What's Not To Like About A Tyrant?

You'd think that this would be a closed case in a country founded as a reaction to tyranny, with a people whose very Constitution is based on a suspicion of government and trust in individuals and the choices of the people, where "freedom" and "liberty" are discussed and honored more often than just about any other concept. Yet, when you see not one, but two presidents applauded for promising to abuse and overstep executive authority in a State of the Union address, when you see government agencies and bureaucracies used to stifle dissent, and when you see massive surveillance of the press, opposition groups, and in fact the entire population, all of which happens without any public outrage, you start to wonder.

In the old rhetoric schools of Athens and Rome, one of the rhetorical exercises given to advanced students was to rhetorically "slay a tyrant" by using something called the "topos of a tyrant:" In a measured invective, the students would lay out the six vices of a tyrant to remind their audience what it meant to be free from tyranny as well as to move them to action against a budding tyrant or tyrannical tendencies in their society. The freedom they had to exhibit this exercise was a good indication of the actual freedom they actually enjoyed in their societies. Two rhetoricians, Secundus and Maternus, were put to death by Caligula and Domitian when they performed the topos of the tyrant as rhetorical exercises at a festival. I guess they did too good of a job, and the tyrants got a really good look at themselves. The topos of a tyrant is an exercise I think we could profitably adopt in our society, as a safeguard of liberty and a ready weapon against tyranny. In this post, I'll try to explain the exercise and give a model you can use and spread as you choose. So, here goes: Let's slay a tyrant!

First, a little bit of theoretical groundwork to define what I mean by tyranny. Paul Woodruff has the best description I have seen so far in his book First Democracy: "The idea of tyranny is among the greatest gifts we have from ancient Greece, because it nails down a vital way to think about freedom. The ancient Greeks realized that there is a kind of government that destroys people by dividing them, while it diminishes their leader by clouding his mind. The leader may be a person or a group, and tyranny may rise in what is nominally a democracy. Like a disease, tyranny is recognized by its symptoms. These symptoms are the features of political leadership that the ancient Greeks most feared. And the Greeks were right to fear them. If you observe any of these symptoms in your leaders, be wary. A plague could be on the way, and it could fatally weaken your freedoms:
1. A tyrant is afraid of losing his position, and his decisions are affected by this fear.
2. A tyrant tries to rise above the rule of law, though he may give lip service to the law.
3. A tyrant does not accept criticism.
4. A tyrant cannot be called to account for his actions.
5. A tyrant does not listen to advice from those who do not curry favor with him, even though they may be his friends.
6. A tyrant tries to prevent those who disagree with him from participating in politics" (66-7).

Any of these look familiar? Ask yourselves, when did the US last have a president who did not start campaigning for reelection from day 1 in office? When last did it have a president who followed the Constitution and refrained from fighting illegal wars? When last did a president voluntarily disclose and admit to a significant failure without being forced to do so? When was ever a president successfully impeached or held accountable for his actions? I'm not talking about losing an election or stepping down like Nixon, I mean impeached and prosecuted for crimes. Only two presidents (in over 200 years) have ever been impeached, and none have ever been convicted. And not because of lack of either crimes or evidence, I can assure you. Besides, the US president has what is called "sovereign immunity," and according to the US Attorney General's Office "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" (i.e. "ya can't touch him"). Concerning point 5 and 6, do I even need to list examples? Didn't think so.

So why is this so bad? Why does it matter for example if the NSA is spying on Americans (and the rest of the world for that matter)? I have had university students actually say "as long as you don't do anything wrong, what do you have to fear?" If that's your attitude, why bother with any restraint at all. Why even care about having checks and balances. Have we forgotten that almost everyone who has been given absolute power has actually used it? The results have not been pretty. The rhetoric schools outlined six vices of the tyrant to help people keep this in mind. They are cruelty, savagery, suspicion, arrogance, immorality, and avarice. The student would then explain and amplify those vices by giving descriptions, examples, and stories. I will provide a brief outline, but you can easily fill in examples of your own.

Suspicion: A tyrant can have no real friends, for he knows that his power is illegitimate and is only supported by force. As a result, he is constantly suspicious, even of those who want what is best for him. He believes the slightest rumor of a threat against him and sees every talented individual as a challenge to his power. As Euripides writes,
"When the people govern a country
They rejoice in the young citizens who are rising to power
Whereas a man who is king thinks them his enemy
And kills the best of them and any he finds
To be intelligent, because he fears for his power" (Woodruff 63).

Every tyrant has needed informants, secret police, and surveillance. In our days the thought police have taken the role of the bodyguard as the vanguard of tyranny. The ancients recognized that a tyrant first asks for a bodyguard because he knows he will need protection from his people and the power of force in order to carry out his crimes. In our days, the tyrant first seeks intelligence about dissenters and the ability to spread an atmosphere of fear and distrust among his subjects. It is always defended with a need for "security," but too late do the people realize that the security he was talking about was his, and the threat was them. This is a necessity, for a tyranny of one over many can only endure by the oppressive fear created by a police state, splintering everyone into their own shell of terror, never knowing who is watching or listening.

This is a scene from  the movie The Lives of Others portraying the real surveillance practices of the DDR.

Cruelty and savagery: A tyrant relies on terror to silence opposition, and the fear of the citizenry must be kept vivid by regular demonstrations of power and cruelty. Thus, it is not a question of whether or not a specific victim deserves this treatment because of any action on their part. Rather, display of cruelty in itself is a goal, and so-called crimes against the state are often mere pretenses in order to organize these displays. This is one subject which I believe the recent UN report on the North Korean prison camps makes vivid enough. To give a more historic example, Tacitus describes the murders committed by Emperor Tiberius after he had seized complete power: "Frenzied with bloodshed, the emperor now ordered the execution of all those arrested for complicity. It was a massacre. Without discrimination of sex or age . . . there they lay, strewn about - or in heaps. Relatives and friends were forbidden to stand by or lament them, or even gaze for long. Guards surrounded them, spying on their sorrow, and escorted the rotting bodies until, dragged into the Tiber, they floated away or grounded - with none to cremate or touch them. Terror had paralyzed human sympathy. The rising surge of brutality drove compassion away" (209). This is the goal of cruelty, to paralyze human sympathy and drive away compassion by terror and brutality. This is the hollow existence of a people living under tyranny.

