Assignment 6
According to Simons, persuasion is “human communication designed to influence the autonomous judgements and actions of others” (2001, p.7). Persuasion goes back to the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Plato in his Dialogues investigates whether rhetoric as the art of persuasion is ethically good or bad. He concludes that rhetoric is dangerous as it can hide the bad within good arguments. On the other hand Aristotle argues that rhetoric can be “an instrument for giving effectiveness to truth” and is a requirement for a functioning society and good politics. To conclude from the old Greeks, rhetoric can be used to deceive and do badly according to Socrates and Plato but on the other hand is necessary for and can be used positively according to Aristotle.
Simon´s defines persuasion and rhetoric based on Plato´s definition: “rhetoric, the art of persuasion” (2001, p.3). The main characteristics of persuasion are that it tends to persuade, it is a form of communication and lastly persuades can decide for themselves to be persuaded or not: “Persuasion predisposes others but does not impose” (2001, p.8). Further Simons argues that persuasion has an effect on what is believed to be true or false. Additionally Persuasion should be understood as a practice.
The study of persuasion can be approached from different backgrounds, Simons discusses on the one hand the humanistic critical approach and on the other hand the social scientific behavioural approach. The behavioural approach sees rhetoric as a science that can be studies with “experiments conducted under carefully controlled conditions” to distract general rules that explain how people are persuaded (2001, p.15). On the contrary the critical approach treats rhetoric as an art, which requires the “careful reading of the message, looking also at the context in which it was presented” (2001, p.17). An example of a critical approach to persuasion is the study of political campaign films and how it creates a specific impression for the viewer.
Simons discusses also the ethical implications of persuasion and what effects persuasion has on the notion of truth. Among the ethical issues of persuasion are the possibilities of “pandering, evasions, exaggerations, and even outright lying” (2001, p.13). On the other hand persuasion as stated by Aristotle is necessary to communicate the truth and also it is necessary to make a (positive) change within a society. Therefore it is up to the persuader whether persuasion is morally and ethically good or bad.
Sonesson goes into more detail in his explanation of rhetoric by offering two interpretations: first “the theory of argumentation and persuasion” from antiquity and second “the taxonomy of rhetorical figures” from the 16th century onwards (2013, p.7). In both interpretations rhetoric works based on the shared beliefs of the initiator and the recipients of the message. These shared beliefs in case of rhetorical figures consist of “topological properties such as neighbourhood, sequence, enclosure” and in case of persuasion “socio-cultural values” (2013, p.7). Sonensson defines rhetoric as a particular perspective on communication; communication is a task of interpretation of what is said. Sonesson applies the concepts of rhetoric and persuasion to three different cases of advertisement. Communication rests on shared beliefs, therefore it is important in advertisement too as it allows the companies to approach specific target groups. The example of IKEA shows how a stereotype can be used to persuade customers to buy something, yet different targets groups require different use of rhetoric.
To clarify the concept of persuasion and rhetoric I will briefly discuss the example of cigarette packaging. Since 2016 shock-
images are required on German cigarette packaging. They are supposed to persuade the customers to stop smoking by showing the possibility of illness and death. In accordance to Simon’s definition of persuasion, these images and labels do not induce the customers: “If you stop smoking, you will definitely stay healthy”. Neither does the packaging coerce the customer: “If you smoke this cigarette, you will die instantly die”. Instead the images try to persuade: “Are you sure you want to risk getting lung cancer?”. Therefore the customer has the opportunity to chose whether to be persuaded or not. Here one could argue that the persuasion is morally good, as it tries to avoid the smoker to get harmed. On the other hand cigarette advertisements that try to persuade customers to smoke by showing for example happy social situations, could be argued to be morally bad as they hide the negative effects of smoking.
References
Simons, H. W. & Jones, J. (2011). Persuasion in society (2nd ed. ed.). (2011). New York: Routledge.
Sonesson, G. (2013). Two strands of rhetoric in advertising discourse. International Journal of Marketing Semiotics, 1(1), 6-24.