The Persuasion of Silence

                Growing up in Montana, I experienced my teenage years in an area where I was the religious minority.  Religion, itself, was a minority.  I had a great group of friends, but they also asked a lot of questions.  You see, I was a part of the Speech and Debate team.  My friends had something to prove and I had something to defend.  There were many long bus rides where my friends and I would go back and forth on topics of religion.

                I remember one night in particular when, as we were traveling back to our hometown, that my friend Nick and I were talking.  Quickly, the conversation turned to what I believed.  He was a vehement agnostic.  We were in our teenage years and, like many teenagers, he had decided to rebel against the traditional views of his family.  Usually, our bus ride talks were calm and measured.  We had learned how to agree to disagree.  On this occasion, however, our talking got louder and louder until it drowned out much of the road trip chatter.  A bunch of our teammates around us began to lean in and listen.  I’ll be honest, he asked some hard questions and I didn’t know all the answers, though I tried to explain to the best of my abilities the importance of faith and trusting in things we can’t always see.  At one moment, he arrived at the pinnacle of his argument, exclaiming in a loud voice his final question.  He asked it to our newfound audience as much as to me.  Dead silence ensued.  It was that moment when you realize that you’re losing the argument, public opinion and you wonder if you’re losing the people around you. 

               

Communication and Persuasion in Business Consulting

As time has gone by I have come to appreciate the importance and power of business in the world in which we now live. The business world is a broad one filled with many different responsibilities and opportunities. Almost all of which rely heavily upon rhetoric. In taking Doctor Burton's course I have come to more fully understand the importance and power of oratory or rhetoric in this field of work; especially in that of business consulting. In speaking with consultants, business majors, and referencing internet sites I have learned much concerning business consulting.

According to "Business News Daily" a business consultant (or consulting firm), "provide management consulting to help organizations improve performance and efficiency." I have always took interest in the opportunity to become better and to set goals to get there. As a result of these interests and my appreciation for the business environment I found this career to be very intriguing.

It is apparent to see that this line of work requires constant communication on many different levels. This communication begins "formally" in the work place when a company contracts the consulting firm to analyze and present a plan to "improve performance and efficiency." The organization seeking help must communicate with the firm to explain and set expectations of what they hope to accomplish by hiring the firm.  This is crucial time for the firm as they must speak in more of a legislative branch of oratory to present their case and convince the company that they are what the company needs. A solid past history of success and a good “ethos” for a firm makes a big difference in being contracted.

After an agreement has been made as to the goal of the interaction the business firm gets to work. From working on the corporate level of the company, all the way down to the manufacturing portion of the company, the firm works to obtain the information necessary from past documents, observation, and a lot of communication from many different department managers within the organization. One could say that this aspect of business consulting has much to do with the “forensic” or legislative oratory and study.

Within each firm, there are specialists of different aspects of an organization (accountant, finance, etc.). Upon gathering and organizing the information the firm communicates together to determine what can be done to improve the organization.

Finally, the sale truly begins. Money is often exchanged at the beginning stages of the process but the art comes into play in this final stage.

Persuasion or rhetoric becomes an essential aspect of business consulting when the firm stands before the organizational CEO, CFO, and other leaders. They must present the information, plans and strategies in such a way to persuade the organization to invest in the idea. In this aspect of the work the communication becomes much more deliberative as the firm works to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the future depending upon how the company chooses to proceed.

Well Which One Is it?

In reading the many posts already on display, I saw two very distinct opinions in regards to Pericles’ Funeral Oration. In one corner, the opinion that the oration was based upon deliberative branch of oratory while in the other corner we have the champion of funeral orations…. (Drum roll please) the epideictic branch!

In the post, “The Master of Disguise” Hailee Richards goes so far to as to “classify Pericles’ Funeral Oration as a deliberative piece…” (Also see “Things Not as They Appear”). Others on the other hand seem sure that this speech is one of epideictic oratory.

So… Which one is it?

Could it be… both?

