It is crystal clear to me that men and women use different languages. Society has taught us, as babes, our "role" in the world. Baby girls are spoken to in soft, cute, delicately worded language.
Baby boys are spoken to, at least by men, in a huskier voice. The language used towards boys is more macho.
Young boys are taught that boys don't cry. Many would think this was the old way of raising boys but it is still happening. I was relaxing on the beach and a 11 or 12-year-old-boy was playing catch (with a football) with his dad. The young boy's uncles were present, as well. They had the most interesting conversations. . . well if that's what you call them. Some of the comment were: "You catch like a girl." "Get up! Your not hurt." "You bet not cry."
This is the language our young boys grow up hearing and this is the basis of the their adult life. They are encouraged to be tuff and independent, at the least. Now I can see why men have so much trouble asking for help (especially directions) because they should already know or be able to figure it out.
Our young girls are taught to use certain language. I remember hearing older ladies saying, "young ladies don't talk like that." Young girls are taught to be delicate, emotional, caring and a host of other draining tasks. Our language is rewarding in some ways but it fails to give us the respect we deserve in other areas.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
On The Prowel:You've Gotta Read This!
Yes, I have been influenced by many speakers. As I look around my apartment, I'm quickly reminded of "influential speakers."
I've been to seminars where the speakers were very well put together. They had ethos because they had good character (atleast that's what I thought). Why did I think that? They're from "who knows where." What could I possibly know about them? Silly of me. Knowledge is key.
They possessed the characteristic of pathos because they used their life circumstances, as examples. Furthermore they had the characteristic of logos because they also had a lot of knowledge about their line of work and they were very good at creating scenarios and "drawing" reasonable conclusions.
So, based on these characteristics, as I look around my apartment I am constantly remind of my "influential speakers." However, needless to say, these speakers were not only the best I've heard but they turned out to be the worse of the worst.
The talk these speakers gave and the "so called" workshops didn't pan out like they so strategically said they would. Their ethos, pathos and logos are out the window. These people get thumbs down for me because they don't give you all the information you need because if you had it your decision would by significantly different.
This is why NGC (National Grants Conference) would never get any recommendations from me. Auction Teacher would never ever ever ever get any recommendations from me. Let's see....A lot of the postings that say work at home doing surveys, etc (especially the one's posted on SJSU Campus) are a no no....GET A JOB - your better off! I wish I had more time but until next time, have a good night.
I've been to seminars where the speakers were very well put together. They had ethos because they had good character (atleast that's what I thought). Why did I think that? They're from "who knows where." What could I possibly know about them? Silly of me. Knowledge is key.
They possessed the characteristic of pathos because they used their life circumstances, as examples. Furthermore they had the characteristic of logos because they also had a lot of knowledge about their line of work and they were very good at creating scenarios and "drawing" reasonable conclusions.
So, based on these characteristics, as I look around my apartment I am constantly remind of my "influential speakers." However, needless to say, these speakers were not only the best I've heard but they turned out to be the worse of the worst.
The talk these speakers gave and the "so called" workshops didn't pan out like they so strategically said they would. Their ethos, pathos and logos are out the window. These people get thumbs down for me because they don't give you all the information you need because if you had it your decision would by significantly different.
This is why NGC (National Grants Conference) would never get any recommendations from me. Auction Teacher would never ever ever ever get any recommendations from me. Let's see....A lot of the postings that say work at home doing surveys, etc (especially the one's posted on SJSU Campus) are a no no....GET A JOB - your better off! I wish I had more time but until next time, have a good night.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Slight Twist
This chapter had a lot of great information in it. However, I liked how the chapter ended with a slight twist.
The chapter turned our attention away from putting all the ethical responsibility on public speakers. Yes, anyone who is a public speaker has the burden to be well informed and trustworthy. However, this is not always the case.
Therefore, listeners must take on an active role, not only during a public speech, but in life. We must learn to listen to everything. We must learn to listen to what is being said through the still of the air. We must learn to listen to the many signs and symbols that make up our lives. We must learn to critically think, as we listen.
The book states: "As listeners, we act irresponsibly whenever we passively accept whatever we hear or when we allow personal needs and prejudices to blind us to facts." (273)
Lastly, but not least, whatever it is that we wish to involve ourselves in - we must educate ourselves about the issues or tasks at hand. This will help us make critical and wise decisions. More importantly, our knowledge about the subject will help keep us from being lead astray.
