Nan desu ka? (What is that?)

The additional concept I chose was how language affects the way we see the world. Not only is it a fascinating concept, but one that I am very familiar with. The language that you learn directly translates into thought. I remember when I moved back to Hawaii at the age of 9, there was a huge difference in the way they spoke from what I had learned. Terminology, verbiage, and sometimes even the perceived meanings of words were completely foreign to me. Due to the cultural differences, despite the fact that we were all speaking English, their slang was so different from mine that it led to many misunderstandings.

 

In high school I became semi-fluent in Japanese. As the text suggests using French, the language I was speaking caused me to focus on different things like tone and gestures. When speaking the language, I also reached a point where I would find myself thinking in it. An amazing thing is how much of our language is based on or contains parts of other languages. It definitely makes you think about how unique our view of the world might be.

Battle of the Sexes

Men and women definitely use language differently. So much so that many languages have gender based usages of different words or different words depending on whether or not men are speaking to men, women are speaking to women, or male and female interactions. While English has evolved to be a much more gender neutral language, we still have a few words that are gender specific in use.

 

Statistically it has also been proven that women use up to four times as many words as men throughout the day. When you consider how amazing it is that you can have a man and a woman telling the same story, and the verbiage, expressions, and even gestures will differ considerably. Women tend to be much more interactive when speaking to each other than men. This tends to make women better listeners as well.

 

The differences between the way that men and women use language really isn’t that surprising when we consider many of the other differences between the sexes. I personally think that the differences and the study of them can help us to enhance our understanding of our language, society, and culture.

First Impressions

I’m not going to say that it is impossible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them. However, it is extremely difficult. “You never get a second chance to make a first impression” is probably one of the most true statements out there when it comes to perception. Short of being completely unaware of someone, even if we have no intention of interacting with someone, we make judgments about people we see based on their appearance. We evaluate things about people like clothing, posture, and hygiene. Even if we don’t actually take the time to talk to them, we still take stock of these things if for no other reason than to evaluate our environment.

 

When it comes to taking those observations and making judgments about people based on them, it can sometimes be very hard to be objective. Just because someone is dressed poorly, smells like they haven’t bathed in a week, and stands loosely with their shoulders slumped, doesn’t necessarily mean that aren’t some well-educated and successful business person. But very few of us would draw that conclusion based on that kind of appearance.

 

To make more fair judgments I think it is important to try not to categorize people until you actually take the time to get to know them. Not every bum is poor and lazy, not everyone wearing a power suit is eloquent and confident. One thing that has always helped me reserve my judgments is to pretend that everyone I meet is a spy and has carefully arranged their appearance. It is my job to see past the surface before coming to conclusions about them.

Social Rhetoric

            I found the social functions of rhetoric to be extremely interesting. I also think that in some ways they may be a little controversial, specifically the functions of testing ideas and shaping knowledge. Before I get to those, I would like to cover the other functions.

            If a speaker meets his obligation to his audience by researching his topic and presenting facts, then the sharing of that information is beneficial. However, that doesn’t always happen. This is where the persuading of others comes in. The old adage “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story” can apply here. Effective speakers can convince audiences of falsehoods as well as truths. This possibility puts a little bit of an onus back onto the audience to check the validity of a speaker’s arguments.

            At this point I come to testing ideas and shaping knowledge. While good speakers will generally reject ideas that are illogical or can’t be supported with facts, some speakers will shape the facts to support ideas. This is where the audience must step in and demand well-reasoned and well supported arguments. The double edged sword that is the shaping of knowledge is where one must tread lightly. Truth cannot be dependent on anything. Consensus cannot be used to determine facts. While rhetoric can be used to disseminate facts, it cannot be used to produce them, in any sense.

            Thus I enter the dangerous areas of community building and power distribution. A community that is built on a foundation of strong facts, that support their system of beliefs, will have real power in it citizenry to be distributed. Conversely, a community whose ideas and beliefs are built on poorly reasoned ideas based on half-truths and lies will eventually fall apart.

Tell me no lies.