Arrogance: Along with being a vice, arrogance in some ways is a necessity for a tyrant. How else can he defend asserting his will contrary to the wishes of his subjects? He needs to believe that he is above them. He needs to make himself in some ways a "superhuman," almost a god as the Roman emperors did. His reign serves as a sign of devotion to his massive ego. Raised on a throne of power above everyone else, he looks down upon the puny humans below him as little more than animals with haughty disgust. They are there for his enjoyment and use, and serve no higher purpose than that. The Greeks believed this frame of mind above all the other vices show tyranny for what it is: a disease of the mind. For under this self-delusion the tyrant has to hide his knowledge of his weaknesses, frailty, and guilt. Tacitus writes, "How truly the wisest of men used to assert that the souls of despots, if revealed, would show wounds and mutilations - weals left on the spirit, like lash-marks on a body, by cruelty, lust, and malevolence" (202). The tyrant seeks confirmation of his superiority over mankind, and finds it in abuses of power. He seeks confirmation of his superiority to divine law, and finds it by breaking every sacred bond and violating everything deemed inviolable.

Immorality and Avarice: These are the vices which a tyrant can exercise without restraint, and the very ability to do so constitute the lure and reward of tyranny. To have whatever one's eye lusts for, be it property, power, or people, this is the lure for the tyrant. The desire for absolute power would have little meaning for unscrupulous people if that power did not enable one to break all bonds which social position, morality, and laws would otherwise restrain. The Roman emperors would frequently display that power by taking the wives of men they had invited to the palace. Nero made it a hobby to display the most depraved behavior imaginable. Tiberius had his soldiers throw the richest man of Spain off a cliff so he could confiscate his money. There is no private property in a tyranny, nor is anything sacred. There is nothing where anyone can say, "this is mine" or "this is private." What is there then to live or hope for?
As the Athenian Euripides writes:
"Why should one acquire wealth and livelihood
For his children, if the struggle is only to enrich the tyrant further?
Why keep his young daughters virtuously at home,
To be the sweet delight of tyrants?
I'd rather die than have my daughters wed by violence" (Woodruff 63).

Yes, freedom from tyranny is worth fighting for. Cicero, who saw the death of the Roman Republic in his time sums it up like this in his The Republic: "As soon as a king takes the first step towards a more unjust regime, he at once becomes a tyrant. And that is the foulest and most repellent creature imaginable, and the most abhorrent to god and man alike. Although he has the outward appearance of a man, he outdoes the wildest beasts in the utter savagery of his behavior" (50). Remembering the first tyrant slayer of Rome, he writes that "he became the first in this state to show that, when it comes to preserving the people's freedom, no one is just a private citizen" (49).

It is the duty of every citizen to guard against tyranny and from becoming tyrants ourselves. A whole generation is growing up now which has never experienced the world before the Patriot Act. Massive surveillance which has never before been experienced in free societies is a fact of life. Throw off this yoke and destroy tyranny and all that resembles it. Nip it in the bud before it can grow any further. We do not want to progress down this road. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin

What Is the Difference Between Rhetoric and Manipulation?

I think there is a clear practical case to be made for rhetoric: since it is becoming more interconnected the world depends increasingly on good communication, therefore anything that makes an individual communicate more clearly and persuasive is obviously a benefit to that person. But what is the ethical argument for rhetoric? Why would a person with high ideals and democratic sentiments (as I would like to think of myself) study such an art? This is one of the oldest questions in Western thought actually, so I do not expect to solve it in one blog post. But these are some thoughts I have on the subject:

The first problem in making that argument is definition. Rhetoric is often, though mistakenly, used to describe the deceptive practices of some politicians and salesmen, and Plato once accused it of being "flattery" with no intrinsic ethical value (though he is more positive about it in later dialogues). In other words, if rhetoric was a person, it would be seen as a scoundrel, a deceiver. So how do you defend a scoundrel? Well, you can't, because a scoundrel per definition is indefensible. What you do is show how that label or definition is misplaced, and that another definition is better. Rhetoric is concerned with persuasion, but what is mislabeled as rhetoric is really manipulation: "Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious and deceptive." Though a person who persuades and one who manipulates may have the same end in mind, the process is different (as I will show later in this post). The end does not justify any means in rhetoric, because, as most honored rhetoricians have observed, the means of influence can have implications which are more severe than the influencer ever dreamed of.

Of course, every definition depends upon some other definition. What does it mean that something is ethical? Rather than subscribing to a specific theory of ethics, Kantian or otherwise, I will work from a definition of ethical as something which promotes ends which are commonly held as good or favorable to individuals and society, and while doing so adheres to a common code of acceptable behavior.    

Plato argued in Gorgias that rhetoric is unethical because its end is power, which is not necessarily good for everyone, and it achieves this end through flattery, which is dishonest and prevents good judgment.

The immediate ends of rhetoric, according to Isocrates, are persuasion and judgment. How can persuasion, which is a method of power or influence, be ethical? Well, one may as well ask how any kind of power or influence can be ethical. We have to use methods of power and influence on each other, since that is the only way we can function as a society. People don't think the same way, and without a method of aligning thought, attitudes, and actions, even temporarily, any kind of communal living would be impossible. To have a society, people actually have to agree first that they are a part of a society. Therefore, though methods of power always have a sinister potential, persuasion should be evaluated in comparison to the alternatives for aligning thought.

I think a good starting place is this description from Bryan Garsten's Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment: "Persuasion in the strict sense identifies a way of influencing that is neither manipulation nor pandering. The speaker who manipulates his audience so as to bring them to a belief or action without their consent, as Kant thought orators moved men 'like machines,' has not persuaded but coerced. In contrast, the speaker who merely finds out where his audience itches and then scratches there, as Plato thought pandering Athenian orators did, has not managed to change his listener's minds at all. To truly persuade people is to induce them to change their own beliefs and desires in light of what has been said. Though we speak of 'being persuaded' in the passive voice, we recognize the difference between being persuaded and being indoctrinated or brainwashed; the difference lies in the active independence that is preserved when we are persuaded" (7). Persuasion is never complete when an orator has finished speaking. It includes a process of internal deliberation and evaluation which enlists all of our rational, emotional, and deliberative faculties. As Garsten goes on to write, "An orator does not coerce; he merely puts words into the air . . . mental digestion is a process over which we can exercise some control. We reject arguments that seem far-fetched or suspicious. Being persuaded is not the same as learning, but it is related. When someone sits back and decides, 'All right, you have persuaded me,' he is not merely describing something that has happened to him. In spite of the grammar, he is describing something he has done" (7).

Rhetoric is the art of "finding the available means of persuasion in any given situation" and since persuasive speech is not powerful enough to coerce and persuasion is not achieved through mere flattery, rhetoric cannot be reduced to pandering or manipulation. Rhetoric depends on individual judgment, and thus it respects agency. Manipulation, on the other hand, tries to make use of automatic responses, neurological pathways, and mental reflexes to change one's mind without detection. A perfect "victim" for a manipulator will never know what hit him. The mechanism of persuasion is much more overt, and it involves choice.

