The Art of Style

“Ancient teacher of rhetoric combined Aristotle’s philosophical view of language their Gorgia’s sophistic view to argue that rhetorical language ought to be clear and that it ought to touch the emotions as well.”

Prior to this chapter, I was having some difficulty reconciling the notion that the best, most effective arguments are those that are easily and readily accessible to mass populations. In particular, I was struggling to understand how things like satire, irony, and sarcasm can be components in an effective argument if they might make the message difficult to understand. Connecting to our discussion from last week, I personally gravitate more towards these types of discussions, articles, or humor. I find pieces with a little bite to them, so to speak, as more interesting and essentially more effective. But then, are these forms that have proven so effective with me, not appropriate in the realm of ancient rhetoric that prizes accessibility and clarity?

I always knew that the answer to this was no, but this chapter confirmed that for me. Using satire, irony, figurative language will not hinder your argument by making it inaccessible to the masses, but rather it will help you to reach factions of your audience more deeply than a more straightforward piece might. In order to be effective, language must excite emotion as well as represent a thought clearly (328). You, as a rhetor, must strive to not only have your message come across clearly, but also to have the message be able to speak for itself in encouraging the audience to take an active role in interpreting it.

In my opinion, the best way to excite this emotion, from reading this chapter, is to let your audience feel as though they are in on a secret. To encourage them to read between the lines and come up with their own deeper understanding of a message is a critical process a rhetor go through to make their arguments most effective. Then, the rhetor is not telling the audience how they should think, but rather allowing them the gratification in figuring out the deeper meaning of the message. Then it’s almost as though an exclusive club is made between the rhetor and audience. The audience becomes empowered and the rhetor becomes vindicated all through processing and delivering the same message.

Author Daniel Pink, in one of my favorite TED talks, said that autonomy, mastery, and purpose are the best motivators for people. It has been proven that intrinsic rewards such as these to which Pink refers are more effective than extrinsic motivators, as recently illustrated by the fact that teacher performance tied to cash bonuses have not proven effective in recent months. I think the same motivators can be said for crafting arguments. Allowing your audience the autonomy to self-motivate and process your message, providing the purpose for them to do so, and encouraging them to dig deeply in mastering an understanding of the overt and subvert messages in your work can provide an instant connection and motivation for them to accept your argument and understand your work.