Throughout Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory all I could think about was how successful of an orator Adolf Hitler was without being a "moral man." Quintilian suggests that "the orator must above all things study morality" (418). Yet, who is defining the morality that both Cicero and Quintilian are harkening for? Rhetors need to be aware of the ability they have to manipulate contextual situations based on morality. In Singapore it is considered immoral to chew gum on the streets, as it is prohibited by law, yet to Americans that seems a silly rule with no function in society. Rather than studying morality in order to be a good person, and thus a good rhetor, I think it is more important to study different contexts in which certain ethics are important because those are the tools that are going to help speeches and motivate/persuade audiences.
Hitler lived during a time of anti-Semitism spreading back farther than the Crusades. Due to the ethics of religious intolerance at the time he was able to be influential to his audience. Although his acts were despicable as Gorgias states "The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies" (46). Orators can easily use this powerful language to manipulate actions, whether it is ethical or not. Perhaps this suggests that rather than orators being ethical, the audiences in which they are addressing should be ethical as well. Gorgias' argument takes away all blame from Helen of Troy, similarly to Quintilian and Cicero's argument taking away the responsibility of the reader/listener. Language constructs both the society in which we live in, yet society also dictates what language is used (such as seen in early twentieth century Germany). Whether something is moral or not is no longer the main concern, the question is in what context is the specific language ethical? It is impossible to separate culture from ethics, something that Quintilian did not have to deal with as blatantly, yet in a more globally dominated world it is important for future orators to understand all cultures.
I like your idea here of the audience being expected to listen morally and framing an argument for them that leads to greater wisdom. If a perfect orator was to exist and that person was also a perfect person, then would he need to deceive his audiences? Or would he have an expectation of them as moral listeners, ones not guided by self-interest but rather universality. I think that for a perfect orator to exist there would have to exist the perfect audience.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love what you have to say about ethics. I am currently a student of the Leadership Institute, and one of the major things I do is analyze various leadership decisions from ethical standpoints. Morality and ethics are huge in influencing decisions of those that are being spoken (or written) for. It’s nice to see this idea addressed.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, as you state from the texts, “the orator must above all things study morality” (Quintilian 418). And you ask who is defining morality? I ask you the same question for the twentieth-century: who defines what is moral? Who defines what is ethical? In this day and age (and I may hit a hot-topic here, for which I apologize) we spend too much time talking about pro-life verses pro-choice, or whether or not homosexuality is an abomination, in an effort to figure out what is our new stance on an ethical topic of diversity. The trends show that the majority of our generation is more positive in some of these elements then our forbearers, due to the fact that we were taught about acceptance and equality more from those who mentored and taught us. This ties perfectly with what the first part of Quintilian’s writing explains: the master guides the pupil to say what they want them to say. It is up to those who teach to determine what his proper from an ethical and moral standpoint.
Granted, that is just my view on everything and I would absolutely love to hear what your thoughts are further on this idea.