This appeal to judgment or agency may be one of the most democratic aspects of rhetoric, which may make it ethical in a society which values argument rather than force as a method of influence. As Kenneth Burke writes, "Persuasion involves choice, will; it is directed to a man only insofar as he is free" (50). Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca elaborate this point: "The use of argumentation implies that one has renounced resorting to force alone, that value is attached to gaining the adherence of one's interlocutor by means of reasoned persuasion, and that one is not regarding him as an object, but appealing to his free judgment. Recourse to argumentation assumes the establishment of a community of minds, which, while it lasts, excludes the use of violence. To agree to discussion means readiness to see things from the viewpoint of the interlocutor, to restrict oneself to what he admits, and to give effect to one's own beliefs only to the extent that the person one is trying to persuade is willing to give his assent to them" (55). As Dupreel writes, "Every justification is essentially a moderating act, a step toward greater communion of heart and mind." From these statements, argumentation (which inevitably uses rhetoric) is ethical because it is a method of influence which is more equal and less destructive than the alternative (violence, as shown below).

So persuasion is better than coercion through violence, but I would go even further. This is messy territory where not all rhetoricians would agree with me, but it is my personal opinion: Rhetoric can teach us how to use more ethical ways of communicating and how to improve our judgment.

It is usually acknowledged that there are two parts of rhetoric: rhetorica utens (the use of persuasive resources) and rhetorica docens (the study of persuasive resources). From Aristotle onwards, there has always been a normative element to rhetorica docens. There is, to be reductive, "good" persuasion and "bad" persuasion, good rhetoric and bad rhetoric. The best grounding I can think of for this distinction is found in the ancient often unspoken connection between rhetoric and democracy. As Tacitus writes, rhetoric needs the liberty of democracy to flourish. It was a system of learning bred and developed as a tool for and product of democratic deliberation, and that spirit remained in its traditions, topics and exercises. Good rhetoric therefore respects the constraints of democratic deliberation and considers what impact both its form and content will have on future public deliberations and indeed the demos itself. This is where there is a real difference between Hitler and Martin Luther King, even though both of them were very effective orators. In my coursework I will study Hitler in order to know what to guard against and how to debunk similar rhetoric in our society today, but I will not teach my students to talk, write, or think like him. Bad rhetoric poisons the well of public deliberation and undermines the virtues which are essential for a democracy. It prepares the way for totalitarianism. Good rhetoric supports and adheres to the basic virtues of democratic deliberation, one of the main being that you actually listen to both sides in a dispute. This normative function of rhetoric is perhaps best examplified by Isocrates and Cicero. Isocrates uses much of his Antidosis to teach and remind his audience about the dynamics and norms for good deliberation. For example, he warns his jury, "Those states in which an occasional citizen is put to death without a trial we condemn as unfit to live in, yet are blind to the fact that we are in the same case when we do not hear with equal good will both sides of the contest." He is warning here that if we do not hear both sides willingly and as much as possible without prejudice, our democratic deliberations may be no better than the arbitrary decisions of tyrants. Paul Woodruff writes that the intellectuals behind Athenian democracy "cultivated rhetoric and good judgment for their power in sorting out the better uncertainties from weaker ones" (176). 

This brings us to how rhetoric leads to better judgment. Eugene Carver mentions three ways, from an Aristotelian perspective, in which rhetoric can teach, train, and improve our judgment.

1. By judging persuasive speeches we experience an argument as an argument. Often we consider what we are being told as simple fact and do not realize that we are being given arguments which need to be evaluated for validity and acceptability before they should be accepted or rejected.

2. We learn not to rely solely on antecedent opinions, or what is usually called "reputation." It becomes clearer to us that those former judgments were also the results of a form of deliberation, and it may be faulty. Things that today seem cut in stone were at one time fluid; they were deliberated and argued and there were dissenting arguments at the time which may have been valid and which may contain lessons and warnings for current problems. 

3. We learn that concerning persuasion on deliberative matters there are no experts. Nobody can know what the future will be like, and nobody can know for sure what a certain course of action will lead to in the future. As such, we have to make decisions based on educated guesses and conjecture, and sometimes a normal citizen can have valuable insights into uncertain choices gained from personal experience which the experts are blind to because of the nature of their expertise.

Isocrates adds that the process of finding a good argument is similar to the process of deliberation that leads to good judgment, and therefore is good training: "for the same arguments which we use in persuading others when we speak in public, we employ also when we deliberate in our own thoughts; and, while we call eloquent those who are able to speak before a crowd, we regard as sage those who most skillfully debate their problems in their own minds." Most of the decisions in our everyday life we have to make by applying our skill of judgment to contingent and uncertain situations. The best of course would be complete certainty, but, as Isocrates writes, "in the next resort I hold that man to be wise who is able by his powers of conjecture to arrive generally at the best course, and I hold that man to be a philosopher who occupies himself with the studies from which he will most quickly gain that kind of insight." In other words, as Woodruff claims, "Rhetoric has more to do with setting up the conditions for good judgment than with persuasion . . . By bringing out the best points on both sides, rhetoric serves the cause of good judgment" (185). 

Finally, I guess my ethical case for rhetoric is based on my personal experience of teaching, studying, practicing, and experiencing it. Rhetoric does not overwhelm judgment. Judgment is all it can appeal to if it seeks to have any kind of power. A rhetorician meets an audience where they stand, with their experiences, beliefs, prejudices, hopes, fears, and desires, and works within their language and values to invite them to consider or reconsider opinions, attitudes, or actions. Any leader concerned about the deficits of public judgment should encourage the teaching of rhetoric and make the experience of citizen life a course in deliberative democracy. That decentralizes persuasive power, making people more immune to demogoguery which will forever be a potential evil in human societies. In the end, democratic deliberation teaches us humility. Any rhetor, no matter how skilled or thorough, in the end has to defer to the audience and say, as Isocrates at the end of his Antidosis, "Being assured, therefore, that I am of this mind, and that I believe that whatever you decide will be for my good and to my advantage, let each one cast his vote as he pleases and is inclined."

You have read my arguments and you have compared them with your own experiences, knowledge, and feelings. What do you think?

Classical Rhetoric and the 2012 Presidential Debates

Well, now that the election is over, a rhetorician can finally show his face in public again ;) It is nice to be able to comment on rhetorical ability and strategies again without someone suspecting that you are trying to tip the scales in favor of a candidate.What I thought I would do is to take some observations about rhetoric made by classical rhetoricians like Aristotle, Cicero, and Isocrates, and show you what they would say about the 2012 Presidential Debates, which had a greater impact on an election than any debates maybe since Kennedy vs. Nixon.

