Conflicting perspectives is the inevitable outcome of every individual’s attempt to discern what is right or wrong according to their own subjectivity and intuition. That is precisely why no singleperspective is ever entirely righteous or incontrovertibly true. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Scott Derrickson’sExorcism of Emily Roseand David Kelley’s Boston Legalare prime examples of how conflicting perspectives not only occur between individuals but within the psyche of the self. It is in essence a battle of rhetoric and the art of language that dictates which perspective will ultimately triumph over another. Whether it is an endeavour to arrive at the truth or an attempt to settle a dispute, one’s perspective is always the product of theatrics and persuasive delivery.
The validity of a specific perspective ultimately relies upon the audience’s deliberation among the multitude of competing perspectives. This fact is apparent from the opening scenes of Julius Caesar where the conflict between the plebeians and the senators establish the underlying political tension. One citizen exclaims, “We make holiday to see Caesar and to rejoice in his triumph!” to which, Murellus immediately conveys his disapproval: “O you hard hearts… Knew you not Pompey?” The rhetorical question effectively communicates his sense of loyalty to the former leader and presents his perspective as possessing a greater moral weight. The reader is further convinced by the dialogue between Brutus and Cassius that Caesar is indeed a tyrant. As Cassius sways Brutus, “We both have fed as well, and we can bothEndure the winter’s cold as well as he”, the divisive language between “we” and “he” strengthens his perspective of Caesar as undeserving of his glory. In such ways, rhetoric is the pivotal agent of consolidating one’s perspective.
Exorcism of Emily Roseconveys the notion that a particular perspective is given absolute validity and authority when the speaker best exploits the power of rhetoric...