Unfortunately rhetoric tends to get a bad rap these days. It is seen as something that is dishonest and manipulative. Yet it is worth noting that at the very time democracy emerges in the ancient world, the intense study and theorization of rhetoric also emerges. This is because the ancients understood that in order to govern effectively it was necessary to persuade others, and in order to persuade others it is necessary to speak well. In his magnificent Rhetoric, Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of finding all available means of persuasion. As someone who teaches rhetoric, philosophy, and critical thinking and who has observed the increasing nastiness of the atmosphere here at Dailykos, I would like to outline a few principles of effective rhetoric so that others might be able to make a more effective case for their chosen candidate.
The Physics of the Mind
In these times on Dailykos, the very suggestion that persuasion is possible seems like a fantastic pipe dream. The great philosopher Spinoza outlined the basic structures of emotion that so often stand in the way of effective persuasion. In his masterpiece, the Ethics, Spinoza argues that "Each thing, insofar as it is in itself, endeavors to persist in its own being" (Book Three, Proposition 6). As a consequence of this, claims Spinoza, "The mind, as far as it can, endeavors to think of those things that increase or assist the body's power of activity" (3p12). Pause and consider for this proposition in the context of politics for a moment. When we endorse a particular candidate, we do so because we believe that the candidate in question will assist or enhance our power of acting in the world. If we do not support republicans, then this is because we believe they decrease or enhance our power of acting. It is important to emphasize that this is a belief. It can be mistaken. But nonetheless we identify with those things that we believe enhance our vitality in the world. Spinoza calls this "love". We love that which enhances our power of activity or the vitality of our life (this vitality is referred to by Spinoza as "conatus").
The corollary of this, according to Spinoza, is that "When the mind thinks of those things that diminish or check the body's power of activity, it endeavors, as far as it can, to call to mind those things that exclude the existence of the former" (3p13). This is what Spinoza calls hate. These two propositions are of crucial importance. On the one hand, in our love we tend to idealize that which we love. If we see something as enhancing our being it becomes very difficult for us to recognize anything negative about that particular thing. Likewise, if we see something threatening that which we love (in Spinoza's sense of the word), we endeavor to imagine things that exclude it from thought and being. Hence, in our love we tend to latch on to those arguments and reasons that most favor that which we love. Likewise, in our hate, we tend to latch on to arguments and reasons that most effectively cast the hated in the most negative light. The key point not to be missed is that these cognitive processes occur at a largely automatic and unconscious level. As a consequence, we are often unaware that we have idealized our beloved and that we have simplified the hated and latched on to those supporting reasons that cast our opposition in the most negative light. Love and hate function like a massive stellar object that bends light and space in the vicinity of the object. Thought bends in the vicinity of love in hate in ways that are unconscious to the thinker.
Two principles follow from this first observation:
- Our opponents are not necessarily behaving in an intentionally malicious way, but rather their thought is a function of their attachments and the way in which these attachments tend to idealize their love object and distort their hated object.
- We ourselves are subject to these principles so we need to take care to attend to the distortions produced by our own attachments.
Perhaps, if these two principles are kept firmly in mind, we will be able to exercise more compassion and humility with respect to those with whom we speak or enter into dialogue, and will have great humility with regard to our own blind spots. All too often the propositions that Spinoza outlines-- and there's a whole slew of them that are well worth reading for anyone wishing to understand human nature and behavior --lead us to instead turn the other person into the "enemy" (simpliciter), transforming their position into a simplistic straw man that we must destroy to continue in our own being.
The Rhetorical Triangle
Spinoza's considerations of the human passions might seem remote from issues of rhetoric, but they are very important in approaching issues of rhetorical strategy in striving to persuade an audience. Aristotle argued that effective rhetoric involves three dimensions called the rhetorical triangle: logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos, of course, refers to the logical and factual dimension of persuasion. You are using logos whenever you draw a logical inference or cite facts in support of a particular claim. Think, for instance, of a geometrical proof. Interestingly, studies in cognition logos seems to be the least persuasive of the three corners of the triangle as these studies indicate that logos based arguments least imprint themselves in the memory of listeners (cf. Massumi, Parables of the Virtual).
Thus, while logos is effective in delivering us to the truth, elaborate arguments based on logos seldom persuade an audience. Given that there was a predominance of logos in the speeches of Gore and Kerry, we can account for part of their weakness as candidates based on this. This has also been a problem for Clinton in her current campaign. Note, this is in no way to suggest that logos should be abandoned in reasoning, only that it isn't the most effective tool rhetorically. Presumably we want a rhetoric based on logos, but before an audience the argumentative rigor by which conclusions are reached should fall into the background so as to maximize the persuasive power of our speech. Obama has been very effective in adopting this strategy. He saves the details for his fliers and website, and instead directs his rhetoric elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, those rhetors effective at evoking pathos or emotions are also the most powerful persuaders. If you can produce emotions of joy, excitement, outrage, fear, etc., you often can effectively produce identifications in your audience. As cognitive studies have shown, ideas most readily bind themselves in memory when they are accompanied by emotion. This accounts for the popularity of outrage stokers like Limbaugh or O'Reilly. However, it also accounts for the rhetorical power of figures such as Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, or Jesus.