One of the first rhetorical elements which became evident as I was watching the first debate was the concept of stasis, which can be roughly translated in English to "stance." Whenever you want to make an argument, you can only really take 4 stances, or stages where you debate the issue: 1. fact, 2. definition, 3, quality, and 4. place, appropriateness or procedure. To show how this works, let's take an example of an argument: Mr. X is missing, and you have been charged with his murder. You are looking for a way to defend yourself against this allegation, so here are your options.

1. Fact. You can argue that we don't actually know that Mr. X is dead, and therefore we cannot prove it is a fact that a murder has even been committed! There is no body, no witness which saw that he died, it is not a proven fact that Mr. X has indeed died.

2. Definition. But what if his body has been found? It makes no sense to deny that it is a fact that he has died, but is it murder? It could be an accident, and as such would not be murder but manslaughter. Perhaps it was actually suicide, and you just happened to be close by. Perhaps he was reaching for his gun, and you just got to yours first, so it was self-defense and not murder.

3. Quality. If it has been established that Mr. X did die, that you were the one who killed him, and it does in fact fit the definition of murder, then the next level is quality. How serious, important, good, or bad is it that Mr. X was murdered? Perhaps Mr. X was a horrible man, with the blood of many innocent people on his conscience? Was Mr. X in fact Hitler? Was the situation one where his death could prevent the death of many other people? Perhaps he was abusive, and you just couldn't take it anymore? This is one where some of the most interesting court room dramas plays out, since the law generally states that anyone who murders shall die or at least be severely punished, but human reality is more complicated than that. This is where the "insanity" or "temporary insanity" plea often comes in.

4. Place, appropriateness, or procedure. The former stases (plural of stasis) all argue within the same context or parastasis, but this one seeks to reframe and resituate the entire argument, to recast it in a new light if you will. This can be something as simple as a technicality (mistrial, wrong procedure, etc.) or something which moves the entire argument to another sphere. One example could be, "Yes, Mr. X was murdered, I murdered him, it was a terrible thing that he was murdered, but I have diplomatic immunity and as such cannot be convicted by this court." It could also be that Mr.X was a terrorist, and as such his death was a casualty of war and not punishable in criminal court. In fact, it is not even a crime. Perhaps you are guilty, but the procedure and punishment the prosecutor has asked for does not fit the crime (Cruel and Unusual Punishment).

Let's now see an example from the First Presidential Debate. The issue is Dodd-Frank, the Financial Regulation law which was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Obama defines his argument with the rhetorical question "does anyone think we got into this mess because there was too much regulation of Wall Street?" By so doing he sets his stance (or stasis) on 3. Quality. His argument is "Regulation was urgent, necessary, and a good thing for America." Fact could argue whether or not he signed it, and it is well settled that he did, Definition could be what Dodd-Frank is, and one could say "a government take-over of the financial industry" vs. "government oversight of a reckless industry." However, Romney seeks to reset the argument. Rather than arguing against regulation, which was clearly what Obama expected, Romney takes his stance on 4. place, appropriateness, procedure: He argues that regulation is essential and needed, but that the procedure applied by Obama was flawed and not appropriate to address the issue. Suddenly, the issue is no longer regulation is good vs. regulation is bad. Rather the issue becomes whether Dodd-Frank was the right kind of regulation to address the challenges revealed by the economic meltdown. This of course is a different question altogether, and it clearly takes Obama by surprise.

Romney's approach to Obama's arguments by shifting the stasis of the argument is a common thread throughout the debate, and it is one of the reasons why Romney won that debate quite decisively. As Otto Alvin Loeb Dieter writes in "Stasis," "To mistake, or misjudge the category of the stasis might seriously jeopardize a representation from the beginning." Obama argued points Romney already had conceded, and so it was Romney who was able to make the points and take the stance that stuck. The Obama campaign later painted his comments (such as "regulation is essential for a marketplace") as a fundamental shift to the middle by Romney, and sought to paint him as a flip-flopper, but actually Romney was only echoing the stance he takes in his book, No Apology, which came out in 2009. Obama was expecting to meet the same talking points he had heard in the Republican Primary, but instead he met a more nuanced and pragmatic approach from Romney.

This debate reset the race to one which, if it hadn't been for hurricane Sandy, may have made Mitt Romney the next president of the United States. Almost overnight, the carefully cultivated advantage Obama had held since June in the polls slipped away.

OK, that's all for this blog post. More to come later! 

The Power of Literary Form

Here is a brief introduction to my master thesis topic. It is all about the persuasive power of entertainment, and how we may not recognize how what is engaging is also potentially manipulative.

In “Lexicon Rhetoricae,” Kenneth Burke seeks to uncover “the principles underlying the appeal of literature” (123). Before he begins he gives what I believe could be a working definition of the aesthetic (“Literature as art, that is, literature designed for the express purpose of arousing emotions” (123)), and rhetoric (effectiveness in literature, unintended effects as well as intended ones (123)). Thus, while the aesthetic would mainly be concerned with whether or not the work of art succeeded in appealing to the emotions of a reader in such a way as to be recognized as beautiful, rhetoric looks at effects and forms a writer must appeal to in order to reach such a stage, and what the consequences of these processes are. The tone of Burke’s writings about this topic is rather cautionary. He warns, “We must also consider the value of formal appeal in inducing acquiescence. For to guide a reader’s expectations is already to have some conquest over him” (178). The Ivory Tower of art is here quickly pulled down to the dangerous work of influence. Simply by guiding the reader’s desires the author has taken a level of control over him which the reader may not be aware of. This process of seduction and surrender is described in more detail in the following passage:          

“The rhythm of a page, in setting up a corresponding rhythm in the body, creates marked degrees of expectancy, or acquiescence. A rhythm is a promise which the poet makes to the reader – and in proportion as the reader comes to rely upon this promise, he falls into a state of general surrender which makes him more likely to accept without resistance the rest of the poet’s material. In becoming receptive to so much, he becomes receptive to still more” (141).

This is where the aesthetic becomes rhetorical. The aesthetic process of form has the rhetorical effect of making us accept the message or argument without question. We don’t want to question the process because we are enjoying the seduction. Just study how George Lucas steadily builds a rhythm of expectation to a climax in "Star Wars: A New Hope" as we follow Luke Skywalker on his assault of the Death Star

We are experiencing what Burke refers to as ‘aesthetic truth,’ which is not simply the transmission of information (revelation) but a transformative experience (ritual). This is a very potent situation for rhetorical persuasion, and the author has the home-court advantage, “By thoroughness he [the author] should be able to overwhelm his reader to accept his interpretations. For a pattern of experience is an interpretation of life” (176). We are here going into the realms of what one could almost call conversion. The reader may resist at first, but he is now in the world created by the rules of the author and operating by the author’s logic, “The thoroughness of the artist’s attack can ‘wear down’ the reader until he accepts the artist’s interpretation, the pattern of experience underlying the Symbol. He may, when the book is finished, return to his own contrary patterns of experience (but during the reading the evidence has been rigorously selected, it ‘points’ as steadily in one direction as the contentions of a debater)” (176-177). 

