ATTENTION/WARNING - NE PAS DÉPOSER ICI/DO NOT SUBMIT HERE

Ceci est la version de TEST de DIAL.mem. Veuillez ne pas soumettre votre mémoire sur ce site mais bien à l'URL suivante: 'https://thesis.dial.uclouvain.be'.
This is the TEST version of DIAL.mem. Please use the following URL to submit your master thesis: 'https://thesis.dial.uclouvain.be'.
 

The voices of three African American pioneer congresswomen from the 1960s : an analysis of their political discourse

(2022)

Files

Falque_9197-19-00_2021-2022pdf.pdf
  • Closed access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 946.03 KB

Falque_9197-19-00_2021-2022_Annexe1pdf.pdf
  • Closed access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 218.02 KB

Details

Supervisors
Faculty
Degree label
Abstract
On January 20th, 2021, Kamala Harris made history by becoming the first African American and South Asian woman Vice President of the United States, nearly 50 years after the first black woman to be elected to Congress, Shirley Chisholm, ran for the presidency of the United States. In her victory acceptance speech, Kamala Harris pays a moving tribute to a whole generation of women who ‘paved the way’ for her election. Indeed, her pioneering journey is the result of centuries of black women’s struggle and the work of previous congressional pioneers. This thesis aims to analyze the political discourses of three African American pioneer congresswomen from the 1960s: Shirley Chisholm (the first black woman to be elected to Congress from New York), Barbara Jordan (the first black woman to be elected to Congress from Texas) and Yvonne Burke (the first black woman to be elected to Congress from California). To do so, a series of analytical elements will be taken into consideration, including those of Aristotle’s classical rhetoric and the discourse-historical approach. After having analyzed the different elements in their political discourses, we will answer the following research question: To what extent do the congresswomen use elements of classical rhetoric and elements of the discourse-historical approach to persuade their audience considering their historical, social and political circumstances? What similarities and/or differences emerge from these three speeches?