P.S. I can vividly hear the words of my 7th grade teacher (Mr. Sumptner) say, "Be a LISTNER! Be a LISTNER!" And he literally said it twice in a row.
The chapter turned our attention away from putting all the ethical responsibility on public speakers. Yes, anyone who is a public speaker has the burden to be well informed and trustworthy. However, this is not always the case.
Therefore, listeners must take on an active role, not only during a public speech, but in life. We must learn to listen to everything. We must learn to listen to what is being said through the still of the air. We must learn to listen to the many signs and symbols that make up our lives. We must learn to critically think, as we listen.
The book states: "As listeners, we act irresponsibly whenever we passively accept whatever we hear or when we allow personal needs and prejudices to blind us to facts." (273)
Lastly, but not least, whatever it is that we wish to involve ourselves in - we must educate ourselves about the issues or tasks at hand. This will help us make critical and wise decisions. More importantly, our knowledge about the subject will help keep us from being lead astray.
P.S. I can vividly hear the words of my 7th grade teacher (Mr. Sumptner) say, "Be a LISTNER! Be a LISTNER!" And he literally said it twice in a row.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Obama's Change
Obama, according to me, is a great speaker. He wasn't as confident as a speaker in the beginning of his running, like he is now. Earlier, in the year, I found Obama to stumble in his wording. This stumbling caused me not to follow his campaign, but now all of that has changed. He has really worked diligently to improve his public speaking skills.
When Obama first started running in the election, he didn't have very much credibility. People complained that he lacked experience, he wasn't knowledgeable about foreign affairs, and that his plans about bringing the troops home or stabilizing the economy were vague.
Over the course of this presidential election, Obama has substantially increased his knowledge about the topics that Americans want resolved. Furthermore, he has demonstrated interests in the American people by addressing and proposing a resolution to the many problems America face.
Attractiveness is one reason I feel Obama is a successful speaker. At first, I wasn't familiar with Obama and this cause me not to respond to him with open arms. However, after mere-exposure, I began to listen to and like Obama's speeches. Although I am very similar to Obama, because I am African American, he was not my first choice. I chose him because he is really about "change."
Power is the most lacking skill for Obama. He is very willing and ready to give America what it wants and what it needs - "CHANGE."
I am interested in hearing what you think about Obama and how much power he has.
Ethos can be built in these areas by building intelligence, character, and goodwill.
When Obama first started running in the election, he didn't have very much credibility. People complained that he lacked experience, he wasn't knowledgeable about foreign affairs, and that his plans about bringing the troops home or stabilizing the economy were vague.
Over the course of this presidential election, Obama has substantially increased his knowledge about the topics that Americans want resolved. Furthermore, he has demonstrated interests in the American people by addressing and proposing a resolution to the many problems America face.
Attractiveness is one reason I feel Obama is a successful speaker. At first, I wasn't familiar with Obama and this cause me not to respond to him with open arms. However, after mere-exposure, I began to listen to and like Obama's speeches. Although I am very similar to Obama, because I am African American, he was not my first choice. I chose him because he is really about "change."
Power is the most lacking skill for Obama. He is very willing and ready to give America what it wants and what it needs - "CHANGE."
I am interested in hearing what you think about Obama and how much power he has.
Ethos can be built in these areas by building intelligence, character, and goodwill.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Taking Resposibility
The social constructionist model states that most of what we know and believe about the world comes to us through communication rather than through direct experience. They also said that in order to improve communication skills, we should take responsibility for the things we talk about and the way we talk about them.
This statement started me to thinking about racism, stereotyping, and things of this nature. Many people have been raised in households of poor communicators, let alone thinkers. But think about it, where did they get their logic.
From generation to generation, many cultures have been and continue to be (negatively) stereotyped. There's no need to make a list of cultures and examples because we've all heard our share. Sadly enough, bad information sticks around way longer than it should.
Which leads me to say, poor communication is like gossip. The first definition of gossip is trifling talk, esp. about other persons. I want to point out that the dictionary's definition of trifling means something trivial or insignificant, to deal with something lightly or idly, and to waste time.
Therefore, to me poor communication is a waste of my time. I've been in "short" conversations with poor communicators because a lot of the time they are talking about nothing but the same old thing. Sometimes I would like to have a deeper conversation with them, but I can't because some of the information or logic they choose to share is flawed. Unfortunately, they spend too much time talking about their flawed concept and not enough time researching what they think or wish they knew.