This ‘pattern of experience’ is often almost undetectable, but it can sometimes be observed “when an apparently arbitrary or illogical association of ideas can be shown to possess an ‘emotional’ connective” (159), and this is where my thesis comes in. Kenneth Burke developed a method of rhetorical criticism called ‘indexing’ which he hoped could contribute to make the underlying patterns of experience in texts more obvious so the audience could make a conscious choice about which influences they allowed into their lives, claiming that “nothing less than very thorough training in the discounting of rhetorical persuasiveness can make a citizenry  truly free” (“LAPE” 285). 

So there you go. My project is to make people free! Isn't that great?

Catch the Vision!

“So, you are taking a Humanities degree. What are you going to do with that?” ask your friends studying business administration and engineering. At first you are a bit lost for words. You think about the courses you took last semester on Renaissance Literature, Modern Philosophy, and Political Thinkers of Ancient Greece. It is shockingly clear to you that a lecture on Heidegger and the question of ‘what is,’ the Faustian spirit, or even the construction of the ideal Republic, will do nothing to justify your study in their eyes. It is not that the concepts cannot be applied practically, but rather that they operate in a different vocabulary than business and science, and they need some translation to be recognized as valuable. That is what I hope I can help you with here. By and large, studies in the Humanities are not professional training directed at a certain profession; unless you plan to become a university professor of course. Your friend studying engineering will become an engineer, your friend studying business administration wants to become a business leader, but you are generally not aiming at making your living as an artist, author, or politician. The Humanities are not vocational training programs. However, they do provide knowledge and skills that are both applicable and highly sought after in a modern economy. For no matter what area you choose to pursue your career in, you will always face challenges concerning the motivations and goals of other people. These are central questions in the studies of the Humanities, and I hope I can show you how the insights the Humanities provide can help you develop skills essential to leadership in any common or corporate venture.

                

In 2011 Google completed a 2 year research project called Google Project Oxygen, where they gathered large amounts of data back from 1998, when the company was founded, until today to analyze what skills made the most valuable employees and best leaders. They found that the most valuable skills were having a clear vision for your team, good communication skills, listening skills, being productive, and being collaborative (Davidson). Now, I could make a good case for how a study in the Humanities can help foster all of these skills. The Humanities seek to understand mankind by studying their writings, words, and actions, which definitely promotes good communication and listening skills. However, I would like to focus on defining and ‘catching’ the elusive skill of ‘having a clear vision.’

What does it mean to have a clear vision? One of the definitions you will find in the dictionary is “a vivid picture created by the imagination” (Merriam-Webster). To have a vision is to be able to imagine conditions and results which currently do not exist. It is the ability to create an alternate reality if you will, and to communicate that reality in a way that makes other people see it too. Artists have made visions come alive in paintings, in dance, in words, and these alternate realities have motivated human action, whether they were religious, philosophical, or political. As a student in the Humanities you know the power of a clear vision. In the following paragraphs I will be trying to make explicit some of the knowledge and skills implicit in your study, which will make you able to create and communicate a clear vision to the people you will be living and working with.

                                              Why We Need Vision 

First of all, you should know that the need for people with a compelling vision is perhaps greater than ever before. This is an excerpt from Robert A. Cialdini’s “Harnessing the Power of Persuasion,” which was published in the Harvard Business Review, outlining the greatest challenge for modern corporate executives:

[They] every day have to figure out how to motivate and direct a highly individualistic work force. Playing the ‘Because I’m the boss’ card is out. Even if it weren’t demeaning and demoralizing for all concerned, it would be out of place in a world where cross-functional teams, joint ventures, and intercompany partnerships have blurred the lines of authority. In such an environment, persuasion skills exert far greater influence over others than formal power structures do. (72)

So it is not only the strong individualism in modern Americans that resists hierarchies, the very methods of communication and collaboration in the work place today make bossing and dominating counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Human interaction today is increasingly coordinated through loosely knit networks. As Newman, Barabasi, and Watts write in The Structure and Dynamics of Networks, “Networks are everywhere. From the Internet and its close cousin the World Wide Web to networks in economics, networks of disease transmission, and even terrorist networks, the imagery of the network pervades modern culture.” The world of modern communication technology brings people together in organic network structures, but that does not automatically create a community. You have probably noticed that friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter don’t necessarily share your values or goals, even though you are loosely connected somehow. In the same way, a bunch of people working in the same place to earn money, or living in the same neighbourhood by chance, does not automatically form a community.

Creating a Community Out of Diversity

In “Search for the Great Community” John Dewey notes that “associated or joint activity is a condition of the creation of a community” (151), so it can be a starting point, but though association may be physical and organic, “communal life is moral, that is emotionally, intellectually, consciously sustained” (151). In other words, though human networks may form spontaneously, a community can only be created and sustained through conscious effort. As he goes on to say, “’we’ and ‘our’ exist only when the consequences of combined action are perceived and become an object of desire and effort” (151). The individual must be able to envision positive consequences from a community which he cannot achieve as an individual, and then work consistently towards those consequences. A leader must therefore be able to develop a vision, or help articulate consequences which many individuals would see as desirable, and then identify the processes and values which will lead to those consequences.

So how does one develop a vision, which can gather people with diverse backgrounds and experiences around a common aim? As we learn in the Humanities, it is a creative work to design a vision. You have to be able to see things which now are not; you have to be able to see how things could be different than they are now. What is King Henry doing when he rallies his soldiers before the Battle of Agincourt in Shakespeare’s Henry V? What is Winston Churchill doing when he announces the commencement of the Battle of Britain upon which “the future of Christian civilization” depends, calling for it to become Britain’s “finest hour”? What is Socrates doing when in Phaedrus he detects divinity and depravity within the methods of speech-writing? We here see examples of what Kenneth Burke would call the ‘spiritualization’ of an object. King Henry transcends the grim reality of facing a battle outnumbered by the foe by looking beyond it to the fruits of a glorious victory, almost melding his men with Saint Crispin himself and divinity. 

Churchill sees beyond the bombs and fires to a world of light and freedom if Britain is victorious and to a world of prolonged darkness if they fail. And Socrates looks beyond the practice of speech-writing to principles of divinity, truth, and divine love. The ‘broader view’ which leaders provide is the ability to see the particular instances of daily life ‘in terms of’ something greater, and this greater perspective then infuses the particular actions with meaning.

So it is with a community: In order for these ‘consequences of combined action’ to be a vivid and sustainable motivation for all involved, it must have a quality which transcends the differences of individual experience. They must be able to see the menial chores involved in any endeavour as more than useless labour. This can be done through what Kenneth Burke refers to as ‘dialectical transcendence.’

