In the spring of 2013 George Saunders delivered a speech to the graduating class of
Syracuse University called, 'Advice to Graduates'. In this speech Saunders ponders his biggest
regret in life. He simply concludes, 'what I regret most in my life are failures of kindness'.
George Saunders then gives an argument stating why we are not kind to one
another and what we can do to become more kind. Although the speech is very well given,
Saunders's poor use of kairos and stasis theory functions make his argument, overall,
unsuccessful.

Kairos can be a useful tool while preparing to persuade someone, though kairos was not
used to its full potential in Saunders 'Advice to Graduates' speech. To begin, you have to see if
your topic is timely. Being kind to one another is always nice and should be important to people,
but there has not been any recent events making this topic completely relevant, at least none that
Saunders incorporated. He simply draws on the broad and general fact that people are unkind,
instead of on specific facts like recent instances of unkindness and its consequences. Yes, there
are people in this world that are not kind, but Saunders does not address or even acknowledge
them in his speech. Nevertheless, Saunders continues on with giving his speech and gets around
the lack of timeliness by making it very general and using it as relevant by stating, 'What's our
problem? Why aren't we kinder?', making this an issue regarding everyone.

In addition, while implementing kairos, one must evaluate the topic's urgency. The
deficiency of kindness in this world can be urgent if you relate it to an urgent topic. For example,
if you are trying to convince people to be more kind you can relate it to bullying and how many
children who are bullied end up looking towards suicide, and concluding that kindness, or not
bullying, can help prevent suicide in adolescence. Though, George Saunders does not create
urgency for kindness. As a matter of face, Saunders tells us, 'some of this 'being kinder'
happens naturally, with age'. If there was any sense of urgency before this
statement, then it was most likely lost to the audience upon hearing this statement. In a way,
Saunders understates the urgency of being kind to one another through this line. If we will
inevitably and effortlessly become more kind, then the thought of us all immediately being more
kind to one another seem essentially pointless.

Furthermore, Saunders does show an awareness of his audience, but he does not
necessarily show an awareness of the general rhetorical situation. Throughout his speech he is
aware and relating to his audience. He uses his awareness to make certain points such as, 'you '
in particular you [the students graduating], of this generation ' may have noticed a certain
cyclical quality to ambition' [and] if we're going to become kinder, that process has to include
taking ourselves seriously' We have to do that, to be our best selves'. Through
awareness of the audience, Saunders engages them more personally, which creates a more
personal argument. Although George Saunders is obviously aware of his audience, he does little
to show awareness of the rhetorical situation, including the timeliness and urgency of his topic.

Lastly, one must use kairos to consider the author's venue and the advantages and
disadvantages of it. In Saunders's case, he takes benefits from the venue by simply taking
advantage of the opportunity presented to him. Here is a place with many college graduates ' in
addition to family and friends of graduates, professors and faculty of the university ' ready to be
inspired by talks from peers and guests whom they highly admire and respect. He utilizes this
opportunity to discuss the issue of kindness to these college graduates. While Saunders did
benefit from this venue, it also put him at a slight disadvantage. Since his speech is directed to
college graduates, the broadness of his audience is limited. Yes, this speech is now published in
the New York Times blog, but it was written originally for college graduates, more specifically,
for Syracuse University's class of 2013. Therefore, if others heard George Saunders speech, then
it might not sound as personal and important to them.

In addition to kairos, Saunders poorly utilizes the stasis theory in his speech. While
analyzing the use of stasis, one should examine the author's awareness of disagreements with his
argument. For example, Saunders does not have much of an awareness of disagreements with his
argument. He assumes a great deal, including that we all agree on the world's lack on kindness
and that we simply become more kind with age. In addition to assuming, Saunders simply does
not care and merely says, 'here's what I think'. Saunders assumptions and blatant
disregard of other positions can cause disagreements. Moreover, since he does not acknowledge
this, there is a chance that those in the audience who disagree will recognize this and completely
ignore Saunders's argument.

In addition to examining the author's, or speaker's, awareness of disagreements, one
should examine how the author, or speaker, structures their argument in order to have a clear
point of dispute. In 'Advice to Graduates,' George Saunders does not structure his argument in
order for it to be a clear point of dispute. For example, he is not very clear on what we are
supposed to do to become more kind, and after posing the question he simply states, 'well, yes,
good question. Unfortunately, I only have three minutes left. So let me just say this. There are
ways'. He completely goes around the question and tells the audience to look to
other smart people around you who have left behind answers 'because kindness, it turns out, is
hard'. This makes his argument very weak and poorly thought through.

Throughout Saunders argument, he gives the audience questions. Some of these questions
explicitly tell us his train of thought ' 'What do I regret? Being poor from time to time? Not
really. Working terrible jobs, like 'knuckle-puller in a slaughterhouse?' (And don't even ask
what that entails) No'. Other questions tell us what he wants the audience to think
about ' 'Who, in your life, do you remember most fondly, with the most undeniable feelings of
warmth'? Some questions even tell us exactly what his main points are ' 'What's
our problem? Why aren't we kinder?' and 'How might we do this? How might we become more
loving, more open, less selfish, more present, less delusional, etc., etc'? These
questions help Saunders engage with the audience. The ones that flow with Saunders's train of
thought help give the speech a comical aspect. Other questions give the audience something to
think about by engaging their beliefs and views. Lastly, the 'million-dollar' questions,
regarding the lack of kindness we are faced with and what we are to do about it, engages the
audience by making them think; 'Why are we not kinder to one another?' and 'What can we do
about this problem?' This makes them want to know the answers and making it a desire of
everyone to be more kind. This use of stasis theory is good for Saunders's argument, but does
this one factor make his speech a success?

In addition, through using the stasis stasis theory one can serve an argument through the
use of questions regarding stasis theory; though, Saunders evidently did not use this to his full
advantage. Saunders did use questions of conjecture. Two examples are his 'million-dollar'
questions, and even though he does not explicitly say that there is a deficiency
regarding kindness, these questions do identify what it is we are taking about. This gives
Saunders a starting point for his argument. Other than this, Saunders does not engage in any
other types of questions regarding stasis theory. For example, Saunders does not engage in any
questions of definition ' how Saunders and his opponents label and define kindness, quality '
how Saunders and his opponents evaluate kindness, and policy ' what we are supposed to do in
order to be more kind. Yes, he somewhat engages questions of policy, but he does not make the
answer clear in the least. Therefore, his argument becomes less clear and incomplete.

To conclude, George Saunders did give a great speech, but it was overall unsuccessful
because of his poor use of kairos and stasis theory functions. Although he did use some aspects
of kairos and stasis theory, it was not enough to make his argument effective, complete, and
successful. If Saunders gave these two tools more thought, his speech may have been more
persuasive and, therefore, may have achieved a better outcome regarding the amount of kindness
shown by those listening. His speech brought me to his perspective on kindness, but it did not
make me consider his topic as something worthwhile because it was not urgent and did not tell
me how or why we should be more kind; it got me listening, but in the end it came up short.