A gossiper likes to discuss other people's affairs, especially if their negative. Like those who hold truth to the many stereotypes of cultures, besides their own. Lack of good communication and the ability to put cultural biases aside has caused much devastation in the world.
This statement started me to thinking about racism, stereotyping, and things of this nature. Many people have been raised in households of poor communicators, let alone thinkers. But think about it, where did they get their logic.
From generation to generation, many cultures have been and continue to be (negatively) stereotyped. There's no need to make a list of cultures and examples because we've all heard our share. Sadly enough, bad information sticks around way longer than it should.
Which leads me to say, poor communication is like gossip. The first definition of gossip is trifling talk, esp. about other persons. I want to point out that the dictionary's definition of trifling means something trivial or insignificant, to deal with something lightly or idly, and to waste time.
Therefore, to me poor communication is a waste of my time. I've been in "short" conversations with poor communicators because a lot of the time they are talking about nothing but the same old thing. Sometimes I would like to have a deeper conversation with them, but I can't because some of the information or logic they choose to share is flawed. Unfortunately, they spend too much time talking about their flawed concept and not enough time researching what they think or wish they knew.
A gossiper likes to discuss other people's affairs, especially if their negative. Like those who hold truth to the many stereotypes of cultures, besides their own. Lack of good communication and the ability to put cultural biases aside has caused much devastation in the world.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Building Worlds
The social constructionist perspective believes that communication is a process whereby people in groups, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective representations of reality.
As babies we learn about the world from our family, or from whomever we were raised. As we grow and continue to learn more, we become more aware of the sets of roles and rules that guide our actions. My reality is shaped by my family. However, as we get older, we learn other people's reality. In some cases we chose to leave some aspects of our reality behind and cling to others.
Social constructionist, also, believe most of what we know and believe about the world comes to us through communication rather than through direct experience. From history books to our grandparents storytelling, we have learned about the world.
One major idea that we talk about that may not exist in other cultures, is how American women can protest their rights, be heard and eventually change the law of the land.
The one good thing about America is that, although you were raised and surrounded by your reality, you are not obligated to keep all of your reality, some of your reality, or non of your reality. In America, we have the freedom to pick and choose our reality. Our parents may not like it, but we have the ultimate responsibility of making ourselves happy and successful.
As babies we learn about the world from our family, or from whomever we were raised. As we grow and continue to learn more, we become more aware of the sets of roles and rules that guide our actions. My reality is shaped by my family. However, as we get older, we learn other people's reality. In some cases we chose to leave some aspects of our reality behind and cling to others.
Social constructionist, also, believe most of what we know and believe about the world comes to us through communication rather than through direct experience. From history books to our grandparents storytelling, we have learned about the world.
One major idea that we talk about that may not exist in other cultures, is how American women can protest their rights, be heard and eventually change the law of the land.
The one good thing about America is that, although you were raised and surrounded by your reality, you are not obligated to keep all of your reality, some of your reality, or non of your reality. In America, we have the freedom to pick and choose our reality. Our parents may not like it, but we have the ultimate responsibility of making ourselves happy and successful.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Game Time
The Pragmatic perspective on communication consits of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time (32). This communication model focuses on individual selves or on social roles and rules. This pattern focuses on the behaviors of the individuals involved.
With that being said, I think it does make sense to think of communication as a patterned interaction. There are several reasons why I believe this. For instance, if I begin a new job, I must interact with my boss. Therefore, I must learn how to communicate with he/she in order to get what I need and vice-versa, because ultimately we both want a payoff.
Teachers have to establish a communication pattern with their students. Students learn in many different ways and this forces teachers to bring a variety of teaching elements to the classroom. Last, but not least, I most definitely communicate differently with my fiance than I would my dad. I know what language to use to get what I want from both of them. And I learned how to get what I wanted because they have been continuous in their communication patterns with me. Needless to say, CHILDREN are experts!
To me, communication is like a game. It is crucial that we understand whomever we are communicating with because if we don't it could result in a very damaging relationship or non at all. Thus meaning, we need to know the rules of the person we are dealing with, if we plan on winning the relationship (game). Furthermore, it's a game because a lot of people communicate with others just to see what they can get from that person (sex, money, information/gossip, etc).
However, communication is very different from a game because ,in majority of games, there is a winner and a loser. In the game of communication everyone should strive to make it a win-win situation because there is great power in the words we speak and the gestures that we make, which can affect someone for years. To call "re-match" is not an option because hurtful words and gestures stick and can sever relationships.
