ARCS chap9
The relationship between Kairos and arrangement is very important.
The two factor are interconnected and work together to create a good rhetorical
argument. The chapter indicates that arrangement of the argument is determined
by the rhetor’s guess of the situation such as prediction of how his audience
may interpret his argument. I think it is a good way to make a guess about your
audience’s reaction before you deliver your speech because it increases the possibility
to make an effective argument. A good rhetor will make his or her predictions and
plans fall into the right place. Personally, I think it is difficult to predict
a stranger, it’s like a person who doesn’t have basic knowledge of the stock
market tries to predict stock rising. So I suggest if rhetors don’t know anything
about their audience they may do some research before start measuring the
audiences’ reaction to the speech.
Ancient teachers proposed four major parts of arrangement (introduction,
narration, proof and conclusion) which is quite similar to the modern day
speech composition. It is safe to use this arrangement to start building the
speech, but rhetors don’t necessarily have to follow this format because it’s
commonly used and less creative. Rhetors could use more progressive and unique
arrangements in their speech, just like Quintilian said about artful and
inventive speech arrangements; this brings out their rhetorical styles and
characteristics more. An example could be Aristotle used long formal speech
arrangements while Socrates used dialogues and arranged his speech in a more
dynamic structure.
I think it’s interesting that the ancient rhetors show that they
value introduction or exordia a great deal. They have set up some rule for
introduction; Aristotle said introduction is meant to attract audience’s
attention; Cicero said introduction should not be vague or disorganized; and Quintilian
said introduction needs to make the situation of the argument clear to the
audiences. I realize that the purpose of introduction in ancient time doesn’t differ
to today’s purpose. This makes me think that the way introduction works really
has passed through generations. I think that introduction is indeed very
important for the entire argument and persuasion because introduction is the
first thing your audience will hear and if it is poorly written it will not
serve its purpose to attract audience’s attention, this may influence the
effect of the whole speech as well as the outcomes of the speech. Let’s say a
politician is aimed to draw attention to election in his speech but his introduction
is not interesting, as a result his audiences decide to not vote for him.
Cicero talked about five kinds of cases that do not require
introduction. They are honorable, difficult, mean, ambiguous and obscure. The
difficult case actually reminds me of my friend. Difficult case is defined as a
situation where the audience pays no sympathy to the rhetorical issue. I
remember a time when I had really bad friends and they are never sympathetic for
my position. If an arrogant and uncontrollably emotional person drags you into
quarrels, he or she will not be appealed to your good nature and skilled rhetoric
because of his(her) stubborn characters. In this case, introducing your good
intention may not be as persuasive or effective because your audience is not convincible.
You are going to be like howling at the moon, he(she) is not going to listen to
you. If this situation appears in friendship, it is only natural because that
means your friend is not appropriate for you, then you just give up the
situation. But sometimes you will introduce your position even though you know
the introduction isn’t going to be persuasive. In workplace for example, if
your stubborn boss intended to know what you think about planning his business
trip, you will need to answer him because he will be pissed if you don’t speak,
but your argument isn’t going to change his mind (because he has already made
up his own plan). It bothers me that people need to deal with cases that can’t
be solves, even just to let them put the tiniest efforts in the introducing
process.
Insinuation reminds me of Game of Thrones and House of Cards. Cicero
said that insinuation should only be used in difficult cases. In Game of
Thrones, king Jofferey constantly crossed his uncle Tyrion’s limits, and Tyrion
just refuted him with insinuations even when he knew he was challenging the
king, because this gave himself a sense of self-respect. In House of Cards,
Frank the vice president too challenged his political rivals with insinuation
because he knew he can’t solve the problem with those who resent him without a
fight. Insinuation makes good use while the rhetor has audiences who react with
hostile attitude. Insinuation can beat down your audience with powerful force
even though it is unkind and threatening, so I guess for strong-willed rhetors
such technique is worth adopting.
没有评论:
发表评论