Oh, Cicero. So many expectations.
I'm kind of in between the points that
Crassus and Antonius make. For one, I don't think that it's ever
really completely possible to do everything that Crassus wants us to
do: study all the topics anyone ever thought worth studying until we
have a total understanding of their natures and of how to bring up
evidence in any possible situation; but it's not like that's a bad
thing to strive towards.
Antonius is much more realistic in
terms of understanding the limits that certain people may have,
whereas Crassus is much more idealistic, speaking of “The Orator”
like he is a myth yet to be born into mortality (I say “he” there
but would like to be gender neutral, but these men obviously aren't).
I was surprised at how much more Cicero
focused on using pathos in argument; he writes, “Now nothing in
oratory … is more important than to win for the orator the favor of
his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by
something resembling a mental impulse of emotion, rather than by
judgment or deliberation” (328).
It seems that an orator can do this in
two ways, firstly: “A potent factor in success, is for the
characters, principles, conduct, and course of life, both of those
who are to plead cases and of their clients, to be approved, and
conversely those of their opponents condemned” (328). In essence,
we're talking about ethos here. Cicero goes on to write about
how the orator should position himself as someone trustworthy, calm,
kind, loyal, and of good disposition, and that “the very opposites
of these qualities must be ascribed to our opponents” (329). While
Cicero likes to believe that he is taking all of these ideas straight
from Aristotle, I feel that he is very much twisting it by putting a
much larger emphasis on a conscious and deliberate decision to create
your character as someone “seeming just,” whereas Aristotle
recognizes the enormous power that ethos has on an audience, but
wishes for sound judgment over the emotional-like appeal of ethos.
Secondly: “But closely associated
with this is that dissimilar style of speaking which, in quite
another way, excites and urges the feelings of the tribunal towards
hatred or love, ill-will or well-wishing, fear or hope, desire or
aversion, joy or sorrow, compassion or the wish to punish...”
(329). Straight up pathos.
Cicero also talks about how this can be difficult, depending on the
position and feelings that the audience brings to the table, but I
feel like this is less of a direct appeal to emotions, and more of an
appeal to find common ground in emotion. The logic of the argument
unites the audience to feel a certain way, together, which can help
them get past whatever issues they have (which you might say makes
them think less logically) and get problems solved.
The
big emphasis on emotion really made me wonder – is this really a
correct way to make an argument? I suppose it brings me back to a
discussion in WRIT 371, where we were talking about how there is a
preconception that an argument should not be judged by who is
speaking it, or what the motives for speaking it are, etc; when
indeed these are the very things that can sway the audience to see
our argument more closely resembling the truth than another's – but
our society goes to lengths to deny it and to attempt to say that it
really was other things that led us to believe a certain person.
One
obvious example of this is the Nixon – Kennedy debates in the '60s,
the first debates ever televised. Nixon chose to wear no makeup, and
ended up looking old, sickly, harsh; whereas Kennedy was young, wore
makeup, looked great on stage and won the audience over by his
“charm.” Nixon actually won the debate in terms of points or
however they do that, but Kennedy was the one that ended up in
office.
I
guess I'm just not sure if I'm frustrated by the fact that we can't
get away from emotional appeals as humans, and that it will always be
something that greatly affects us, unless we take great care. I do
know, however, that I agree that the orator should be fully
committed, emotionally and mentally, to the cause which he speaks –
as Cicero says, “no man can be a good poet who is not on fire with
passion, and inspired by something very like frenzy” (331). We just
have to be able to channel it.
I think that so often we get worked up into being an "eloquent" orator like Cicero and Plato, that we forget that we can be burning with that passion, even if it's for something novel like a good book.
ReplyDeleteI was never in the debate club, however I can imagine that much would be the same. The ability to have a cognitive thought process that would allow someone to debate another, in a respectful fashion, in such a way that allows for more creative formation of new thoughts.
Just because we aren't sitting around in a fancy hall adorned in white robes doesn't mean that we can't be passionate about something to debate. I, for one, am passionate about the outdoors. There are things that I see happening in various forms and houses of government that trouble me, and when appropriate I will voice my opinion on those ideas. However, like Cicero mentions, it has to be done in an organized thought process, brought about with facts, and in a manner that people can recognize as a legitimate debate, and not simply a verbal free for all.
So I think it's very legitimate that you can call yourself an orator at any point you are able to have a logical thought process about anything that which you are deeply passionate about.
What would unemotional speech sound like, I wonder?Personally, I like to cuddle up in the warmth of appeals to pathos. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with or attempting to invalidate your frustration. You pose a valid observation and I absolutely understand your frustration. When we realize we've been mastered by emotion, we feel as though we've been duped. But really, I think even if an orator diligently made an effort to avoid appeals to pathos, they could still be found by some hearer. I think emotion is unavoidable because we are emotional beings. Maybe the answer is appropriate balance between logic and emotion. And maybe that's the real trick of being a rhetor... knowing when to usewhich. But you have to know souls to do that. ;)
ReplyDelete