With that being said, I think it does make sense to think of communication as a patterned interaction. There are several reasons why I believe this. For instance, if I begin a new job, I must interact with my boss. Therefore, I must learn how to communicate with he/she in order to get what I need and vice-versa, because ultimately we both want a payoff.
Teachers have to establish a communication pattern with their students. Students learn in many different ways and this forces teachers to bring a variety of teaching elements to the classroom. Last, but not least, I most definitely communicate differently with my fiance than I would my dad. I know what language to use to get what I want from both of them. And I learned how to get what I wanted because they have been continuous in their communication patterns with me. Needless to say, CHILDREN are experts!
To me, communication is like a game. It is crucial that we understand whomever we are communicating with because if we don't it could result in a very damaging relationship or non at all. Thus meaning, we need to know the rules of the person we are dealing with, if we plan on winning the relationship (game). Furthermore, it's a game because a lot of people communicate with others just to see what they can get from that person (sex, money, information/gossip, etc).
However, communication is very different from a game because ,in majority of games, there is a winner and a loser. In the game of communication everyone should strive to make it a win-win situation because there is great power in the words we speak and the gestures that we make, which can affect someone for years. To call "re-match" is not an option because hurtful words and gestures stick and can sever relationships.
Friday, September 5, 2008
TRUTH: hear. . .study. . .apply. . .
I am a member at Progressive Missionary Baptist Church, where Rev. Ken Williams is pastor. I admire his speaking abilities, first and foremost, because he is truly filled with the Holy Spirit. Whether we are having Bible Study, Sunday School, or are in Sunday Service, Rev. Williams' character doesn't go unnoticed. He is not only the Pastor, but he has provided the church with an atmosphere of family love.
His ability to arouse emotions (pathos) greatly depends on his character, as well. I say this because it is not himself who causes the emotions of the congregation to be aroused. It is the Holy Spirit that dwells in him that causes the flood of emotions. However, Rev. Williams' character of humbleness allows him to pray that flesh be removed from his sermon and that he be filled with the Holy Spirit, in order to edify the congregation with a message from God. The giving of oneself, so that God may be glorified is the character I seek, as well.
Not only does he utilize ethos and pathos, but he also uses logos. His knowledge of the Bible and his deep personal relationship with God brings forth a message of truth. Rev. Williams will let everyone know that Pilgrim Missionary Baptist is a Bible teaching church! And that's the way it should be. . . because too many people are receiving the wrong information in order to make them feel good. Just because we think we feel good now doesn't mean we are going to make it to Heaven. That's why I love hearing him speak because I didn't come to church to play games. I didn't just come to church to feel good. I came to be convicted by the Holy Spirit. I'm on a mission and I need to know what to do, in order to be saved and to have a deep personal relationship with God. I want to hear the truth, study the truth, and apply the truth - that I may be saved.
The personal qualities that I possess that make me persuasive are ethos, pathos and logos. My character is pleasing, friendly, and kind. I show no partiality. I am able to arouse the emotions of people because of my speaking style. God has given me a gift - the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when I have a great passion for a topic I'm speaking about you will be able to tell because of my overall appearance. To be honest with you - you wouldn't be able to distinguish if I didn't care for the topic, as well. And the only reason you wouldn't know this is because I would use wording and logic to support my presentation.
His ability to arouse emotions (pathos) greatly depends on his character, as well. I say this because it is not himself who causes the emotions of the congregation to be aroused. It is the Holy Spirit that dwells in him that causes the flood of emotions. However, Rev. Williams' character of humbleness allows him to pray that flesh be removed from his sermon and that he be filled with the Holy Spirit, in order to edify the congregation with a message from God. The giving of oneself, so that God may be glorified is the character I seek, as well.
Not only does he utilize ethos and pathos, but he also uses logos. His knowledge of the Bible and his deep personal relationship with God brings forth a message of truth. Rev. Williams will let everyone know that Pilgrim Missionary Baptist is a Bible teaching church! And that's the way it should be. . . because too many people are receiving the wrong information in order to make them feel good. Just because we think we feel good now doesn't mean we are going to make it to Heaven. That's why I love hearing him speak because I didn't come to church to play games. I didn't just come to church to feel good. I came to be convicted by the Holy Spirit. I'm on a mission and I need to know what to do, in order to be saved and to have a deep personal relationship with God. I want to hear the truth, study the truth, and apply the truth - that I may be saved.
