Neo-Aristotelian Criticism

Neo-Aristotelian Criticism of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I've Been to the Mountaintop”

Wilson W. Ahrens

Old Dominion University Department of Communications

COMM 335W: Rhetorical Criticism

Dr. Frances Hassencahl

September 4, 2026

Neo-Aristotelian Criticism of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I've Been to the Mountaintop”

In the final years of his life, Martin Luther King Jr. remained one of the most prominent leaders of the American civil rights movement, known for rhetoric shaped by the Black Baptist tradition and his commitment to nonviolence in the pursuit of social justice (Ling, 2015). By 1968, however, King faced mounting criticism of his leadership and nonviolent strategy (Ling, 2015). King delivered “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” on April 3, 1968, amid uncertainty and division within the civil rights movement (Keeley, 2008, pp. 281–282). Because the address is a formal speech for a specific live audience, neo-Aristotelian criticism is an appropriate tool to analyze the speech through the five classical canons of rhetoric: invention, organization, style, delivery, and memory (Foss, 2026). Using these canons, the following analysis finds that King’s use of causal and conditional reasoning, problem-solution and narrative organization, and appeals that transform fear into hope and exhaustion into perseverance were well adapted to an audience facing violence and uncertainty. Together, these rhetorical choices reinforced unity and commitment to nonviolence through appeals to American and Christian principles.

Neo-Aristotelian Criticism as Method

Foss (2026) traces neo-Aristotelian criticism to Herbert A. Wichelns’s 1925 “The Literary Criticism of Oratory,” which distinguished rhetorical criticism from literary criticism by emphasizing the effect of speeches on specific audiences. Because Wichelns did not provide a standard method for conducting rhetorical criticism, later scholars drew upon the classical canons to adapt the method into practice (pp. 29–30). Foss explains that the context examined in neo-Aristotelian criticism includes the rhetor, the occasion, and the audience. Foss further explains that the analysis should consider the logical arguments and proofs used by the rhetor, as well as the arrangement of information, language used, presentation style, and the command the rhetor has of the material (pp. 32–35). The central question asked by the method is whether the rhetor used the available means of persuasion to produce the intended response from the audience (p. 35).

It is important to note the limitations of neo-Aristotelian criticism, which Foss (2026) highlights before introducing how the method is performed. Critics argue that the method’s focus on intended effects and predetermined rhetorical categories may limit which questions are asked about a speech (pp. 30–31). Therefore, for this analysis, neo-Aristotelian criticism is used to evaluate how King’s rhetorical choices functioned to produce his intended response from the audience.

Rhetorical Context

Rhetor

Ling (2015) explains that Martin Luther King Jr.’s rhetorical background was heavily influenced by the Black Baptist preaching tradition in which he was raised. These influences contributed to King’s public speaking, notably in the rhythmic cadence of his delivery and use of biblical language (Ling, 2015). By 1968, King’s leadership faced increasing challenges as some activists questioned his nonviolent approach, while his opposition to the Vietnam War and increasing emphasis on economic inequality brought on more scrutiny (Ling, 2015). Given these conditions, reinforcing King’s credibility as both a civil rights leader and a spiritual leader was important for him in Memphis.

Occasion

According to Keeley (2008), King had traveled repeatedly to Memphis in the preceding weeks to support striking sanitation workers and the city’s Black community. An earlier march led by King had become disorganized and descended into violence, and King had begun to privately express doubts about the effectiveness of nonviolent protest. On April 3, amid controversy and severe weather, King initially intended to remain at his hotel and sent Ralph Abernathy to address the crowd in his place. However, when Abernathy arrived, he realized that the sanitation workers would be disappointed if King did not address them himself. Abernathy convinced King to leave the hotel and deliver the speech at Mason Temple (pp. 281–282).

Audience

Keeley (2008) notes that King’s audience consisted of several thousand people gathered at Mason Temple, including Memphis sanitation workers and members of the local Black community. Keeley characterizes the sanitation workers as a core audience that had endured poor weather specifically to hear King and that needed encouragement to continue protesting despite violence and limited apparent progress (pp. 281–282). Although King was primarily speaking to sanitation workers and local activists in Memphis, his invocation of American values such as liberty and democracy, interwoven with biblical narratives such as the story of Moses, allowed the speech to appeal to audiences beyond the immediate Memphis community and across racial lines (King, 1968).

