When does rhetoric become manipulative? When the orator deliberately misleads or unfairly takes advantage of weaknesses in the audience? Or, perhaps, when the audience is ignorant of the methods and goals of rhetoric and is easily swayed by the orator, however well intentioned? That is a very distinct difference, but can both situations can lead to manipulation of the audience? If that is the case, what is the role and responsibility of the audience in rhetoric? That question is not addressed specifically in many of our readings, but some conclusions can be made based on them. For example, how would Mary Astell and George Campbell see the audience and their responses through the lenses of their respective rhetorical theories?
Mary Astell appealed to her audience through ethos and encouraged her audience to do the same in their own rhetoric. Astell believed, along with Quintilian, that eloquence was not possible with immoral discourse. She was primarily concerned with educating her audience, mainly "fashionable" but uneducated women. "They have a responsibility to improve their minds" (Sutherland 148). She clearly views her audience as becoming motivated by her words and their inherent responsibility to educate themselves and participate in rhetorical discourse. "She expects women to engage in serious intellectual discussion and controversy" (Sutherland 150). She does not direct A Serious Proposal to the Ladies to the working class, however, who would not have had the time or finances for "partying, gossiping, and gambling." She expected them to have knowledge of societal structure and the topics that constitute intellectual discussion, as well as basic reading and writing. Manipulation would not have been thought possible by Astell with her focus on ethos and her audience's effort to educate themselves.
George Campbell, on the other hand, was concerned with appealing to pathos and the means and ends of rhetoric. "The vehement passions, e.g., hope, ambition and anger 'elevate the soul and stimulate to action,' are useful for persuasion" (Walzer 76). Campbell also believed that appealing to reason was important because it would help to rouse the passions. But, only if the appeal to reason was concealed. For Campbell, rhetoric was "an art that conceals art" (Walzer 81). So he was concerned with eliciting the desired response from the audience, through the passions, and concealing the art of the appeal. However, the passions were not emotion without reason. "For Campbell, the passions (as emotions) do not obscure judgment but enable action" (Walzer 76). For a Presbyterian minister and professor of divinity, it's not likely that Campbell would endorse manipulation as a rhetorical method. His audiences would also have consisted of educated men, many of whom were learning the very rhetoric he proposed.
These two rhetoricians, though with very different approaches, expected their audiences either to be educated or to educate themselves regarding the theory of rhetoric. Perhaps that is the key element that is missing from modern rhetoric. A larger portion of the population has voting rights and access to education. But there has been a corresponding lowering of standards and expectations in modern education, hence the absence or reduction of rhetorical theory. Today's population isn't trained to understand the methods or goals of rhetoric and so is easily manipulated by it. The audience actively participates in rhetoric by educating themselves to understand and counterbalance it. Without that aspect, rhetoric does become manipulation, regardless of the intentions of the rhetor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are absolutely right when you say that rhetoric can become manipulation. We are bombarded by manipulative rhetoric (or are attempted to be) every day. Politicians, dictators, documentaries, and advertisements use the power of rhetoric to persuade us to listen to them, follow them unquestionably, do what they say, take action, or purchase what they make us think we need. Any time we heed a one-sided argument without doing OUR research, we are victims. It's an age-old problem. It began at least as far back as the Sophists. Sophistry used subtley deceptive reasoning. It seems likely that many who intend to convince their audiences, hope that their listeners do not educate themselves.
ReplyDeletePart of the role of education should be not only to train our students as rhetors--to enable them to find the means of persuasion and argue effectively--but also to train them as listeners. Obviously there is overlap, and a well-trained rhetor is probably the best audience. But we need to teach them to see the rhetoric in all of life, to recognize manipulation and to separate content from style. Part of creating responsible, productive members of society means helping students think critically about the rhetoric that bombards them and to effectively differentiate the true from the false.
ReplyDeleteEskew's Recent Theories course should delve deeper into the history of rhetoric and its use of/influence over audiences. It's interesting to consider contemporary audiences and their understanding of "rhetoric." We hear the term so overused and misused that audiences may not realize they are being manipulated by "rhetoric" or that they are even subject to it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point, but I think this is why rhetoric now gets such a bad rep. People who are not trained to understand it see it as manipulation and automatically reject it or see the speaker as a bad person who uses rhetoric to manipulate them. Instead of judging it, maybe they should seek to become educated.
ReplyDeleteEmily, I agree that listening should be a component of rhetorical education. We are exposed to rhetoric in all aspects of life, and we should be trained to recognize it. We should be trained to exercise a little skepticism, not only as rhetors, but as the general public.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I too would like to learn more about the relationship between rhetoric and audience, and the manipulation aspect that is such a danger. I don't think the general public knows what rhetoric is, beyond politics, or that they are getting a dose of it in their commercials and on their cereal boxes.
Kimi, there are rhetoricians that do, and have always, exercised manipulation as a rhetorical tactic. But I'm primarily referring to responsible rhetoric addressed to uneducated audiences that has the potential to be unintentional manipulation.
And Audrey, I agree and that is my point. Rhetoric isn't inherently manipulative. But uneducated audiences are unable to distinguish between "responsible rhetoric" and manipulative rhetoric. They haven't been trained to understand the rhetorical tradition and goals.
Thanks for the comments!
I think you've hit a hot button for contemporary rhetoric. There is a need for the audience to assume some responsibility for themselves in understanding the methods of the rhetor, otherwise yes, it becomes manipulation. I think in our current age there is room to be skeptical. Certainly in the post-Hitler world we can't reasonably affiliate good oratory with good ethics, and yet a lot of the general public still do. We assume that good rhetoric (even if someone doesn't know to call it rhetoric) is the product of an intelligent and therefore rational and ethical mind. It would do the general public good to learn some of the rhetorical arts if for no other reason than to know how to "read" what they see and hear.
ReplyDelete