In an earlier post by Macey Richardson (“HPR: How Pericles Rhetoricized”) she expressed that on occasion Pericles used elements of deliberative rhetoric to persuade the Athenians to build up their great city. With this attitude in mind I desire to briefly dissect how both branches of oratory and how their coined methods can be a powerful combination.

As clearly noted within his speech Pericles praises his city after which he praises the warriors of the city. Within this praise, Pericles essentially states, “Athenian City is the best (accompanied with examples) and we have grown up in this city, therefore we are also the best.” This being said, he never claims that the people of the city are the best but it is so obvious that there is no need to do so. This is a powerful method to prove a point that we know as enthymeme.

This being said, Pericles does not remain in the present but continues to speak of what is good and unworthy as well as what is advantageous and disadvantageous in the future. Let’s see an example of this transition. Pericles states, “This, then, is the kind of city for which these men, who could not bear the thought of losing her, nobly fought and nobly died (praise). It is only natural that every one of us who survive them should be willing to undergo hardships in her service (good and advantageous).”

Brilliantly done to persuade his audience, Pericles deserves credit for such mastery of each branch of oratory and elements. In closing, I believe although epideictic in nature, his speech contains all three branches of oratory. Possibly a better question than “which one is it?” may be, “how does each branch work together to persuade an audience?”

Confessions of a Persuasive Nature

The use of rhetoric as mimesis was most apparent in the play as a whole. If I had just been watching the play, without thinking about the rhetorical devices, I would have thought the person who played Hecuba was the most melodramatic actress I had ever seen. However, while thinking about what the play was trying to evoke through rhetoric, I was able to appreciate the script and acting as a powerful expression of emotion. In the play’s plot Hecuba realized the way language can imitate human suffering when she tried to persuade Agamemnon to join her cause by appealing to the pain he had felt in the past and what he might feel in the future. She tells Polyxena to do the same when appealing to Odysseus. She tells her daughter, “He has children too” in order to express that she may be able to appeal to his sympathy when she talks to him.

The use of rhetorical language meant to persuade was very prevalent in the play through the role of Hecuba, especially when Polymestor was on trial for his deeds and Hecuba was defending herself. This form of language is more difficult to find in the play as a whole because persuasion is most evident in a conversation. I think that Euripides used the power of language to persuade the audience to like Hecuba, or at least feel bad for her. If the first part of the play was the scene where she killed the two little boys the audience would not feel like she was justified; even after her actions were explained with her back story. However, by providing the story and Hecuba’s monologues first, the audience may not have seen her end actions as repulsive as they might have been perceived without the backstory.

True Mimesis

I find that I have developed a distaste for much of the new, popular shows and movies. Often I find that the media gains a lot of hype for it's special effects and famous actors, then when it premiers it fails to impress me (and others) with underdeveloped writing, plot holes and bad acting. And when it comes to acting, one of my biggest pet peeves is something that I call the sexy cry

A sexy cry is a scene when a female character is put into a grieving situation and cries only mildly as to maintain the beauty or gentleness of the role they are portraying. Nearly all female roles in today's media carry out this unrealistic form of acting. It is perhaps more visually appealing, but the audience gains no empathy with the person facing the trauma. The overall effect is hindered.

But in Hecuba, Euripides knows how to appeal to logic through emotion. Hecuba herself brims with sadness, none of which is honestly unrealistic. You can feel her heart-wrenching pain. And when she cries, it isn't some quiet pathetic sob. No, this is true sadness - the kind that makes you a twinge of guilt and embarrassment for willingly observing someone literally break down. She doesn't hide it because it's not meant to be attractive! You feel her pain. That is more than you ever see in current media. That is Mimesis.

It doesn't even end there. Every character gives off such outspoken yet honest feelings that you can't help but agree with their pleads and causes, even if you disagree. Hecuba may not be able to convince Odysseus to let her daughter live, but she gives off not only reason but emotional appeal as well, until your heart strains with woe as Odysseus denies her any peace from her misery, or in her implore to Agamemnon demanding revenge, where you know that she has been driven to madness and yet you have sympathy for her. That is power and that brings out more rhetoric than just a pretty face ever will.