Ethos refers to the credibility of a speaker, along with the values of an audience. I will have more to say about this in a bit. Finally, pathos refers to the emotive dimension of language, it's ability to evoke emotion and produce identifications with your cause or your person. Ethos and pathos have the lion share of persuasive power where persuasion is concerned.
Audience: It's Not About You
The effective rhetor is someone who is aware of and attends to their audience. Your audience is not just the person you're speaking to, but also those who are witnessing the discussion. The single greatest strategic blunder I witness on this website in debates is a lack of awareness where audience is concerned. Returning to Spinoza again, the good rhetor will be aware of the attachments or passions that animate the audience and will strategically form his or her speech so as to respond to these passions. That is, s/he will be attentive to ethos and pathos.
Let's take an example emphasizing the dimension of ethos. What is important here are not my values, but the values the audience I'm seeking to persuade holds. Since I'm trying to persuade my audience, the goal is to get them to accept my values. However, to do this I must show my audience that their values are my values. This means I must create linkages between their values and my values. Suppose, for example, I am an environmentalist seeking to persuade Ford Motor Company to design more eco-friendly cars. My first question, prior to speaking, should be "what are their values?" Obviously their values are profit. This gives rise to a rhetorical problem: Ford makes a tremendous amount of money off of cars that consume a lot of gas. Their best selling vehicles have big engines. Thus they will be suspicious of me from the outset as they will suspect my proposals will cut into their profit. If I am to effectively persuade them, I will fail if I wax poetic about the beauty and value of nature, the dangers facing humanity, etc. No. To persuade them I must show that they can make a profit from selling eco-friendly cars. I must appeal to their values. If, however, my audience was a group of environmentalists, my strategy would be entirely different because environmentalists have a very different set of values. Here I would no longer talk about profit-- indeed, I might even denigrate the profit motive, pointing to the destructiveness of post-industrial capitalism --instead I would appeal to the threats facing the globe, the beauty of nature, etc.
A good deal of the speech here at Dailykos is entirely futile, because it fails to take into account audience. An Obama supporter will talk to a Clinton supporter, ignoring the Clinton supporters passionate attachments (Spinoza again), and will use terms like "Hilbots", "Liebercrats", etc., and the Clinton supporter will do the same. From the outset the well has been poisoned because, following Spinoza's principle, the person already puts the other person on the defensive, evoking the cognitive principle whereby we seek to exclude in thought what we perceive as standing in the way of our endeavor to persist in our being. While we get a lot of self-satisfaction from vilifying our opponent (Spinoza's 16th proposition again), we get no closer to persuasion and even make persuasion more difficult.
Ethos and Credibility
Of central importance in effective rhetoric is the credibility of the speaker. We are more inclined to take a doctor seriously when discussing health issues because we attribute credibility to them. This principle goes so far that if someone is wearing a white lab coat we attribute them credibility even though they might not be a doctor. Similarly, there are figures we listen to in the press because we attribute a certain credibility to them.
Credibility is a feature that a community grants to a speaker based on their credentials or their past behavior within the community. In this regard, Dailykos is no different. Your credibility can rise or fall in this community based on how you behave and how you speak. In some ways this is obvious. Recently we've seen a spate of diaries with extremely poor grammar and punctuation, of insufficient length. The writing style of these people immediately undermines their credibility and they are duly mocked. From the standpoint of logos, they might be making entirely sound arguments, but their presentation diminishes their credibility.
However, there are less obvious ways in which credibility is gained or diminished. Each time you insult another person your credibility tends to be diminished. If you use expressions like "Hillary hater" or "Obamabot" or "Obama Cult" or "Hillarybot" you undermine your own credibility, detracting from the point you're trying to make, thereby making it more difficult to persuade your audience (remember, your audience isn't just the person you're talking to, but those witnessing the discussion). Thus, it's wise to avoid such temptations altogether. The "hater" charge is particularly damaging as it's a straw man that fails to acknowledge the reasons that lead to animosity. It is best to attend to the reasons, not the effects those reasons produce.
Perhaps a more subtle, yet equally damaging, way of undermining credibility lies in partisanship. Here, I think, is a sort of paradox. All of us wish to defend our candidates as well as possible, yet sometimes we more effectively as possible. However, if we always defend our candidates hell or highwater we end up diminishing our credibility and our ability to persuade insofar as we indicate that we're more concerned with loyalty at all costs rather than what's right or true. For this reason it is in our best interests to be forthright and honest when our candidate gets something wrong or does something awful. If we concede that Obama was wrong when he said "x", or that Clinton was wrong when she said "y", we show our audience that we're honest and reasonable. This means that in future interactions our audience will be more likely to seriously entertain our arguments rather than dismissing them out of hand. For this reason it's strategically beneficial to be willing to call a spade a spade with respect to our own candidate because we enhance our own credibility and persuasive power. You do yourself nor your candidate no favors by defending the indefensible, rationalizing, and refusing to forthrightly admit when something is just plain wrong. Sometimes you win by losing insofar as you enhance your own credibility and persuasive power by displaying your integrity. I have seen very little of this on Dailykos.
Anyway, I realize this diary is too long and very much a vain effort, but perhaps some will find something of value in it. Thanks for reading.