Dialectical Transcendence

As Burke writes in “I, Eye, Aye: Emerson’s Early Essay on ‘Nature’: Thoughts on the Machinery of Transcendence,” transcending is “the building of a terministic bridge whereby one realm is transcended by being viewed in terms of a realm ‘beyond’ it” (877), and “insofar as things here and now are treated in terms of a ‘beyond’, they thereby become infused or inspirited by the addition of a new or further dimension” (880). This can be done by ascending from “particular to general” (881). For example, ‘sweeping the floor’ can be generalized to ‘menial chores’ which again (depending on the context) can be generalized to ‘blood, sweat, and tears’ which are particular manifestations of ‘diligence’, ‘unfailing dedication to the cause’, or ‘service to God’. Burke claims, “When we arrive at this stage, the over-all term-of-terms or title-of-titles is so comprehensive it is simultaneously nowhere and everywhere” (881). If we see ‘service to God’ as this term-of-terms, all the lower levels of ‘blood, sweat, and tears’, ‘menial chores’, and ‘sweeping the floor’ are suddenly inspirited with the a divine touch. This may not change the nature of the physical act itself, but it changes the meaning of the act. This Upward and Downward way form what Kenneth Burke called “dialectical pyramids” (“Rhetoric – Old and New” 204). Such transcendence can serve as a powerful centripetal force for the community to keep the ambitions, desires, and efforts of the individuals centred in a common purpose.

Let us again take as an example Winston Churchill and his speech “Their Finest Hour” from June 18, 1940. Churchill had replaced Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister just a month before. France had been conquered by Hitler’s forces, and he had to prepare Britain for what would be years of bombings, battles, and suffering. Look at how he helps them ‘transcend’ the difficulties of the moment by creating a vision of two possible futures:

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."
 

In this passage he does not provide the least abstract elements of realities of the Battle of Britain, but the people will supply that themselves with their individual experiences of ‘blood, sweat, and tears.’ However, he provides them a greater reference to give those experiences meaning. They are all a part of the effort of “standing up to Hitler” which again will cause Hitler to “lose the war,” and that will mean “all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.” The verbal pyramid he creates would look something like Figure 1.

Figure 1

In this pyramid all the efforts are subordinated to the God-term “broad, sunlit uplands” which stand for a bright future, and the terms on all the lower levels of the pyramid become infused with that meaning. You also have a second verbal pyramid developed, which shows the potential for a darker future. Here, inner strife, giving in to personal weakness, or seeking peace with Hitler are a part of Britain ‘failing.’ If ‘we (the British people) fail’ that leads to the world (defined as the US and ‘all that we have known and cared for’) sinking into ‘a new Dark Age,’ which would be the negative God-term of that verbal pyramid, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Churchill then takes us to the bright future after a British victory and views the war effort retrospectively as “their finest hour,” viewing the present from the perspective of the future beyond. Hitler believed that the divisiveness of a democracy would be Britain’s fatal weakness against the efficient, totalitarian war machine, but by Churchill’s leadership a formerly divided people (Conservatives against Labour) was able to gather under one banner and form an unyielding resistance which changed the tide of the war. The British were able to see beyond ‘working class’ and ‘leisure class’ to unite in their struggle for a future of ‘broad, sunlit uplands.’

Capturing the Vision in the Workplace

Ok, so now you know what you need to do if you ever get a chance to lead a country against a Nazi invasion. How does this translate into everyday life, into a work life team situation? Well, you may not be responsible for the future of the free world, but in a community both action and inaction have consequences. Think of a scenario where your team is supposed to be working on a project, but the individual contributions are late, sloppy, and everyone is just trying to get by with doing as little as possible. The deadline for the project is coming up. What do you do? Now you could crack the whip and threaten to report people or have them fired, but, as Cialdini notes, that is both demeaning and demoralizing. It would be more fruitful to ask yourself why these people are contributing so little to what should be a common cause. Do they actually see themselves as part of a community or are they only loosely connected by circumstance? This is where you can use dialectical transcendence. In a meeting you could lead a discussion asking how what you are doing individually connects together. That would lead you one step up showing what the individual efforts do together. Moving further up you can ask “why is it important that we get this done? What does it lead to? What is it a part of? What are the consequences if we do not contribute?” Try to lead the discussion towards a vision containing the meaning of the work and workplace which is vivid and compelling to every member of your team. Once you have been able to articulate the vision you can ask, “where are we now in terms of getting there?” letting them view current efforts in terms of the goal beyond. Then ask, “How do we get from here to there?” inviting them to participate in making plans and commitments to achieve a common endeavor; you are inviting them make a physical bridge to follow the terministic one. If their individual tasks are linked clearly enough to a desirable and shared vision they are likely to be more motivated to work towards its fulfillment. In “Rhetoric – Old and New,” Burke claims that “a rhetorical structure is most persuasive when it possesses full dialectical symmetry – or, otherwise put, dialectical symmetry is at once the perfecting and transcending of rhetoric” (204). In other words, the rhetorical structure will be most effective if there are clear steps and connections between the transcendent purpose and the particular actions of the individuals in the group

In Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games, Mitt Romney describes the task of leadership as “creating a vision of higher purpose and . . . offering challenges beyond normal expectations” (xix). He writes, “Our task was to identify a defining vision, communicate that in a compelling way, and provide the kind of focus that reinforces that vision as a living, breathing thing, not just lip service. And if we were to succeed, it would be because of the commitment to that vision by the entire team, and by the community” (xix). Through your studies in the Humanities you have been able to study many ‘visions of higher purpose,’ and you are acquiring the language to identify and communicate them in compelling ways.

If You Don’t Shape It, Someone Else Will

Journeys of dialectical transcendence can be found almost anywhere in human communication. In “Rhetoric – Old and New” Kenneth Burke claims that “we are continually encountering fragmentary variants of them” (204). This is because “the machinery of language is so made that things are necessarily placed in terms of a range broader than the terms for those things themselves. And thereby, even in the toughest or tiniest of terminologies . . . we consider things in terms of a broader scope than the terms for those particular things themselves” (“Transcendence” 895). Either the human mind or the instruments for communication are so constructed that they seek for meaning beyond the simple term. It is Burke’s claim that “wherever there are traces of that process, there are the makings of Transcendence” (“Transcendence” 895). This means that even if the leader does not help the group develop the desired vision whereby individual actions are endowed with communal meaning, some form of dialectical transcendence will develop. However, the individualistic inclinations in the group may construct a ‘dialectical pyramid’ which is subversive to the unity of the group and works as a centrifugal force driving people away from the centre. Instead of ‘service of God’ the tasks may be seen in the light of ‘capitalist exploitation’ or ‘slavery’. A chronically depressed person may see every aspect of her life as evidence that ‘God hates me’. These different perspectives will not only affect the communal meaning of individual efforts. Eventually it will affect performance, and may threaten the very existence of a group. Without a strong transcendent vision the centrifugal forces of individualism may very easily tear the community apart.

