights are inherent and cannot be violated. “Human rights” is a loaded phrase that sparks an emotional reaction in the audience. It makes the audience feel that if they object to immigration, they are objecting to the inherent rights of people. No one wants to feel that they disagree with giving people the basic rights that they deserve. Annan takes advantage of this loaded phrase and uses it to make the audience support immigration and believe that it can benefit the United States and the world as a whole.

Perhaps Annan’s most successful attempt to appeal to the audience pathetically is through the use of patriotism. Annan begins and ends his lecture by making allusions to the Statue of Liberty, “Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door”(92). Annan is aware that his audience at Colombia University is most likely highly patriotic because the University is located in New York City, the heart of America. He takes advantage of this patriotism and reminds the audience that America was built on immigration. The audience is unlikely to object to such a patriotic claim. Therefore, Annan knowingly uses the effects of patriotism to manipulate his audience into believing that immigration is a beneficial tool.

Kofi Annan’s “Lecture on the International Flows of Humanity” gives appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos in order to manipulate and persuade the audience into believing that immigration is beneficial for America as well as for the rest of the world as a whole. He draws the audience in with appeals to his specialized knowledge on the matter and builds a sense of trust with his listeners. He then appeals to the audience’s sense of logic and uses this to manipulate their thinking in a way that parallels his argument. Finally, he appeals to their emotions through the use of emotionally charged language and patriotic allusions. Taken as a whole these appeals effectively manipulate the audience of Colombia University into feeling the importance of cooperatively and respectfully monitoring immigration.