The personal qualities that I possess that make me persuasive are ethos, pathos and logos. My character is pleasing, friendly, and kind. I show no partiality. I am able to arouse the emotions of people because of my speaking style. God has given me a gift - the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when I have a great passion for a topic I'm speaking about you will be able to tell because of my overall appearance. To be honest with you - you wouldn't be able to distinguish if I didn't care for the topic, as well. And the only reason you wouldn't know this is because I would use wording and logic to support my presentation.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Silent Words
A topic in this week's reading that I found interesting was whether or not communication involves intentionality. On page 21, in the book, it used an example of unobtrusive observation. However, I'm going to use my own example. Let's say for instance, I'm walking in the store and I see a mother with her two children. One of the children begins to cry and the other child reaches for everything on the shelf. The mother has no clue that I'm watching her. As I continue to observe her, I see her facial expression change from relaxation to frustration, at least that's what it appeared to be.
Definition 5, in table 2.1, says "In the main, communication has as its central interest those behavioral situations in which a source transmits a message to a receiver(s) with conscious intent to affect the latter's behavior." (20) Basically, this definition is saying that since the mother did not know I was observing her, it was not her intention to send me a message.
Not everyone agrees with this definition because it is difficult to distinguish when a message is intentionally sent to a receiver. Furthermore, the receiver's interpretation of the message causes many to believe that communication should include unintentional behaviors, as well. Some people believe this because definition 6, of table 2.1, says "Communication is a process whereby people assign meanings to stimuli in order to make sense of the world."
I, too, agree that unintentional behavior should be included as one of the definitions of communication because nonverbal communication says a lot! Even when it's not accompanied with words. This is why I'm not in complete agreement with definition 9, in table 2.1. The definition says "Nonverbal interaction is the unspoken, often unintentional behavior that accompanies verbal communication and helps us fully interpret its meaning."
In the book, In Mixed Company by Rothwell, it states: "Verbal communication has identifiable, discrete beginnings and endings. We speak and verbal communication begins; we stop speaking and verbal communication ends. Nonverbal communication continues to send messages to those who are aware of our behavior. We can't stop our facial expressions. Even a blank face communicates. You can't stop the nonverbal leakage." (14)
Therefore, although the mother wasn't aware that I was watching her she still became the sender and whoever was around to see the nonverbal expression became the receiver.
Think about the instances of nonverbal communication that is not accompanied by words. For example, in the courtroom there are many people who don't take the stand to defend themselves. Although the defendant isn't uttering one word, it's imperative that their nonverbal behavior be appropriate or it could cost them their freedom. For instance, in 2002 Robert Noel was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Noel's dog viciously mauled and killed a lady. During the trial Noel didn't show any reactions. The jury interpreted his nonverbal behavior as unremorseful and convicted him (Rothwell, 15).
For those of us who have children (and those who don't. . . BEWARE), think about how many times our children have nonverbally "tipped us off" that they were up to something "interesting." As parents, we are always observing our children, even when they think we're not. They don't mean to tip us off, but they can't help it.
According to me, communication is always happening - even when we don't know we are being watched. The sure way to avoid communication is to stay away from people and even your pets because animals, too, can can communicate without words.
Definition 5, in table 2.1, says "In the main, communication has as its central interest those behavioral situations in which a source transmits a message to a receiver(s) with conscious intent to affect the latter's behavior." (20) Basically, this definition is saying that since the mother did not know I was observing her, it was not her intention to send me a message.
Not everyone agrees with this definition because it is difficult to distinguish when a message is intentionally sent to a receiver. Furthermore, the receiver's interpretation of the message causes many to believe that communication should include unintentional behaviors, as well. Some people believe this because definition 6, of table 2.1, says "Communication is a process whereby people assign meanings to stimuli in order to make sense of the world."
I, too, agree that unintentional behavior should be included as one of the definitions of communication because nonverbal communication says a lot! Even when it's not accompanied with words. This is why I'm not in complete agreement with definition 9, in table 2.1. The definition says "Nonverbal interaction is the unspoken, often unintentional behavior that accompanies verbal communication and helps us fully interpret its meaning."
In the book, In Mixed Company by Rothwell, it states: "Verbal communication has identifiable, discrete beginnings and endings. We speak and verbal communication begins; we stop speaking and verbal communication ends. Nonverbal communication continues to send messages to those who are aware of our behavior. We can't stop our facial expressions. Even a blank face communicates. You can't stop the nonverbal leakage." (14)
Therefore, although the mother wasn't aware that I was watching her she still became the sender and whoever was around to see the nonverbal expression became the receiver.