Conclusion

“So, you are taking a degree in the Humanities. What are you going to do with that?” I would say, “Pretty much whatever I want to.” Except for work in academia there is no one set career track for Humanities graduates, but in a rapidly changing economy that may be an advantage. One challenge you will face wherever you go is how to motivate people to work together for shared goals, and you know how to define and articulate a vision which can focus motivation. These abilities make you valuable as a leader. As a student in the Humanities, you are obtaining a ‘depth-vision’ which displays individual daily actions against a rich backdrop of human thought and actions throughout history. You may be able to see the culture of The Declaration of Independence behind your younger brother who refuses to do as he’s told, Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ behind the way your Mom brings back her shopping cart, or the Madame Bovary in the conflict between your ideals and your reality. You are starting to develop the instincts for and sensitivity to dialectical transcendence. Throughout your studies you move through a myriad of verbal pyramids, making it clear that an object or experience can be viewed from many different perspectives and paradigms, and can be infused with many different meanings.   

These skills and talents are not only useful in funeral orations or at 4^th of July celebrations. The work of transcendence is not limited to the poet. We all need transcendence to avoid getting lost in the minutia of daily experiences and tasks, to help us to direct our individual efforts towards common goals, and to be able to see meaning in the mundane. For a community, it is essential that they are united by a shared vision of what can and should be. The vision also needs to be nurtured and promoted in order to preserve the community from the centrifugal forces of individualistic ambitions. So it was at Gettysburg, when Abraham Lincoln overlooked the field of battle in a war caused by individualistic ambitions which threatened to tear the community of the United States of America apart. He gave his audience the transcendent vision of a re-born United States of America, and nurtured the dream of a united nation of Liberty: 

It is . . . for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 

The New Media Masters in an Economy of Attention

As I mentioned in "Why Social Media Means a Social Revolution" new media has radically changed the information flow in our society. Rather than the increasingly hierarchical structures of mainstream media we are now seeing a picture that is more messy and unpredictable than the media landscape has been for decades. Aristotle said that giving power to the people was a way of giving power to those who could persuade the people. Who will gain the power to persuade the people in this new media age? What will be the common denominators of those who will able to gain a large enough audience to have considerable influence on public opinion? Here are a few of my predictions:

Seducing the Audience

Douglas Hesse, a professor in rhetoric and composition, describes how our idea of publication and readership has changed: "The world of blogs, wikis, podcasts, videos, and even old-fashioned Web pages ensures that writing will be made public—just not that it will be read. Updating familiar terms from two decades past, we’ve gone from audience addressed, through audience invoked, to audience imagined and seduced." Virtually everyone now can publish and gain a readership. Unlike the channels of mainstream media and the academic world there are no gate-keepers online to decide what will or will not get published and read. There are over 200 million blogs online today! And they are stealing large portions of the market that used to be dominated by a few media giants. We live today in what Richard Lanham calls "The Economics of Attention". If you can catch the eyes of people and get clicks and pageviews, you gain influence, chances to sell advertising, and your ideas can lead to real action. In other words, attention is the new currency! If you can get someone to read you and listen to you, you will make a difference, no matter what other media giants or traditional gatekeepers of knowledge may think of it.

So how does this new generation of writers seduce an audience to follow them? In the economy of attention this is a major question not only for writers, but for politicians, economists, educators, and virtually anyone who wants to have something to say about how this new world is going to look like. The common denominator is "you have to make them want what you have". The first thing that will go in such an economy is circumscribed readerships. Newspapers, television stations, and writers will meet increasing competition for attention, and people will get used to shopping around much more. Even the largest actors will not be able to simply rely on the same old readers and audience that they have had for a long time.

Burke's Theory of Literary Form

Kenneth Burke defined literary form as the arousing and fulfilling of expectations. We all know this from fiction books. If the cover and title doesn't get you, what is the chance you'll even pick it up? If the first chapter doesn't get you, why would you want to keep reading? The title and cover arouses expectations for the content in the book. If those expectations are not fulfilled we often feel cheated or snubbed. Richard Lanham refers to this as "making attention structures from the stuff of language". There can be thousands of methods to accomplish this, visual design, music, slogans, humor, the list goes on. However, the premise is the same: There has to be a promise at the beginning that there is something you want at the end of the road, a taste to wet your appetite, a glimpse to awaken your imagination. Professional authors know this very well. Unless the reader is persuaded to in some way identify with the authors views, narrative and characters, the text will be lifeless to the reader.

Give the People What They Want

Burke's literary form answers the question of how to communicate powerfully, yet in the end it is the form and not by itself all the content of communication. A writer may be brilliant at catching our attention and keeping it riveted throughout a book, but we still feel empty after we have finished the book. This really brings us to the question, what do people want? Entertainment industry have been obsessed with this forever, and the easy answer would be to play on the basest desires of mankind: sex, violence, and cheap pleasures. The first years of the Internet was witness of this approach, with pornography quickly becoming the number one online activity. However, as the Internet has evolved we have witnessed how the full range of human desires and needs have opened new areas of discourse and influence. Social networking has now far surpassed pornography as the leading online activity, showing that human is more of a social creature than a sexual one. Another area that has exploded is genealogy, which has seen an unpresedented growth. What is it that makes people want to know about their ancestors? What human need does it fulfill? It seems clear to me that simply appealing to base needs will not do in the long run.

I don't know who the masters and champions of this new media world will be. Millions are currently contending for our attention to have a say in the creation of tomorrows trends, movements, and opinions. What I can say is that these channels or people will have some things in common

1. They must know what people really want

2. They must have ability to communicate effectively to convice people that they can help them to get it

The following discussion is long, but I recommend it for any who has the time

The Economics of Attention by design mind

Rhetorical Pressure and Moral Will

We are currently living in deficient democracies. For democratic rule depends on an informed public who have the ability to be heard in the public discussion.

In “Introduction to Rhetorical Theory” Hauser writes that public discussion forms public judgment, and the quality of this discussion “depends on the conditions under which it takes place.” (88) Hauser mentions some of the conditions necessary for a good public discourse: “right to participate”, “access to relevant information”, “access to relevant media of dissemination so that they [citizens] can share their point of view with others in the public”, and “right of free speech.” (90) Whenever any of these are lacking it undermines good public judgment and (by implication) poses a threat to democracy.

