A placebo response to Barack Obama

by Sophie Moore

Three days before his inauguration, 3.4 million copies (1.7 hardcovers and 1.7 paperbacks) were sold of Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope.* Why did people buy it? What were they hoping for? What is hope and how does it work?

In 1990 Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright held a sermon entitled The Audacity to Hope. It was about the childless Hannah, who desperately yearned for a child. Finally, after sustained praying, a priestly promise and still more patience, her wish is fulfilled. Hannah had the audacity to hope, Wright says. She went on praying even when there was no visible sign that she would ever receive an answer.
In 2004 Obama delivered the keynote speech at the Democratic Convention under virtually the same title: The Audacity of Hope. In 2006 he published a book-length account in which he elaborated upon many of the themes he addressed at the Convention. In the epilogue Obama explains how he arrived at the title, referring to Wright’s sermon. He may have adopted the title also because he saw how the words ‘audacity’ and ‘hope’ work and how they work together.
‘Audacity’ is an active and aggressive word, while the word ‘hope’ is passive and sub-assertive. ‘Hope’ has a religious connotation and is associated with the gentle, the courteous and the kind or, in biblical terms, the meek, that is, people such as Hannah. Combined, however, with audacity, hope gets a little more stubborn, a little more determined, but still without losing its patience. Nevertheless, its original meaning has shifted slightly.
While hope provides the content (no hope without something that is hoped for), audacity delivers the attitude. The audacious attitude brings the something that is hoped for within reach. It is no longer seemingly impossible to attain.

A metaphor against cynicism

In the speech and in the book it is loosely assumed that we all have the same hopes, that what we hope for is somehow universal. More than that, that what we are hoping for is what makes us ‘we’. And although the book is written for the American people in the first place, it tries to stretch beyond the American borders.
In 2004, in the convention speech, Obama rhetorically asked: "Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?" And in 2009, in his inauguration speech, he said: "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." With hope opposed to cynicism and cynicism associated with shifting grounds, hope almost naturally lands in the category of more solid ground. It becomes safe to hope.
Ground, as it is used here, is a metaphor. A metaphor is an understanding of a concept in terms of another concept. Usually an abstract concept is understood in terms of a sensory concept. But it brings some extra too.
In chapter two of the book, ‘shared values’ is metaphorized, or rather, slowly transformed, by Obama into ‘common ground’. ‘Common ground’ is understood by most people as ‘foundation for mutual understanding’. For Obama that’s not enough. He wants us to see what this foundation for mutual understanding is — or should be. It’s not common interests, it’s not common goals, it’s common values. Our common ground consists of our shared values.
The word ‘ground’ evokes a picture of physical stability. Obama wants us to feel the ground beneath our feet when we talk about values. His appeal to search for common ground, while at the same time referring to the founding fathers, enhances feelings of firmness and solidity.

Something more substantial

Not all concepts can be metaphorically passed on to the senses for better understanding. ‘Hope’ is such a concept. Like ‘common ground’ it is a central theme in Obama’s writings. Obama wants his audience to take hope as "something more substantial than blind optimism."* But how do you add substance to an abstract concept like hope? By giving examples from real life:
"It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!"
Only the last example, that of Obama himself, has real, tangible substance. The rest is storytelling. But it is enough to elicit a placebo response in the listener. The British psychologist Nicholas Humphrey at the London School of Economics devised a definition of placebo which explains the actual working of it:*
"[...] a placebo is a treatment which, while not being effective through its direct action on the body, works when and because:
• the patient is aware that the treatment is being given
• the patient has a certain belief, based for example on prior experience or on the treatment's reputation
• the patient's belief leads her to expect that, following this treatment, she is likely to get better
• the expectation influences her capacity for self-cure, so as to hasten the very result that she expects.
But first of all there has to be a need for a cure.

The placebo response to hope

Rhetoric is the art of using language effectively and persuasively. Obama makes little use of arguments to persuade. Rather, he appeals to what is already present in people, without specifying the details. A placebo response may not be intended, but could appear as a side effect. Following Humphrey’s step-by-step definition, the appeal to keep up hope works when and because:
• the reader/listener is aware that a promise (‘keep up hope and things will get better — for you, for America’) is being given
• the reader/listener has a certain belief, based on prior experience (examples of people whose conditions have improved dramatically) and on reputation (America’s history, Obama’s story)
• the reader/listener’s belief leads her to expect that, keeping up hope, her situation is likely to improve
• the expectation influences her capacity for self-cure, so as to hasten the very results that she expects
A promise (‘take this pill and you will get better’) or expectation (‘if I perform this operation, my patient will get better’) is an integral part of a medical treatment. In a placebo medical treatment they are the working part — as in a placebo political treatment.

The art of healing

If Socrates, in Plato’s Phaedrus [270b], is right, Obama’s rhetorical talent, skillfully administered, could contribute to the healing of a nation that is not feeling too well:
Socrates: "The method of the art of healing is much the same as that of rhetoric."
Phaedrus: "How so?"
Socrates: "In both cases you must analyze a nature, in one that of the body and in the other that of the soul, if you are to proceed in a scientific manner, not merely by practice and routine, to impart health and strength to the body by prescribing medicine and diet, or by proper discourses and training to give to the soul the desired belief and virtue."
Phaedrus: "That, Socrates, is probably true."

Links

Official website of The Audacity of Hope
Offical website of Barack Obama
Obama's speech at the Democratic Convention (video)