          Considering a well-known speaker I would prefer to avoid politics. Unfortunately, the most well-known speakers in this day and age are politicians. The nice thing about that is that if one were to look at our politicians one would find a very diverse group that have varying levels of education and backgrounds. Even many of the “career” politicians were in the past things such as business owners, teachers, lawyers, and doctors. Depending on which one you are listening to, and what topic they are speaking on, you may have differing strengths in characteristics.

          In the political arena I believe that credibility and power carry the most weight when swaying the voting populace to believe that you are the right person for the job. Experience, and trustworthiness are important, but you also have to present yourself as strong enough to actually accomplish and follow through on the promises you make. If you were to look at Congress and the current administration, you could see that neither side has had the strength or fortitude to follow through on campaign promises that they have been making for the past few years. While having their power balanced is something that has always been important in this country. Their standstill has meant that the status quo hasn’t changed.

          For them to build ethos in these areas it is important that they find ways to accomplish things that are for the good of the American people. If the economy and national debt are major concerns for the people, then they need to find ways to grow the economy and shrink the debt. Currently their power is based more on coercive power. While some may, I personally don’t trust people who hold threats over my head. Shifting to one of the other power bases, could increase trustworthiness. Placing experts in key cabinet positions, would also help their credibility and overall character.

The Voice

Of course I have been influenced by a speaker. I would even go so far as to say anyone who hasn’t been influenced by a speaker hasn’t had any contact with another human being. Whether it be family, teachers, clergy, co-workers, politicians, motivational speakers, or friends, we have all been influenced by things we have been told. We’ve shaped our opinions, biases, and beliefs on what people have told us and how those things coincide with our own perception.

 

            One of the better speakers I’ve heard was Colin Powell. His ability to relate his experiences and knowledge in ways that made me feel like I lived them myself made his communication very memorable. When he speaks it doesn’t sound rehearsed, but rather that he’s imparting a lifetime of knowledge and experience in way that’s tailored to suit me as the individual rather than the crowd around me.

 

            I’ve heard many bad speakers. One that stands out for me was Al Gore. It was in many respects the exact opposite of Colin Powell. So much so that only a short time in I couldn’t wait for him to be finished. I don’t remember much about his message only that I felt as though I was listening to a used car salesman trying to sell me a lemon and convince me that it was brand new luxury car. There was no logic, rhythm, or emotion to what he said. It seemed like he was reading a prepared statement and wanted to get away from the podium as much as I wanted to get away from the auditorium.

Know what I mean?

          The concept of defining communication was very interesting to me. As the text discusses it I get to ask myself how much definitions affect how we view the world. As there are many ways to define communication, I found that the idea of quantifying the definitions by adding descriptors, i.e. verbal or written communication, helps the listener or reader to have a better idea of what the speaker or writer is referring to.

 

Taking the idea to the next step I see how important it is for us to have a strong vocabulary in the language that we are communicating in. It helps us to understand what is being said, as well as allow us to better respond to what is being said. I find that many times, misunderstandings stem from a lack of vocabulary. While many words have clearly defined meanings and concepts, there are also very many, especially in English, that aren’t as clear.

 

          We’ve already covered how important early rhetorical scholars believed non-verbal cues were in communication. Adding the proper use of context and making points and statements as well defined for the listener as possible are also important. Lastly is knowing the limitations of the audience, and communicating in ways that they can understand that leave as little doubt as possible in the mind of the audience as to what your message or point is.

Game On!

        Communication is a patterned interaction when two things occur, first is that both participants must be able to think. Second is that both parties have to be playing the “game”. When considering it from the pragmatic perspective, the communication between parties must involve both parties having an objective. That objective doesn’t necessarily need to be self-serving, but the approach is one that leads to gaining something from the communication.

 

        In most cases, when we communicate with others we are looking for information. Whether it is just simple knowledge about the other party, or it being to gain insight that might allow us to gain something from them, information is exchanged. It’s like a game in that one party may make statements or ask questions that will prompt the other to give a direct response or answer, or in turn to refuse to respond or answer. Either way, the prompter will gain knowledge about the other party. Like a game, there is a back and forth where the players position themselves to reach their desired outcome.

