Persuasion and Delivery

Persuasive writing has many forms of genre, some liked more than others as we saw in Phaedrus. Due to the time period in which we are in as well as my own choices of career path, I spend a fair share of my time in written composition. Much of it is not persuasive by my own assessment, but maybe there is some element of persuasion to, say, technical writing. For example, I am seeking to convince the reader that, yes, he or she can in fact do this task on their own. Just follow these easy, concise steps.

Through our readings, I have become more acutely aware of my own decisions in written and verbal wording as they relate to persuasiveness and argument presentation. Aristotle’s canon of delivery has changed through the centuries, yet we still apply delivery in our current documents and speeches. I apply Aristotle’s conceptualization of delivery when I present at a conference or in a work meeting or even at the ‘nar by using voice intonation and hand gesturing. Aristotle would surely consider me a novice in these areas in terms of my lack of formal training in how to hold my hands just so, but I do recall an undergraduate speech class in which I was taught to avoid holding your hands in the fig leaf position. (If you want clarification, just say so.) But writing now also requires delivery. And furthermore, in the digital and mobile ages, the speech is coming back for the scholar and regular individual.

Publishing an article, an act encouraged in nearly every class I’ve taken at TTU, generally begins with the proposal. Proposal delivery is in itself a genre, really an art. The reviews may ask: What makes this proposal for this article worthy of inclusion in our publication? Why does this topic and this investigation merit our attention and the attention of our readers? Certainly, persuasive powers are at play when the author creates a proposal that elevates his or her work as significant enough, thorough enough, rigorous enough to pass the gatekeepers of a particular journal. Between what the author intends and what the reviewers perceive, effective uses of the canons help convey the concepts so understood by author yet most times exclusively represented to the reviewers by a brief series of paragraphs. Language, it seems, is symbolic of the author’s profession and ability to advance that profession through contributing to a larger conversation in problem solving and knowledge-building.

If rhetoric is not only the tool for persuasion but also the outcome and product (in the actual written or spoken word) prior to someone else acting (publishing, funding, or perpetuating a call to action), then honing such skills seems applicable as much now as it was in previous times. While we laugh at the ridiculous (as it was described in the MOO last week) level of intensity on the components of rhetorical style (i.e. exhaustive options for salutations), couldn’t we come up with a pretty exhaustive list of say, ways we correct student’s papers (which get fairly nitty-gritty for some instructors) or the exact wording typically used to question writers if we are editing? I also chuckled at the drawings around page 742 of Rhetorical Tradition. These show renditions of positions of orators (both entire body and just hand movements). Yet, we could easily make a similar drawing of, again going back to the professor or instructor as an example, the typical positions of teaching. I know I have some specific ways I move my own hands or expressions I use (unconsciously or not) to make my own points in various contexts. This is why I find the face recognition software fascinating, especially where it analyzes expression and perceived feelings.

In the ages of oratory as profession, the times we read about through Gorgias, Plato, and Aristotle’s featured pieces this week, I think about the way these individuals delivered their proposal. (I assume they had to offer a proposal prior to getting individuals to attend a speech or enroll at their school or otherwise become engaged in the art and learning of rhetoric.) They had to use a quick, likely dramatic verbal advertisement to convince the people to fork over some money to take their class or to listen to their artful explanation on a subject. It was their ability to convince the audience that their presentation was worthy of further time, attention, and funds that enabled them to work in the orator profession. Wide knowledge would allow them to effectively answer questions and impromptu challenges, for which our books say they permitted time.

What I find contradictory is the notion that these elements can be so rigidly broken down. Maybe that has been the issue over time. And why, with such a variety of contexts, so many “new” views on rhetoric can be proposed. With no one-size-fits-all formula (which Socrates in Phaedrus expresses), it reminds me of a self-help presentation. Then it was self-help on conversation…sort of a how-to that crossed many areas of verbal self-defending, presentation of ideas, perpetuation of arguments, etc. The task was really far more than learning the canons (or other formally compartmentalized explanations) of components of speech and composition. The goal was to find the right tone, adapting as the conversation ensued or as new players in the conversation spoke up, and play the game of inclusion in one’s strategy to convince others to see their views (or fund their whatever or join their group).

Likewise, we search for the most effective language in today’s appropriate organizational structures in our formal and informal work. Then and today, people seek to speak to the audience (whether that be the Board at work, the proposal reviews of a journal, the book club, the community organization, the in-laws, or the four kids in the backseats) in a way that inclusively pulls more people toward their logic, persuasion, strategy, and decision.