h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm curious how the Toastmasters look at rhetoric. Here is the entry from my Microsoft Bookshelf:

QUOTE

1.a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2.Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3.a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric. b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4.Verbal communication; discourse.

Usage Note: The word rhetoric was once primarily the name of an important branch of philosophy and an art deserving of serious study. In recent years the word has come to be used chiefly in a pejorative sense to refer to inflated language and pomposity. Deprecation of the term may result from a modern linguistic puritanism, which holds that language used in legitimate persuasion should be plain and free of artifice—itself a tendentious rhetorical doctrine, though not often recognized as such. But many writers still prefer to bear in mind the traditional meanings of the word. Thus, according to the newer use of the term, the phrase empty rhetoric, as in The politicians talk about solutions, but they usually offer only empty rhetoric, might be construed as redundant. But in fact only 35 percent of the Usage Panel judged this example to be redundant. Presumably, it can be maintained that rhetoric can be other than empty.

END QUOTE

Personally, I consider many public speakers to be long on rhetoric (as in definition 3b above) and short on content. Examples include both President Clinton and the current President Bush. Speakers I have more respect for would be Prime Minister Tony Blair and Sen. John McCain, both of whom seem to be trying to appeal to my intelligence rather than to my emotion. I may not agree with Mrs. Blair or McCain, but at least I am not usually suspiciously irritated.

Woops, make that last line "Mister Blair or McCain", not "Mrs. Blair or McCain" ... a bad attempt to abbreviate "misters"

Hi Steve,

The focus of Toastmasters is not so much on content as on preparation, organisation and delivery, so there is no guidance within Toastmasters on the delivery of an insincere, rhetorical speech. It certainly does not attempt to turn people into insincere speekers, but what it does do is to ensure that they get their message across to the audience.

The use of rhetoric, in its strict sense, within a speech is however a powerful tool and speakers will be encouraged to use rhetorical techniques that help to increase the impact of their speeches.

Cheers,

Woodpigeon

Woodpigeon -

OK, that's reasonable, I think. I guess my basic problem is a dislike of speech making in general. I'll just read the summary in the paper the next day, and avoid the feeling of being manipulated by (most) speakers.

This does remind me of two great videos I saw, entries in a local contest for extreme shorts, two or three minutes long I think. The filmmaker had taped the State of the Union speeches by Pres. Clinton and the current Pres. Bush.

For Clinton, he edited out everything except numbers. So it was a series of clips with Clinton saying " ... twelve million ...", " ... a hundered and eight ...", " ... one ...", and I think the finale was " ... zero!" His demeanor while saying these numbers ranged everywhere - beaming, intense, serious, etc., and with the appropriate body language. It was hilarious.

For Bush (the second), the filmmaker edited everything except the pauses. So there were no words at all, just W. peering off in various directions, squinting, staring, glancing. Almost as hilarious as the Clinton one, if more one dimensional.

Based on audience vote, one of these (the Clinton one I think) won a prize, and well-deserved IMHO.

I have to say, your comment is very interesting and has got me thinking. I would love to have seen the documentary you spoke about.

To be simplistic about it, speechmaking (and indeed rhetoric) is the art of getting your message across with the purpose of influencing or persuading others. Sometimes the message is well founded, and sometimes not so well founded, where the arguments tend to be manipulative rather than factual. I don't think that there is anything bad about using rhetoric to construct a speech, because as well as the cases that you describe (insincere speeches being delivered well), all too often there is a corollary (sincere, important speeches being delivered badly). So we need to look at speechmaking as something neutral - like an axe, that can be used for good and bad. All of us need to learn such skills because if we don't, we won't get our messages across properly with the effect that we will be unable to achieve very much through others. It's pretty important when you think about it.

HOWEVER,

There is a reverse and complementary skill needed. And that is one of criticism - being able to read speeches for the plethora of tricks that speakers can use, particularly when their message doesn't quite add up. Logical fallacies, changing the subject, mis-representing, using questionable sources and questionable facts etc, etc, etc. People fall foul to this every single day. Toastmasters doesn't really cover this because the aim is to boost peoples confidence in the skill of speaking. I think though, as people get more comfortable with speaking, the second skill of content evaluation and criticism should take more precedence.

You make a good point, if I read you properly.

Woodpigeon

Woodpigeon -

First, the "documentaries" about Clinton and W. (really just short novelty videos) were entries in the summer 2003 contest at this microcinema:

www.aurorapictureshow.com

I think they said they would offer a DVD with several dozen entries, including the winners, if you are that interested.

On the topic of critical review of speakers, I could not agree more. In fact, I have gotten pretty cynical about people who want to speak to a group. Virtually all of them (politicians, televangelists, salesmen, corporate executives, etc.) are selling something that is a lot more important to them than to the audience. In fact, the value to the audience is typically negative.

I am an engineer who used to attend technical conferences until it became obvious that nobody would say anything with any significance, since their companies had them all under secrecy agreements (so did my company). So the talks are simple rehashes of old news, the only apparent point being to have their names on a conference agenda. The speakers' version of "vanity publishing".

It does remind me of another story Its been a long time, but I think it was in the book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sacks, an M.D. specializing in mental disorders. (Going from memory here) He described a group of patients afflicted with aphasia, "Partial or total loss of the ability to articulate ideas or comprehend spoken or written language, resulting from damage to the brain caused by injury or disease." Apparently, though, they have increased ability to infer meaning from body language, etc. They were watching a televised speech by a US president (Nixon, maybe) and were all laughing. When asked, they said they were not sure what he was talking about, but he was certainly lying. Here are some critics for you.

My wife found the section in the Olvier Sacks book I mentioned. The speaker was not Nixon, but Reagan. The old charmer, with his Hollywood chops, wasn't selling to the folks with aphasia.

Yes, that makes sense, although Nixon would have fitted the bill as well! A journalist on the radio was reviewing RR's presidency a few days ago, and he spoke about a time when he was following Reagan on a tour of a number of places somewhere in the US. In each place Reagan delivered a speech, and each time it was exactly the same speech, same intonation in the same places, same use of words - carbon copy duplicates each time. And each time it seemed as if it came from deep within Reagan's heart. The audience reaction was overwhelming. I think Clinton had very similar qualities. So, case in point!

Woodpigeon

Yes, the term "Clintonesque" seems to have become a staple for people commenting on the "up is down" pronouncements from Washington. "Sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made."