Round of Applause for Hecuba!

Everyone had to have noticed that at the very end of the play, the crowd clapped for all of the actors to express their support and love. However, I couldn’t help but smile when I noticed that when Hecuba went up to bow, the volume of the crowd increased exponentially and everyone clapped and whistled with much more passion. It was somewhat a verification of a job well done. To me, this was an enormous sign that the actress did a terrific job of pulling in the audience with her great demonstration of mimesis. 

There were multiple points during the show where I couldn’t help but feel terrible for this mother who has lost her son and is on the verge of having her daughter ripped away from her and killed. When Hecuba first began to wail and cry, as the women surrounded her and told her what was to be done with her daughter, I was almost startled at how hard she seemed to be bawling. I wasn’t expecting to see so much emotion. Then, she gets up and starts defending herself as to why everything that is happening is unfair and why such an awful thing shouldn’t be happening. 

Similar to what Thomas said, this poor old woman had nothing else to lose and couldn’t fall any lower. She argued and debated with such a conviction that seemed to make the irrational more rational. It’s just like we have discussed in previous classes, love can be extremely irrational. However, as I watched Hecuba yell towards the heavens with all of her heart and cry with real tears, I couldn’t help but notice that the irrational seemed to be more rational in my head. I think the audience all agreed as we all clapped unanimously after witnessing her phenomenal rhetoric appeals through logic and an engagement of emotions. 

Don't Mess with Momma

After seeing probably my first play since grade school, I was quite impressed with the production.  Of note, both Hecuba and Polymestor made excellent displays of mimesis and the art of persuasion.  Obviously, one was more vindicated than the other, no doubt due to Hecuba's exposing of Polymestor as a greedy liar (and possibly because he spat too much).  Both appealed to Agamemnon over the murder of Polydorus, with Hecuba raging for justice and Polymestor defending with claims of protecting against any future instances of war. 

In the end, Polymestor cannot stand fast against the buffetings of his sons' murderer.  It might have been easier if he had still been able to see so that he could have just killed Hecuba, but that was not the case.  Unfortunately for Polymestor, his appeal to patria was not enough to deter Agamemnon from the blind greed so readily apparent in the childless father.  Hecuba had lost her husband to war, Polydorus to the gold frenzied Polymestor, and one of her daughters to sacrificial retribution.  She was an old woman stricken with age and all manner of misdeed.  As she so expertly convinced to Agamemnon, there was no lower point for her to fall.  Seeing as she had nothing to lose and Polymestor had much to gain, the honesty of their feelings was easily distinguishable. 

It was this honesty combined with hard logic that allowed Hecuba to eventually win over Agamemnon.  In the eyes of Agamemnon, the distraught mother's actions had been fair and justified, whereas the slithering Polymestor clearly had acted only in his own self-interest.  If the play had been an act of public speaking rather than just amongst a select few, Polymestor could very well have won the debate.  His reasoning was sound, so his case would most likely have been supported amongst the masses.  This was not as effective as hoped for, however, as the debate parties were small enough that Hecuba could appeal to the individual rather than to the faceless crowd.  Having the ability to pinpoint and focus on Agamemnon's vital regions, she overpowered her opposition's standpoint with a potent hybrid of logos and pathos, successfully avenging her lost family.  

Hecuba & The Duality of Language

The lady who played Hecuba in tonight’s play did a wonderful job at bringing out the tragic condition of her character with language. Although she was unsuccessful in persuading Odysseus from taking her daughter to be sacrificed, she also laid out a very logical and reasonable argument to try and stop her daughter from being killed. Overall Hecuba’s language in the play really put on a powerful display of both pathos and logos.

Mimesis

Starting with Hecuba’s sad state, it was amazing the way that her words really brought out the sadness in what she was going through. I will say with all honesty that I am not the one to go to plays, and certainly not get that into them. With that said, it was thoroughly surprising when I felt an aching in my heart for Hecuba and all the trials she was being forced to go through. Her physical and emotional status on stage are attributed to making me feel for her as well, but her language is what made my mind tell my heart to feel for this woman. She was able to make the hearer’s emotions engage with the story, and help the audience feel as she was feeling.

