In On the Study Methods of Our Time, G. Vico intrigued me with his idea of eloquence. This was echoed by Alexander Bain in his English Composition and Rhetoric. I’d like to use this journal entry to analyze their mutual concept of the means of persuasion through eloquence.
Vico’s interpretation of this idea is more wordy: “Therefore, the soul must be enticed by corporeal images and impelled to love; for once it loves, it is easily taight to believe’ once it believes and loves, the fire of passion must be infused into it so as to break its inertia and force it to will. Unless the speaker can compass these three things, he has not achieved the effect of persuasion; he has been powerless to convince” (p. 38). In short paraphrase, Vico says that persuasion requires these three things in the audience, in this order: 1) interest, 2) belief, and 3) passion.
Bain uses different words to describe the same thing. Using rhetoric effectively, he states, “there are three principle ends, — to inform, to persuade, to please” (p.875). He calls these three “the Understanding, the Will, and the Feelings” (p.875). I prefer this description, as it provides a model to follow, further elaborating on the three heads of rhetoric.
I believe that by following the concept that Vico and Bain provide, a writer or speaker will be able to persuade their audience and avoid that “oratorical fire which, as soon as [it is] extinguished cause [the audience] to revert to his original disposition” (p.38).
I fully agree with Vico and Bain’s interpretations on persuasion. However, something that stood out to me about Vico’s discussion had to do with the way he said “Rulers should see to it not only that their actions are true and in conformity with justice, but also that they seem to be so” (36). This part about the “seem” really made me think about politicians and the way they work so hard to persuade the public everyday and often times succeed. I truly believe that a speaker should be a believer in the cause they are trying to fight for and that they should have genuine and good reasons for doing so, but human events has been as effectively steered by liars as it has been by people with nothing but the best of intentions. So, does a speaker really need to have that truth within them and to genuinely believe in their cause, or do they just have to be a very good actor?
I feel that if politics has shown us anything it is that the way in which you speak and present yourself has much more impact than what you are actually trying to say. Thus I think that no a speaker does not have to have truth on his side. In a perfect world, yes he should, but in reality no. Just consider our conversation in class a few weeks ago in which Dr. Devries talked about the debate between Nixon and Kennedy and how those who saw the debate thought Kennedy won, but those who listened on the radio thought Nixon did. Or look at our current politics. Political leanings aside, if Bush and Obama had gone head to head, Obama would have won I believe based on his oratal skills alone. He just puts forth a much better front than Bush will ever be able to do.
That same phrase caught my eye, as well. It seemed to be somewhat paradoxical in how it was worded.. the “but also” should really be “or”. In my opinion, a speaker only needs to believe that they are in the right during the time that they are speaking. In order to communicate and infuse passion in their audience they need not to be lying as they do so. I’d say definitely being a very good actor is a qualifier for a politician or CEO. I’m sure there will be plenty of times in my future when I’ll need to rely on my acting skills rather than my passion for the subject matter as I teach.