Simons defines persuasion as “communication designed to influence the autonomous judgments and actions of others” (p. 20, 2001). The art of persuasion is generally called ‘rhetoric’. Persuasion in a method that seeks to influence the opinions of others, the way they think, or act. However, persuasion is not a coercive method, it is a technique that presupposes, but that does not impose any opinions. It is based on the individual choice-making of those who are the persuadees. Even if the persuader does not persuade anyone, the practice that he has used will still be called ‘persuasion’ (Simons, 2001). According to Simons (2001), it is primordial to comprehend the concept of persuasion because it helps us to understand our society and that nowadays, “more persuasive messages are presented to us at dizzying speeds” (2001, p. xxi). Moreover, Simons (2001) claims that persuasion is the human’s being major way of exercising influence; it is of primordial importance in any society. Besides, persuasion is a practice that is used in a great variety of fields such as science, politics, or public and private life. Obviously, it is also a practice extensively used in the field of advertising.
Since Antiquity, the concept of persuasion has been a subject of controversy. Indeed, while Plato and Socrates have held that rhetoric was a corrupt art, Aristotle, on the contrary, has defended that practice. Plato has argued that rhetoric was destructive because it made the worse argument look like the better argument. However, Aristotle has defended rhetoric by claiming that it was not inevitably dangerous if used in the right way. Indeed, even if he acknowledged the danger of rhetoric, Aristotle claimed that in many cases, it can be used fairly, and it might thus be definitely useful, giving effectiveness to truth. This controversy about the benefits or dangers of rhetoric is at the heart of the debate about the ethics of persuasion. Indeed, are sincerity and effective persuasion mutually exclusive? And is it correct or ethical to lie to persuade someone? In that way, is advertising, that uses the practice of persuasion extensively, ethical (Simons, 2001)?
It is the Greeks, and more particularly Plato’s student, Aristotle, who systematized and structured the branch of the humanities called rhetoric (Simons, 2001). Classical rhetoric is divided in five parts: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, mermoria, and actio (Sonesson, 2013). Sonesson argues that advertising reveals two major pillars of contemporary rhetoric and rhetorical: disposition and elocutio. He claims that nowadays, there exist two interpretations of rhetoric: the “theory of argumentation and persuasion”, which began in Antiquity (dispositio) and the “taxonomy of rhetorical figures” (elocutio) that was prevalent from the 16th century onwards. Sonesson argues that advertising definitely makes use of those two interpretations of rhetoric.
Simons (2001) delineates two different approaches to persuasion. The first one is the behavioral approach to persuasion, which is the one used by social scientists. This approach relies on experiments carried under meticulous and controlled precautions. It considers that human judgments can be controlled by numerous factors and that there exist guidelines to persuade successfully. The second approach to persuasion is the critical studies approach. This approach considers persuasion as an art which necessitates to pay attention to the characteristic features of any persuasive message individually. While the behavioral approach relies on generalizations, the critical approach focuses on a small amount of texts. Nevertheless, the two approaches might be combined; they are complementary (Simons, 2001).
Sonesson (2013) emphasizes that rhetoric is dependent of the presuppositions shared between the one that tries to persuade and his subjects. He claims that communication is “a double set of acts, which may coincide spatially and/or temporally, but often do not, and which are initiated by at least two different subjects, the sender and the receiver” (2013, p. 11).
He uses the example for IKEA to show how communication depends on shared knowledge between persuaders and persuadees. He claims that advertising sometimes differs depending on the knowledge shared by the targeted public. Swedish advertising for IKEA, for example, are based on Swedish myths that non-Swedish people are not aware of. This explains why IKEA advertising is different in Sweden than everywhere else, where people do not have any knowledge about Swedish myths (Sonesson, 2013). This same theory may apply to many other cases, like for example the following advertising for the Tommy Hilfiger Perfume.
In this advertising, Tommy Hilfiger promotes his perfume by showing a beautiful man riding a motorbike in the desert. From an occidental point of view, this advertising promotes individuality, independence, liberty, and adventure. However, if a Chinese man was to see this advertising, he would not understand it in the same way. Indeed, while a motorbike is usually associated with liberty and adventure in Europe, Chinese people consider it as dangerous and noisy. Furthermore, while occidental associate the desert with independence, Chinese people would rather associate it with dirtiness and dust (Djurovic, 2009). This advertising may thus be read in two extremely different ways. While an occidental would be attracted to the perfume, a Chinese man would definitely not be attracted to the perfume after seeing the same ad. This echoes Sonesson’s (2013) statement about communication. Indeed, communication and persuasion definitely rely on shared knowledge between persuaders and persuadees: “communication is a double sets of acts” (p11).
References:
Djurovic, G. (2009). L’importance du context culturel en publicité. http://www.marketing- professionnel.fr/parole-expert/contexte-culturel-publicite-internationale.html. Retrieved on 10/O5/2017.
Simon, H.W. (2001). The Study of Persuasion. In H.W. Simons with J. Morreale & B.E Gronbeck, Persuasion in Society (pp. 3-24-, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sonesson, G. (2013). Two strands of rhetoric in advertising discourse. International Journal of Marketing Semiotics, 1(1), 6-24.
Recent Comments