I think according to Heinrichs, rhetoric is the art of persuasion: getting your audience to agree with you. It’s the art of manipulating others in a way that is most agreeable to them, and by achieving the required results, to oneself too. My understanding of rhetoric was that it is writing a good enough article to impress others with your writing skills! I guess I was halfway there, but I had never thought of it as the art of persuasion.
Given that I almost never argue and tend to follow “my way or the highway”, I have never considered any tactics in the book. I just find it immoral to manipulate others’ emotions for personal gains (perhaps I have been doing it without noticing it; I will try to notice from now on). As of now, I cannot imagine myself getting involved in this “art”, but then I rarely am able to persuade others to do anything. I have been relying on helping others out when they need it, and hoping to get help in return when I need it (selfish, or just untactful?).
As of now, I cannot think of a situation where I would be brave enough to use some of these tactics, I tend to rely on compassion, and generally let others have their way. Though I might as well try using some when going out next time with friends for a meal, it takes us a good one hour to decide where to eat!
2 comments:
In order to persuade an audience you have to make you're argument credible, because essentially the audience will either make or break your case.
Heinrich touches base on the different types of rhetorical appeals and does it in a lively way.
In a sense you have to manipulate the situation in your favor, and this doesn't necessarily mean its a bad thing. By knowing what you want and making an effort to get it does not constitute being opportunistic as an awful form of manipulation (unless it's taken out of context)
Using the rhetoric triangle you manage to stay within the parameters of persuasion.
Post a Comment