Art of Persuasion

Although she was unable to persuade Odysseus from taking her daughter the layout and invention of her argument was impressive. Even after being denied once by Odysseus she persisted, and tried to take another angle. It was interesting when she made reference to her daughter as her “city.” Comparing this to our discussion on Euripides’ The Bakkhai, perhaps she was arguing that her daughter (& her son for good measure) were her only rationale to keep living. If so, this is a really interesting use of rhetoric.

Did I Miss Something Here?

I was under the impression that Gorgias was trying to defend Helen in what seemed like a court of law. Yet, while he started out well enough, giving Helen ethos and building up sympathetic pathos, I was expecting a lot more logos for an appeal to a court room. He is obviously a skilled rhetorician, but his argument didn't seem to hold much merit when actually analyzed. She was obviously involved in some love affair, and his reason that she is innocent is that she is an innocent girl overcome by a goddess. I wonder if a similar argument would work for someone who murdered someone else. Were they overcome by Ares? Or someone who stole, were they influenced by Hermes? This piece was very aptly named as an “Encomium” is a speech of praise, not one of argument. In my opinion the speech was talking about Helen, not her innocence, but maybe I am just missing an important argument he makes. Does anyone think they can clarify for me?

Anyway, I have quite a few humorous experiences with rhetoric but one that applies the best is probably the time I was babysitting for a little boy and his sister. The boy wanted to do something he wasn't supposed to but he didn’t want to get in trouble by himself. I don't remember exactly what the intended “crime” was, but let's say it was taking another cookie for simplicity’s sake. So as I am sitting right by them he leans over and in a loud whisper says to his sister, "hey let's take a cookie." She protested. "C'mon! It will be fun and we won't get in trouble. Trust me." Then they both look at me guiltily as they start to do whatever it was they weren't supposed to do. I was amazed at how fast this little boy won over his sister. At that moment he was a master rhetorician; he knew his audience wanted a cookie also, he got her emotionally compromised, and he established his ethos by claiming to be trustworthy. However, like Gorgias’ speech, his argument was not very sound; especially since I heard every word.

Love the sinner, hate the sin?

After reading the Encomium of Helen, it's apparent to me that people have been finding ways to excuse behavior since before Christ. In his persuasive essay, Gorgias writes what he finds a well reasoned argument to dissuade the belief that Helen is innocent of guilt for starting the Trojan war. He has a few points that are believable, but out of the several major possibilities he gives for Helen's betrayal, he gives two that I don't buy:

1. Divine intervention

2. Natural instinct

In a nutshell, Gorgias argues that Helen would be innocent of crime if the Gods were involved in this, because Gods are more superior in every way to humans, and humans could not possibly deny destiny. In continuing to feign the poor accused Helen, he adds that Helen could have been persuaded by discourse to abandon her people. He elaborates on the many ways this could have been done, from verbal persuasion to seduction.

"It has been said that if she was persuaded by discourse, she did no wrong but rather was unfortunate... she escapes without difficulty from the blame for the sin alleged to have taken place. For the things we see do not have whatever nature we will, but rather that which befalls each. The soul receives an impression in its own ways through the sight." (Gorgias, P. 15)

That said, Helen did it because she was convinced it was the right and necessary thing. I could go on a long tangent about ethics here, but more accurately, Gorgias is describing in multiple ways an excuse we all share:

Who's ever used that one before?

I did, back in the third grade. I was at school and some of the other kids were making me mad. So with my lack of restraint, I started beating one of them up. The teacher came and stopped us and asked me why I had done it. My response? "Aw, the Devil made me do it!" My teacher was not amused. Later, my Mom told me that Satan could never make me do anything. He could tempt me, or try to persuade me but only I had control over my actions. That truth stuck with me. No actions of Helen's, claimed by Gorgias to be from the Gods themselves or her own surrender to temptation excuse the fact that she is guilty for the start of the Trojan war.