 

        Unlike a game however, there will not always be a clear winner or loser. In an even exchange, both parties will come away with their desired goal reached, both considering the win theirs. In some cases both parties will walk away without reaching their desired goal, and feel that it could have gone better, or rethinking their strategies for future communications. Sometimes, one or both parties come away having only completed one goal, or gotten half of an answer. They may rethink what the best possible outcome was for them and reassess the goal realizing that they got the best that could have been expected.

 

        In any case, communication can definitely look like a game, and most of us treat it as such, even if we’re very selective about when and how we play and with whom. Even as I write this blog, I do so hoping to communicate information, insight, as well as achieve a passing grade in this class. Will I win? Will you?

World Building

          Let’s consider the idea of building a world through communication for a moment. The world that the text speaks of is perspective based. If we take the broadest definition of communication, one thing interacting with another, then our entire view of the world is based solely on communication. It takes into account the use of all the senses available to us, and the limitations of those senses. We learn about everything around us, whether or not it can speak, by using our senses to observe it.

 

          If we shorten the scope to limit ourselves to human to human communication, we begin to build a society. As we share what our senses are telling us with others, and they the same, we gain new perspective and even understanding of the world we build. We then develop a culture based on like beliefs, or perception. One of the core ideas that the culture here in America was founded upon was freedom.

 

          Even in its founding, the leaders of this country and in our culture, we still had to develop a better understanding of what freedom meant. Hence the end of slavery, the civil rights movement, and even today we continue to work towards giving everyone an equal opportunity to pursue happiness and find success, however one may define it.

 

Call it what you want, an apple is still an apple.

        Overall the history of rhetoric and rhetorical science was interesting. What stood out most to me was in the way that the periods were divided. Despite the overwhelming use of rhetoric for religious purposes through the medieval period, it was seen as stagnant. But it seems to me that rhetorical science was one of the few sciences that flourished. While it was mostly guided by the church, there was no end to the study, testing, and ultimately, the use of what had already been theorized about by the Greeks, but also in the development and testing of new methods by different religious organizations. What we lack is publication of the methods because their uses were so guarded by the organizations that used them.

 

        When I look at the climate of the world today, I see that the use of rhetoric is more important than ever. The number of different ways that we can communicate with each other makes it so much easier to get the message out. We’ve gone from spoken word, to written word, to digital words. Even now I am able to communicate my thoughts and ideas to millions of people with just a few keystrokes. That doesn’t necessarily make what I say the truth though. If I wanted to I could post online a picture of an apple, and call it an orange. I’m sure I could come up with all kinds of philosophical statements relating to the validity of my claim. Like a commercial I recently saw said “Everything on the internet is true”, people who believe that would be easily led to my way of thinking and start calling apples oranges. Despite my assertions though, the apple is still an apple.

 

Communication has existed since the first life form bumped into the second one. While rhetoric has become more sophisticated and elegant, in some ways it has also become more simple and dangerous. The right words in the wrong hands can be just as dangerous as giving loaded weapons to monkeys. Knowing the history of how rhetoric was used will hopefully help us to use communication skills and our knowledge of them more responsibly than some of our predecessors.

"Never give in"

When it comes to speakers that I admire, Winston Churchill immediately comes to mind. As a speaker and orator he used the three of Aristotle’s Appeals; ethos, pathos, and logos with great skill and effectiveness. What made him a great speaker was that his power to persuade didn’t come from just one of the Appeals, but rather the use of all three. 

Aristotle’s classification scheme works for Churchill, but isn’t fully encompassing. In some speeches he would keep his rhetoric to only two of the three Appeals. Churchill’s speeches almost invariably followed the five Cannon’s of Rhetoric. Even when speaking informally with little to no preparation he was able to come up with great and meaningful speeches that fit with his audience as well as being relevant to current events as the situation warranted.

 

I do not fancy myself as a motivational speaker. My strengths generally come from well planned, logical arguments. I can be passionate when speaking, but I generally don’t do well in passing that passion on to my audience. My persuasiveness comes from cold logic, if that isn’t sufficient to sway my audience, then I’m not going to succeed in persuading them of much.