In The Study of Persuasion, Simons (2001) defines persuasion as “human communication designed to influence the autonomous judgments and actions of others” (p.7). Persuasion is a type of attempted influence that does not force, but rather, predisposes people to think, feel or act a certain way. As a form of communication practice, persuasion may or may not successfully influence one’s judgments or actions, but it is ultimately still considered as persuasion.
Debates about the morality of rhetoric date back to Ancient Greek philosophy. Plato referred to rhetoric as the “art of persuasion” (Simons, 2001, p.3). Socrates was a critic of rhetoric and believed that rhetoric served to deceive the ignorant about the justness or unjustness of a matter, without imparting real knowledge. Conversely, Aristotle defended rhetoric by propagating that it is “an instrument for giving effectiveness to truth” (Simons, 2001, p.4). Aristotle also highlighted that “persuasion deals in matters of judgment, rather than certainty” (Simons, 2001, p.4). While Simons (2001) acknowledges that rhetoric has the potential to “deceive, mislead, exploit, and oppress” (p.4), he concedes that rhetoric is an invaluable tool in providing effectiveness to truth.
Similarly, Sonesson (2013) acknowledges the origin of rhetoric as the art of persuasion in Ancient Greece. He proposes two traditions of rhetoric. Firstly, rhetoric is a theory of argumentation and persuasion. Secondly, it is the taxonomy of rhetorical figures. Essentially, both interpretations concur that rhetoric is heavily reliant on the “presuppositions shared between the initiator of the message and its recipients”. (Sonesson, 2013, p.7).
According to Sonesson, rhetoric is like semiotics and hermeneutics, in the sense that it is only one perspective on the situation of communication. Classical rhetoric is said to have five components: inventio, the art of finding out what to talk about; dispositio, the organization of discourse; elocutio, the stylistic elaboration of the argument; memoria, the memorization of the discourse; and lastly, actio, which is the pronunciation of the discourse. On the other hand, the second tradition of rhetoric as proposed by Groupe seeks to uncover “a set of general operations responsible for the functioning of these figures in verbal language” (Sonesson, 2001, p.10), so that one is able to apply the analysis of rhetoric to fields other than verbal language – for instance, pictures. Furthermore, rhetoric is said to have a communicative function, whereby one subject conveys a meaning to another subject. In his communication model, Sonesson shows that rhetoric takes the perspective of the message’s creator. It seeks to be expressed in a manner that is able to obtain adherence on the receiver’s part (Sonesson, 2001, p.13).
Sonesson applies these concepts to three publicity campaigns: Absolut Vodka’s “European cities” campaign, a Turkish car servicing advertisement, and IKEA. I will focus on examining Sonesson’s application of rhetorical figures to the Absolut Vodka campaign. Sonesson (2013) posits that “the most general procedure underlying all rhetorical figures could best be described as the production of meaning resulting from a divergence in relation to that which is expected” (p.15).
This is evident in the Absolut Vodka campaign; for example, in “Absolut Rome”, the bottle is disguised as a Vespa, and the expectation of a bottle cap is replaced with the unexpected element of Vespa handlebars. As mentioned previously, rhetoric takes the perspective of the message’s creator and it wishes to obtain adherence on the receiver’s part. In the case of Absolut Vodka, the company aims to package its vodka as a European product by positioning it in various European countries and attributing it with unexpected elements unique to the respective countries.
The poster above is an advertisement for Singapore Airlines. It applies the same principle of rhetorical figures as the Absolut Vodka campaign, to communicate the message that while Singapore Airlines is unique to Singapore, it is also an international airline. In the poster, the left and right sides feature scenery and architecture that is typical of Asian and European countries respectively. This creates a stark contrast, and is unexpected as both sides seamlessly converge into one picture. At the same time, this advertisement is similar to IKEA’s publicity campaigns as it aims to be “homely”, like the Swedish company. In the foreground, there are two Singapore Airlines’ flight attendants as seen from their prominent “Sarong Kebaya” costumes. This is a global iconic trademark of Singapore Airlines and Singapore, and is representative of the Singapore Girl. The two flight attendants also constitute unexpected elements in the advertisements, as they are associated with Singapore and communicate the meaning of home for Singaporeans; yet, they are being featured in two distinctly different countries. All of these elements convey the rhetoric that although Singapore Airlines is a prestigious airline that flies to countries all around the world, it is still uniquely Singaporean, and wants to be associated as such.
Reference List
Simons, 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.