Invention

Foss (2026) defines invention as the process through which a rhetor locates or creates the ideas and materials used in speech. Within invention, the artistic proofs of logos, ethos, and pathos reveal how King attempts to persuade his audience to continue the nonviolent struggle for civil rights (pp. 33–34).

Logos

King’s use of logos is apparent in his appeals to traditional American and Christian principles as well as his assertions about economic power, which he uses as the basis for causal and conditional reasoning throughout the speech. In it, King argues that the civil rights movement is not demanding new rights for Black Americans but demanding that the United States honor principles it already claims in writing to uphold for all of its citizens. King summarizes this argument when he states, “All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper’” (King, 1968, para. 22).

By invoking constitutional protections and America’s stated commitment to liberty, King creates an argument in which the nation’s treatment of Black Americans contradicts its own proclaimed principles. The reasoning is conditional and deductive: if the United States claims these rights apply to its citizens, and Black Americans are citizens, then denying those rights to Black Americans contradicts the nation’s own stated principles.

King applies similar reasoning to Christian values by presenting racial mistreatment as incompatible with the religious principles the nation professes (King, 1968). He then uses causal reasoning in his discussion of economic leverage, arguing that withdrawing economic support would create pressure on businesses to change their treatment of Black Americans (King, 1968). King combines these ideas, connecting American and Christian moral values to a concrete strategy of economic pressure, providing his audience with a practical means to advance the goals of the civil rights movement and support the striking sanitation workers.

Ethos

King begins the speech with considerable prior ethos from his role as a pastor and civil rights leader; however, reconstructing his ethos throughout the speech was crucial in this moment due to the outside pressures facing both King and the movement. Throughout the speech, King recounts facing police dogs, mace, fire hoses, arrest, and imprisonment during previous civil rights campaigns (King, 1968). By reminding the audience of his own participation in these confrontations, King reconstructs his ethos as someone who has accepted the same risks and hardships that he asks others to endure.

King also reinforces his role as a spiritual leader by recounting a trip with his wife along the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, placing himself within the setting of the Good Samaritan parable and connecting Christian values to this moment in the civil rights movement (King, 1968). King extends his spiritual authority through the Moses narrative, framing himself as a leader who has seen the Promised Land (King, 1968). By acknowledging that he may not reach it with them, King also introduces humility into his construction of ethos (King, 1968). This reconstruction of ethos was important for an audience of exhausted sanitation workers because it reinforced confidence in King’s leadership at a moment when they lacked certainty.

Pathos

King’s appeals to pathos work to transform the audience’s fear into hope and perseverance in the face of adversity. King uses the story of Exodus allegorically to acknowledge the audience’s exhaustion and frustration with slow progress while framing the struggle of the civil rights movement as part of the long journey toward the Promised Land (King, 1968). This reminds the audience that their struggles have a destination and that their sacrifices are for concrete social change. Rather than accepting violence and slow progress as evidence that his approach has failed, King reframes these hardships to signify that the struggle remains unfinished (King, 1968). At the conclusion, King acknowledges that he may not reach the Promised Land with them but assures them they will reach it, shifting the focus from uncertainty about his own future and restoring confidence in the movement’s future (King, 1968). By moving from fear and exhaustion toward hope and perseverance, King attempts to emotionally prepare the audience to continue nonviolent action despite the dangers they face.

Arrangement and Disposition

Foss (2026) explains how the organization of a rhetorical artifact, the way in which ideas are presented and arranged, affects the reception of a message by an audience. King combines narrative and problem-solution patterns of organization throughout the speech. He begins by imagining traveling through human history, approaching the present as he narrows his focus to recent weeks in Memphis (King, 1968). As he turns to the present conflict, King shifts into a problem-solution structure in which he identifies racial injustice, violence, and division within the movement and emphasizes the need for unity and nonviolence, calling for more marches, resistance to recent injunctions, and withdrawal of economic support from businesses that treat Black Americans unfairly (King, 1968).

King then gradually moves the narrative back outward from the immediate struggle toward a larger spiritual context rooted in biblical history (King, 1968). Keeley (2008), discussing Lynch’s analysis, additionally describes this ring-like structure as chiastic, with the beginning and end of the speech mirroring one another (p. 282). This combination of problem-solution, narrative, and chiastic organization makes the conclusion feel like a resolution of the narrative established at the beginning of the speech. By placing the audience’s immediate struggle within the context of historical and biblical struggles, King helps to remind the audience that their present hardships belong to a larger journey whose destination is justice.

