I don't see rhetoric as being a persuasive tool to bring people to the other side. I see rhetoric as a trait of being able to communicate your ideas in a way that catch other's attention and allows them to understand. Just because somebody speaks well does not mean that they are going to change attitudes towards the topic being defended. People are naturally stubborn and just don't change their minds or hush because somebody can communicate better than them. Good rhetoric can be used in any situation, but it doesn't mean that the speaker is right.
For example, if a well spoken individual gives a long speach filled with attention getting words and has the whole crowd eating out of his hand, he will most likely not be able to convince them that jumping off the empire state building will not kill them. While another individual that gets up and states in a hick voice with awful rhetoric will be able to convice people that they will die if they jump off of the building. So while rhetoric helps to grab others attention, I don't think it is that persuasive.
Your perspective is much like mine. Well spoken people are effective communicators but mind changers? Not so much. In the court room is a slightly different story and as such "relevance" is always questioned when legal teams speak in the court room. Appeals to emotions are a part of rhetoric and if they are allowed to enter the minds of an unbiased third party such as the jury or judge those persons are no longer unbiased and effectively useless at their task of issuing judgment on the crime.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with you for the most part that rhetoric usually only grabs others attention rather than changing their views, or themselves, there are some cases where not only does rhetoric change opinions but influences peoples actions.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGhdX1SI3KY
technical writing- I don't think that Hitler used rhetoric so much to change everybody's mind to commit genocide. Here are a couple of points.
ReplyDelete1. The Jews have long been hated by almost everybody on earth from biblical times so Hitler did not need to build prejudice in the hearts and minds of German people. It was already there and they were agreeing with him
2. He did not have to convince a soldier to commit atrocities. Soldiers are not trained to make moral decisions on the battle field. They have two options, obey the orders given or face the consequences, so while Hitler might have been a well spoken individual, rhetoric did not cause the Holocaust. Men were acting out of their own believes that they were doing what was right.
3. A leader with a large military backing that even his own people are scared of does not use rhetoric to convince them of right, he uses fear of death as a means of getting his point across.And the Germans followed his word because they were scared of repercussions.
Rhetoric most definitely has its its limitations. I think that many people over estimate their ability to talk to people in a persuasive manner. I think many people are brought up getting their own way all the time, and when they get older they think it has something to do with them. In reality other people have just chosen to cater to them their wholes lives. At that point the understand all things in life don't come easily.
ReplyDelete