Hugs and Harassment

According to Gorgias, we are not to be held accountable for our actions, should the reasoning—logical or not—be sound enough for acceptance.  Though Helen had and utilized her agency, Gorgias argued in her defense.  It must be noted, however, that words are not the only means of persuasion, though they are often the keys used to these other means of getting someone to behave in any particular way desired. 

A potentially deadly creature, the stingray can be soothed
and converted by a calculated touch.

In his defense of Helen, Gorgias argued that Love, the goddess, was to blame.  Helen was not to be held accountable for her actions, as she, a mere mortal, had become subject to the power of the divine.  Being a member of the Church, I find that reasoning absolutely ridiculous.  Helen had her agency—initially at least for sure—but compromised it for whatever reasoning she had, logical or illogical.  Though, I do suppose that in the particular setting and culture in which Helen was the topic of debate, Gorgias must have seemed a master of reasoning and persuasion. 

Thinking back to my own experiences on the topic of persuasion without logic, my mind brings me to that of my girlfriend and my three younger brothers.  Even though my brothers and I are all related, my girlfriend approaches persuading us in different ways.  If, say, she wishes to play a certain videogame with my brothers, she will (as mentioned in one of the previous posts) instill fear by means of harsh words and exercise dominion through her seniority.  On the other hand, my girlfriend is younger than, shorter than, and in a much different relationship with me as opposed to my brothers.  When she wants me to start on a new game server with her, the approach is one of cooing, cuteness, and coaxing ever so cleverly.  Both approaches are different, neither are especially logical, and yet, both are impressively effective.  

The Power of Verbal Persuasion is Declining

           When Helen is described as having godlike beauty and the foremost of the foremost of men and women, I instantly compared her to some of the women in my life that may “fit” that description. Unfortunately this did not help me to decide on whether Helen was truly persuaded, or was the persuader herself, because most of the women (and I guess men that I know that “fit” her description as well) can take on both of these roles at different times and situations in their lives. These people I have in mind to contrast with Helen can be good at using both their words and appearance to persuade others, but I have also noticed that they can easily be persuaded by someone with similar traits that match their own.

*Note: To learn about Mormons don't go here. Thanks.

For these reasons I don’t know which side to take on Helen, but would rather point out what I felt was the most important take away from this reading, and apply it to our class and the direction we seem to be heading. In the paragraph that starts with “(11)” Gorgias explains that without perfect memory or knowledge of past, present, and future that persuaders use lies and opinions to persuade others. By the nature of what Gorgias has said her it leads me to believe that the power of verbal persuasion was much greater in the 5^th century than it in our day, as well have things like the internet, and places to access facts. The power of verbal persuasion is still real, but unlike the ancient Greeks we have the power to go and really find out information on our own. The Greeks ability to access truth and answer their own questions with ease, pales in comparison to us in our own time.

Isn't this the truth?

Once I was very logically persuaded about a religious matter that I had previously had different feelings on until I was persuaded otherwise. However even after being persuaded I was able to do my own research and in a way “persuaded” myself to my previous belief. Technology and the mediums we have now are a huge factor upon how verbal persuasion works today. 

I ate my feelings... and it's NOT my fault.

I sit here and my brain can’t focus on anything, because it is filled with so many thoughts and yet at the same time I can’t recall anything.  Without realizing, my stress and fear of accomplishing all my tasks has persuaded me to be completely useless.But at the same time this incapability does not make me the one at fault through Gorgias’ opinion in “The Encomium of Helen”.  

Gorgias forms his thesis in a similar way as to that of Socrates.  He states an initial truth and then uses logic and metaphors to further prove his thesis.  He focuses on the fact that the responsible party deserves the responsibility and that the persuader is responsible and the persuaded is not to be blamed.  Since Helen was persuaded by the gods she was therefore not responsible since “a god is superior to a human being in force, intelligence, etc.”  The gods take the responsibility. 