Think about the instances of nonverbal communication that is not accompanied by words. For example, in the courtroom there are many people who don't take the stand to defend themselves. Although the defendant isn't uttering one word, it's imperative that their nonverbal behavior be appropriate or it could cost them their freedom. For instance, in 2002 Robert Noel was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Noel's dog viciously mauled and killed a lady. During the trial Noel didn't show any reactions. The jury interpreted his nonverbal behavior as unremorseful and convicted him (Rothwell, 15).
For those of us who have children (and those who don't. . . BEWARE), think about how many times our children have nonverbally "tipped us off" that they were up to something "interesting." As parents, we are always observing our children, even when they think we're not. They don't mean to tip us off, but they can't help it.
According to me, communication is always happening - even when we don't know we are being watched. The sure way to avoid communication is to stay away from people and even your pets because animals, too, can can communicate without words.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Goodness, Truth, and Public Communication
The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. However, I'm on both sides of the fence with this thought. I neither disagree or agree for a few reasons. Aristotle taught his students some very crucial points about communication and a few of them are as follows (pg. 4):
For instance, Aristotle made sure his students were knowledgeable about how human emotions affected the orator's ability to persuade. Not only did he teach his students about the importance of pathos - the ability to arouse human emotions, but he further taught them about the importance of conducting an audience analysis. These two communication skills can be abused by "morally" and "not-so morally good" individuals. It really depends on what the orator is seeking. For example, does the orator want to persuade donors to help build a women's shelter? Well, first things first, whose in the audience and ,of course, what has been going on in the community that has people's emotions in an uproar? On the other hand, the KKK's orators also wanted to accomplish their goals. Therefore, the organization used human emotions and analyzed its audience, in order to get what they wanted.
Aristotle, also, taught his students about the different ways of improving style and delivery. Logos, the ability to use wording or logic to sway the audience, is of great importance when speaking. Abuse of this skill can be utilized to achieve desired results by either "morally good or bad" orators. For instance, our politicians use this skill in their sleep. Take a moment to think about all the great speeches and the results of some of those speeches once the politician took office. Furthermore, think about the "morally incorrect" behavior some of these politicians revealed (accidentally, of course), once they were in office. Lawyers are also a good example. The jury isn't focused so much on the Lawyer's (the orator's) character. The jury is more focused on the ethos, or personal character, of whom the lawyer is defending or prosecuting. However, lawyers are well trained to use logos, in order to try and achieve desired results for their clients.
As much as I would love to agree with the Greeks and say that an individual had to be morally good to be an orator, I just can't. I wish it was (and it should be) a perfect fit between goodness, truth, and public communication but it just isn't. We have those in the world who want to help others and we have those who choose to use their gift of speaking otherwise. It's daunting, but it's true.
For instance, Aristotle made sure his students were knowledgeable about how human emotions affected the orator's ability to persuade. Not only did he teach his students about the importance of pathos - the ability to arouse human emotions, but he further taught them about the importance of conducting an audience analysis. These two communication skills can be abused by "morally" and "not-so morally good" individuals. It really depends on what the orator is seeking. For example, does the orator want to persuade donors to help build a women's shelter? Well, first things first, whose in the audience and ,of course, what has been going on in the community that has people's emotions in an uproar? On the other hand, the KKK's orators also wanted to accomplish their goals. Therefore, the organization used human emotions and analyzed its audience, in order to get what they wanted.
Aristotle, also, taught his students about the different ways of improving style and delivery. Logos, the ability to use wording or logic to sway the audience, is of great importance when speaking. Abuse of this skill can be utilized to achieve desired results by either "morally good or bad" orators. For instance, our politicians use this skill in their sleep. Take a moment to think about all the great speeches and the results of some of those speeches once the politician took office. Furthermore, think about the "morally incorrect" behavior some of these politicians revealed (accidentally, of course), once they were in office. Lawyers are also a good example. The jury isn't focused so much on the Lawyer's (the orator's) character. The jury is more focused on the ethos, or personal character, of whom the lawyer is defending or prosecuting. However, lawyers are well trained to use logos, in order to try and achieve desired results for their clients.
As much as I would love to agree with the Greeks and say that an individual had to be morally good to be an orator, I just can't. I wish it was (and it should be) a perfect fit between goodness, truth, and public communication but it just isn't. We have those in the world who want to help others and we have those who choose to use their gift of speaking otherwise. It's daunting, but it's true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)