Style

Foss (2026) describes style as the language used by a rhetor in a rhetorical artifact (p. 34). King’s rhetorical style relies heavily on repetition and rhythm associated with his background as a Black Baptist preacher (Ling, 2015). King specifically uses repetition through phrases such as “I wouldn’t stop there” (King, 1968, paras. 2-7) and “somewhere I read” (King, 1968, para. 22), creating patterns that emphasize his major ideas while giving the speech a sermon-like quality. King also repeatedly uses collective pronouns such as “we,” “our,” and “us,” which place him within the community that he is addressing rather than above the sanitation workers (King, 1968). This presents the movement as a collective struggle in which both King and his audience participate.

King’s style relies on vivid religious metaphors and biblical imagery. King uses the story of Moses as a parallel to the civil rights movement, with the journey toward the Promised Land functioning as a metaphor for racial justice (King, 1968). These stylistic choices take into account the circumstances in Memphis while connecting them to a larger moral and spiritual narrative. King’s stylistic choices strategically reinforce his calls for unity, perseverance, and nonviolence.

Delivery

Foss (2026) describes delivery as the rhetor’s management of the voice and body during the presentation of a speech (p. 35). King’s delivery strengthens many of the rhetorical choices present in his language. His delivery begins slowly and conversationally (King, 1968, 0:00-1:45), but as the speech progresses toward the two-minute mark, his voice becomes increasingly forceful (King, 1968, 2:05). Approximately three minutes into the speech, King has firmly adopted the sermon-like cadence consistent with the Black Baptist preaching tradition that influenced his public speaking (Ling, 2015), with audible audience responses beginning to occur regularly around the same time (King, 1968, 3:04-3:09).

King’s delivery reaches its rhetorical climax during the conclusion of the speech as he discusses threats against his life and describes having “been to the mountaintop” (King, 1968, 42:11). The heightened emotional delivery of the conclusion reinforces the speech’s movement from uncertainty and danger toward confidence and assurance. King’s vocal presentation helps transform the end of the speech into a collective emotional experience.

Memory

Foss (2026) describes memory as a rhetor’s command and mastery of the material being presented. It is difficult to determine from the speech alone whether King had memorized specific portions of the address, but he demonstrates a strong command of his subject matter throughout the speech. King moves fluidly between biblical and political narratives, drawing them back to the immediate circumstances facing the sanitation workers in Memphis without losing the central direction of his argument (King, 1968). This ability to weave narratives seamlessly throughout an oral address demonstrates his familiarity with both the ideas and the throughline that connects them. Memory therefore contributes to the speech primarily through King’s apparent mastery of the material rather than through evidence that the speech itself was rehearsed and memorized word for word.

Conclusion

A Neo-Aristotelian analysis of “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” demonstrates that Martin Luther King Jr. effectively used the available means of persuasion to encourage his audience to continue the struggle for racial and economic justice. His invention combined conditional and causal reasoning with appeals to American and Christian principles and economic power, while his ethos drew upon his political experience, personal sacrifice, and spiritual authority. Through pathos, King reframed fear and exhaustion as part of a larger journey toward justice. The speech’s narrative and problem-solution organization, along with its broader chiastic structure, placed the immediate struggle in Memphis within broader historical and biblical narratives (Keeley, 2008, p. 282), while King’s repetitive language and sermon-like delivery reinforced themes of unity and perseverance and bolstered his credibility as a rhetor.

King’s rhetorical choices were well suited to an audience facing violence and uncertainty, and his persuasive argument aimed to renew faith in the effectiveness of continued nonviolent action and economic resistance. Rather than ignoring the hardships faced by the audience he was speaking to, King incorporated them into the speech and addressed the audience’s concerns directly. The classical canons demonstrate how King’s arguments, organization, language, delivery, and command of his material worked toward the same rhetorical purpose of convincing his audience that continued collective action could ultimately move them closer to justice.

We cannot establish from the speech alone whether every member of the audience was persuaded by King’s message, but this analysis demonstrates that King’s rhetorical choices were well adapted to the audience that he was addressing and to the response he intended to produce that evening.

References

Foss, S. K. (2026). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (6th ed.). Waveland Press.

Keeley, B. (2008). I may not get there with you: “I’ve been to the mountaintop” as epic discourse. Southern Communication Journal, 73(4), 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940802418791

King, M. L., Jr. (1968, April 3). I’ve been to the mountaintop [Speech transcript and audio recording]. American Rhetoric. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

Ling, P. J. (2015). Martin Luther King, Jr. (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731513