There have been many times where I have been persuaded by my emotions, my fears, and even God.  I remember one moment where fear overtook my body and I do believe that I am not responsible for my actions.  I was nineteen years old and was being pursued or rather stalked by a twenty-nine year old man.  Not ready for marriage and not interested in marrying this man, I thought I successfully avoided him by returning to Utah for my studies.  He called.  He messaged.  I avoided.  One day, he left a voice message on my phone.  I listened and the stress and emotions overtook my body.  He was coming here for a job interview.  Would I never be free?  And persuaded by my emotions and without thinking, I ate four Krispy Kreme doughnuts in about thirty seconds.  I’m not responsible for this irrational behavior though, as Gorgias proved, the stress was to blame.

Genuine rhetoric is better!

As far as I understand from reading Gorgias, Socrates is weary of rhetoric because of the intent behind it and what he perceives as the fraudulent nature of rhetoricians.  He uses a lot of logos, kairos, and ethos to question rhetoric, and appeals to multiple of these rhetoric devices (interesting, he seems to be combating a rhetorician by using rhetoric) by questioning how genuine rhetoricians are because they specialize in rhetoric, not in the subjects of anything they would use rhetoric to present. I don't think that anyone can  present or teach anything in a moving and inspiring way that he or she hasn't developed some passion for. Sure, people can pass along facts and figures, unfortunately I've had many teachers who shared a lot of information with us, but they taught us nothing. I feel that Socrates is correct in saying that it is more effective for someone who is passionate about their subject to present it rather than someone who is a good rhetorician but cares nothing about the subject they are trying to get across.

Elder Bednar's speech was, to me, moving. He used kairos, knew his audience, employed great decorum throughout the speech as he made one topic flow to another, as mentioned in Courtney's post, and showed media at great times throughout the presentation. He used great logos and pathos and balanced them out great, he used Ethos as he gave his apostolic warnings and testimony and as he sited former Prophets and Apostles. But I think the thing that made the whole thing inspiring and moving was how he felt about it. I knew that this man was passionate about what he was saying. I knew that he meant what he said, so I listened differently. I don't think the message that Elder Bednar delivered would have been as effective if it were delivered by anyone else, even the greatest rhetorician in the world.

Successes and Failures in the Art of Persuasion

  Book II of the Iliad featured some successful persuaders, and some not so successful. I have much to learn about persuasion and rhetoric, but was able to analyze this read with the knowledge I do have from my experience in sales jobs as well as a persuasive writing course I took last summer. I want to point out three specific characters and how they succeeded or failed in their attempt to accomplish things with their speech.

Agamemnon

                Katie Johnson has already given a great overview and some examples in her post of how Agamemnon was successful in his persuasive endeavors. To add to what she has said about how he addressed his men, the way he started his speeches was crucial, always referring to his men as “My friends” and even “heroes” was very effective in his attempts to persuade them to gather to attack Troy. He really talks them up, and uses the divine as the real messenger. Agamemnon could have referred to his armies as lesser people, he being the king, but does not, and is successful in the art of persuasion by building his men up in this way.

Thersites

               Thersites could not have picked a poorer time to try and make his arguments. He clearly is a failure when it comes to persuasion and lacks kairos and decorum. In order for someone as “common” as Thersites to really challenge the king Agamemnon he would really need more preparation and the perfect time to deliver his argument. Without being a master of kairos and decorum, Thersites didn’t have the slightest chance at accomplishing his desires through his speech.

Nestor Knight of Gerene

                Personally I thought Nestor was the best salesman in the whole read. He uses great rhetorical questions and backs up Agamemnon after Thersites feeble attempt to stop the armies from gathering. He has a great sense of logos and decorum. He really has a handle on his ideas and the way that he delivers them, giving Agamemnon comfort in any of his doubts to go forward with the attack on Troy. 

               The Iliad Book II teaches that what you say and how you say something are both extremely important in the art of persuasion. If one neglects either what or how they speak, they are less successful in their abilities to persuade.