What Moves You?

"You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades."

-- President Barack Obama, speaking at the Democratic National Convention

The son of a physician, Aristotle was encouraged to be a thinker about the world around him. He went to study with his mentor, Plato, at the age of 17. Aristotle and Plato had conflicting worldviews; therefore, their philosophies differed as well. 

Plato was always in search of absolute truths about the world. He didn’t care much whether these truths had practical value. Plato felt that as long as people could agree on matters of importance, society would survive. Aristotle, however, was more interested in dealing with the here and now. He wasn’t as interested in achieving absolute truth as he was in attaining a logical, realistic, and rational view of society. 

In other words, we could argue that Aristotle was much more grounded than Plato, trying to understand the various types of people in Athenian society. Because he taught diverse groups of people in Greek society, Aristotle became known as a man committed to helping the ordinary citizen—at the time, a land-owning male. During the day, common citizens (men) were asked to judge murder trials, oversee city boundaries, travel as emissaries, and defend their property against would-be land collectors. Because there were no professional attorneys at that time, many citizens hired Sophists, teachers of public speaking, to instruct them in basic principles of persuasion. These teachers established small schools where they taught students about the public speaking process and where they produced public speaking handbooks discussing practical ways to become more effective public speakers. 

Aristotle, however, believed that many of these handbooks were problematic in that they focused on the judicial system to the neglect of other contexts. Also, he thought that authors spent too much time on ways to arouse judges and juries: “It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity—one might as well warp a carpenter’s rule before using it,” Aristotle observes. Aristotle reminds speakers not to forget the importance of logic in their presentations.

The  Rhetoric could be considered Aristotle’s way of responding to the problems he saw in these handbooks. Although he challenges a number of prevailing assumptions about what constitutes an effective presentation, what remains especially important is Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric -- the available means of persuasion. For Aristotle, however, availing oneself of all means of persuasion does not translate into bribery or torture, common practices in ancient Greece, where slavery was institutionalized. What Aristotle envisions and recommends is for speakers to work beyond their first instincts when they want to persuade others. They need to consider all aspects of speech making, including their audience members.

Politicians often indict their opponents by stating that their “rhetoric is empty” or that they’re all “rhetoric, with little action.” These sorts of criticisms only trivialize the active and dynamic process of rhetoric and its role in the public speaking process. 

Rhetorical Theory covers a wide range of thinking in the communication field, and so it is nearly impossible to capture all of the beliefs associated with the theory. Nonetheless, Aristotelian theory is guided by the following two assumptions:

• Effective public speakers must consider their audience.

• Effective public speakers use a number of proofs in their presentations.

Communication is a transactional process. Within a public speaking context, Aristotle suggests that the speaker–audience relationship must be acknowledged. Speakers should not construct or deliver their speeches without considering their audiences. Speakers should, in a sense, become audience-centered. They should think about the audience as a group of individuals with motivations, decisions, and choices and not as some undifferentiated mass of homogeneous people. Many public speakers, engaged in audience analysis, which is the process of evaluating an audience and its background (such as age, sex, educational level, and so forth) and tailoring one’s speech so that listeners respond as the speaker hopes they will.

Aristotle felt that audiences are crucial to a speaker’s ultimate effectiveness. He observes, “Of the three elements in speech-making—speaker, subject, and person addressed—it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object.” Each listener, however, is unique, and what works with one listener may fail with another. Expanding on this notion, audiences are not always open to rational argument. Consider a speech on drinking and driving. This speech may work wonderfully in the public speaking classroom, but have different results with a group of alcohol distributors. As you can see, understanding the audience is critical.

The second assumption underlying Aristotle’s theory pertains to what speakers do in their speech preparation and their speech making. Aristotle’s proofs refer to the means of persuasion, and, for Aristotle, three proofs exist: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos refers to the perceived character, intelligence, and goodwill of a speaker as they become revealed through his or her speech. Ethos is a broad term that refers to the mutual influence that speakers and listeners have on each other. Aristotle believed that the speaker can be influenced by the audience in much the same way that audiences can be influenced by the speaker.

1) Ethos is something you create on the occasion. To that end, a speaker’s ethos is not simply something that is brought into a speaking experience; it IS the speaking experience. Aristotle felt that a speech by a trustworthy individual was more persuasive than a speech by an individual whose trust was in question. Aristotle felt that ethos is part of the virtue of another and, therefore, “can be trained and made habitual.”

2) Logos is the logical proof that speakers employ—their arguments and rationalizations. For Aristotle, logos involves using a number of practices, including using logical
claims and clear language.

3) Pathos pertains to the emotions that are drawn out of listeners. Aristotle argues that listeners become the instruments of proof when emotion is stirred in them; listeners judge differently when they are influenced by joy, pain, hatred, or fear.

The proofs of Aristotelian theory, therefore, guide the speaker’s effectiveness. Each of these three—ethos, logos, and pathos—is critical to speech effectiveness. But each, alone, may not be sufficient. Keep in mind Kenneth Burke’s belief that according to Aristotle, “an audience’s confidence in the speaker is the most convincing proof of all.”

West, R.L. (2009). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Humanities & Social Science.

In light of Rhetorical Theory and the recent Democratic National Convention, can you think of reasons why my friend from the South stated, "Disgusted with DNC!" on my personal Facebook page?

Do you agree that opposing views deserve merit when based on 1) facts, 2) intuition, and 3) reason -- even if that person's position differs from yours? Why? Why not?

Thoughts?