Except for freedom of speech, all the conditions mentioned above are controlled mainly by the media. Though a citizen may want to participate in the public discourse, he is not likely to be heard unless he is granted access to relevant media of dissemination, and the media organizations often have the privilege to decide which information is relevant for their audience and how that information is presented.

Mass media is arguably one of the strongest “social forces” of modern society. There is a real danger that such forces could deceive a people to identify themselves with principles, parties and social movements that they ultimately do not have joint interests with. As Burke remarks in “Linguistic Approach to Problems in Education”, “In practice, democratic states move toward a condition of partial tyranny to the extent that the channels of expression are not equally available to all factions in important public issues. Thus we see democracy being threatened by the rise of the enormous ‘policy-making’ mass media that exert great rhetorical pressure upon their readers without at the same time teaching them how to discount such devices; and nothing less than very thorough training in the discounting of rhetorical persuasiveness can make a citizenry truly free.” (285)

Burke claims that a citizenry which has not been "thoroughly trained in the discounting of rhetorical devices" is in some ways enslaved. Clearly such a citizen will not be able to achieve enough autonomy from social forces to render him capable of reacting back on those forces effectively. Such training would contribute to restore the balance upset by the rise of ‘policy-making’ mass media and make citizens able to detect and hopefully avoid manipulation.

A stable democracy needs citizens who are able to distance themselves from these influences, question them to see what they are doing, and make a conscious decision to act with or react against those influences with intelligence and power. I believe that in order to become such a people we need to be learned in the intelligence of persuasion: rhetoric and rhetorical criticism.

As Professor Gary Layne Hatch writes, "those who understand the power of language to shape and respond to significant moments in time can gain some power over their circumstances and expand their individual freedom and influence. They become agents [no pun intended] - those who act - rather than those who are acted upon." Rhetorical criticism is how we can pause and negate some of the "bullets of influence" that fly at us all the time, and by using rhetoric we can fight back against those influences that are harmful. 
I believe we need to raise more awareness and help people be more educated about persuasion and democratic participation. Otherwise we may as well let a handful of powerful people rule us, since that is in effect the same experience we have as non-participating citizens. Hatch comments, "For many people, life is motion rather than action. Things happen to them that seem beyond their control. They are caught up in the flow of time and seem to be victims of circumstance."

Democracy is a gift that should be a cherished and living part of our societies. As Senator Smith says in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Liberty is too precious a thing to be buried in books."

Because It's Said A Lot: Mass Media and Mass Manipulation

We live in a world of gossip. What do I mean by that? I mean that most of the information we get is based on second-hand knowledge. Just today I have read about laws in China, military information in Afghanistan, the water scandal in Northern Ireland, all of which I have no first-hand knowledge about. All of this information, like gossip, is mediated. Information virtually never passes through a medium without that medium changing the information in some way. Even in live video coverage there is mediation, by selecting what is covered, camera angle, and how the coverage is introduced.

In such situations we tend to side with "conventional wisdom". Knowledge agreed upon by the majority of "informed" voices. For most of us those voices come from mass media. In the video below John Stewart succinctly describes the creation and result such "conventional wisdom" can have on an electorate, such as in 2004.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Talking Points
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

So politicians know that they have limited media coverage, and if they can flood that coverage with talking points and easily recognizable key words, people may accept it as the conventional wisdom since that is what they get to hear the most. That's hardly a secret. Ad agencies do it all the time with their brands, governments do it with their policies, I even do it with my web page so that google will make me more prominent on their search engine (Oh, btw. intelligence of persuasion, democracy, society, rhetoric). But what impact does this have on the public discourse and individual opinions?

Talking points and key words are of necessity reductive, catchy, and represent the dumbing down of a discourse. They simplify complicated issues to a slogan, and reduce intense debates to a shout. When a politician is more concerned about pounding us with talking points than actually discussing a problem intelligently there is no room for compromise and mutual understanding, which is the very basis of a democratic society.

Apart from this, such "jack-hammering" of talking points creates the effect of bullying. A 1955 study of social psychology supervised by Salomon E. Asch discovered some disturbing facts about the pressure of conformity. Eight persons were brought into a room for an experiment. Seven had been told to advocate the same wrong answer every time and one had been told that all eight were being tested for perceptive skills. The participants were shown different objects and asked questions like "which line is longer?" and "which ball is white and which is black". Every participant would utter their opinion after each other according to where they were sitting in the circle. For the first few questions the eighth individual answered according to his own perception, but by the fourth question he was getting unsure and frustrated. Did the rest really see things so differently from him? Could they all be wrong each time? From then on the eighth participant answered the same answer as the rest of the group. He even said a white ball was black and that a black ball was white.

A full summary of the study can be found here:
http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/0155060678_rathus/ps/ps18.html

As a conclusion to the study, Professor Asch wrote:
"Life in society requires consensus as an indispensable condition. But consensus, to be productive, requires that each individual contribute independently out of his experience and insight. When consensus comes under the dominance of conformity, the social process is polluted and the individual at the same time surrenders the powers on which his functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends. That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern."

There is a real danger that we as individuals will allow ourselves to conform to views, values and opinions that are neither personal, factual, or moral. Just like the participant in the study we may cave in to the pressure of conformity. Ask yourself, next time you are watching a movie, a political ad, or the news: "Do I agree with this representation of the world? What values is this movie promulgating as good and acceptable? What evidence does this person have for that claim? How is what this person is saying making me feel?"

In asking these questions we may very well choose to agree with what is being presented to us, but the difference is that we then make a moral choice rather than just taking the default option.

Mission statement

“By making the individual both the means and the end of democracy, [society] committed itself to investing its energies into creating individuals capable of possessing a moral will that achieves enough autonomy from dominant social forces that it is capable of reacting back on those forces with intelligence and power.”
John Dewey

From the outset, the premise of democracy has been the rule of the majority. Yet public opinion is volatile and vulnerable. Aristotle said, giving power to the people was a way of giving power to the ones who could persuade the people. This concern has been validated throughout the history of democracy. Demagogues can manipulate and inflame public opinion by playing on the very basest attributes of human nature, until the people act like a mob and willingly throw out the foundations of liberty and freedom. Many democratic societies have, like Germany in the 1930s, voted themselves out of power.

It is essential for the stability of any democratic society that there are individuals within that society who are able to distance themselves from the influence of dominant social forces, to question them and, if necessary, to react back on those forces with "intelligence and power". Thus they can stem the flow of public opinion when it would otherwise propel the people off the edge of a cliff.

Democracy works not by coercion but persuasion. Therefore it is crucial for a democratic citizen to seek and gain what I have called 'the intelligence of persuasion' in order to both recognize persuasive influences in society and, when necessary, be able to persuade others to reject those influences.

This web page is dedicated to learning and teaching the intelligence of persuasion in order to build a more democratic society.