Does persuasion still work?

When does persuasion matter?

I think it depends on two situation: One situation when one ask for a great change from his or her audience, persuasion might not be effective anymore in today's world; while a message that encourages a minor change from the audience, for example, an advertisement, art of persuasion might just work or I should say that as the art of advertisement.

For the first situation, when politicians ask the audience to agree with their idea of movement, people are normally reluctant to change. They may not feel confident of their capability or they fear to unable to match up the expectation or they are in their comfort zone that they are not looking for changes. These are personal perception and individual preference because they are asked to make change that is often portrayed by the politician as a change that will affect others at the same time. Thus persuasion in this sense is depending on the acceptance of the audience.

On the other hand, a small change affecting the audience own lifestyle, such as persuasion in advertisement will have an impact on the audience because they have the ability to directly control the outcome. Advertisement is often time an exaggerated way to sell a product. In my opinion, people are just born with curiosity and that is why advertisement can easily catch their attention. I just think that, persuasion is not an effective way in politics anymore as people are afraid to stand up anymore. The time when people are determined to fight for what they believe is disappearing because people now are too comfortable with their life.

Furthermore, I also think that persuasion is dying along with the fast spread of information. Today, people can easily gather information that either agrees or disagree with their thought from the Internet nowadays. There are all kinds of opinions around the world, people share them on the web and seek for agreement. With the diversified culture and environment across the world, it is possible to find someone to agree with what you can think out of. Thus, they have the option to listen to any public persuasion and refuse to accept them. This has somehow further enhanced individual's stand and rejected a new view on an issue which diminishes the effect of persuasion.

Looking into a country far away from the United States, Malaysia, the freedom of speech is not practice so widely and with the limited transparency of the government to its people. I have to say persuasion in the public is normally just not as effective. People are so reluctant to listen to a political party because they just hardly believe what they saw are the whole of an issue. People there tend to just accept what they have and mind their own business especially Chinese Malaysians that have fought their way to stand out in the Malay community. It is disappointed thinking of the way people communicates back home. People just do not share or commute their opinions enough to reach an understanding. Fortunately, I am glad that the government is moving into a semi-democratic and recently there are many exchanges in opinions on the transparency of the government. For people that grew up in this environment, such as me, it is a huge step moving into a society that can have political protest on the street where it used to be against the law once upon a time.

In the end, persuasion requires many elements to be able to successfully call for an action. However, with the accessibility to any kind of information through the Internet now and with the emphasis on individualism in this country, persuasion is dying as time past because the audience has increasingly insisted on his or her own thought.

Persuasion is Not Dead, Just Impossible.

The question of whether or not people can be persuaded is a very interesting. I am still hung on two different answers. One, that people can no longer be persuaded because of the political strength in society today. And two, people can be persuaded but just choose not to listen, because they are too stubborn and afraid that they might agree with the opposing person.

I do not think it’s the sense of being wrong is what bothers people but more the idea of what they would be if they were persuaded in any issue. What I mean by this is, politics play a huge role in life today. There is simply no way to get around the topic of politics in most conversations and every where you seem to go politics are popping up somewhere. To get to the point, people in today’s society, from my experience, only want to stick to the issues that are important to their political party. You can’t agree with some issues from one political party and some from another, you have to be either democrat or republican. This is why I believe that people almost refuse to be persuaded. It is not even the action of being persuaded or the issue that is being brought to questions. It is whether your political identity will change if you are persuaded even on one single issue.

I once had a guy asked me if recycling was a ‘liberal thing’. I laughed at the question but then answered no, recycling is something anyone can do, but it is a tad bit liberal I guess. He quickly responded “no then I don’t recycle because I am a republican.” This example did not involve persuasion but it proves that people will sway one way or another depending on their political standings.

This is what leads me to think that persuasion is not entirely dead but just covered by people’s inability to be open to a new side of an issue. I may not be correct, but with my experience I think that this is true. And if it’s not for political reasons, then it is merely because people are too stubborn to hear what the other side has to say, regardless of the issue. This happens to me almost on a daily basis. I am a vegetarian and when people ask me why I respond by saying animal rights and health. People are quick to judge but they never want to hear my side. Is it because they think they know everything there is to know about vegetarianism? Or is it because they are afraid that they may be interested at the idea of being vegetarian? Vegetarianism is something different and listening to a vegetarians view on it could change their outlook on many things.

If people became more open to the idea of change and openness, maybe persuasion would come alive. But in this day in age it seems very unlikely. Heated debates on abortion, stem- cell research, foreign policy always come up somewhere in conversation, whether it is in class or just at the table with a bunch of friends. People have very strong opinions on topics like these, and don’t like to listen to other peoples opinions. If you have ever been in one of these debates then you know that instead of listening to the other person’s argument, you are most likely thinking about what you are going to say next to defend your opinion.

I guess in the long run, persuasion is not dead, just covered up by peoples inability to believe that their might be more out there than what just they believe is true. If people would relax and hear what there is to hear about any argument, I think that persuasion would come alive again. So, persuasion is not entirely dead, merely just in a coma.

The Effectiveness of a Recycling Ad

The ad that I am analyzing on this post is an ad for recycling. The first thing to catch my eyes when I look at the ad is the words in large, bold font that say “Protect his habitat. And yours.” Separating the two sentences makes the phrase more effective. To me, the period in between the two, makes a bolder statement then if it were to read ‘Protect his habitat, and yours.’ It’s kind of making the phrase two different thoughts. ‘I can be an environmentalist and protect wildlife by recycling my batteries. That’s a good thing.’ ‘Oh and I can protect my own home. That’s an even better thing.’ The same phrase by having ‘And yours.’ Added to the end, hits the soft side of humans. People are always looking for ways to protect their homes from anything and everything. This makes people more consciously aware that old batteries can be toxic to their families. If the ad just said ‘Protect his habitat’, the ad would be less effective because the demographic area that it would target would be smaller.

The writers of this ad repeat the phrase once again at the beginning of the paragraph. “When you recycle your rechargeable batteries, you preserve his environment – and ours.” Once again, the sentence is split up into two different thought processes. “You can preserve his environment,” and the second “and ours.” This time though, its saying “and ours” instead of “and yours.” So the ad adds a second thought. A person reading this can now save the environment, their individual home as well as the world as a whole. The phrases aim towards environmentalists and also to adults who are more focused on keep their homes safe.

The picture also makes the demographic of the ad more towards men. The power tool is convincing to a man because it would make them think that keeping his home and family protected is up to him. Just like he would fix something that is broken to protect his home from further damage, he should do the same to keep his family safe from old batteries. I also think that the use of HIS in the initial phrase may keep this ad leaning more towards men. It could make the man reading the article feel important because he is the keeper of his home just like the bird is the keeper of his nest. It may not be the most effective piece of the ad, but I defiantly think it has a small part in convincing the reader to recycle.

The other thing that I noticed is that the paragraph at the bottom of the ad is not just explaining the ad but it is proposing an argument. The conclusion would be “When you recycle your rechargeable batteries, you preserve his environment- and ours.” The other sentences following are small claims to back the conclusion. It’s saying if you don’t check the batteries in your cordless power tools, cordless phones, camcorders etc., then his home and yours will be in danger. The paragraph is effective because it doesn’t flat out say ‘if you don’t recycle your batteries your home is in danger’ but it does it in a more effective, almost sly way where the reader will go ‘hey maybe I should this.’

I think the components of this ad make it very effective. It is telling the readers that old batteries are toxic, and recycling can help the environment and yours. It appeals to the reader to recycle but without being to pushy on the environmental part. It appeals to men, or adults, homeowners, as well as environmentalists so the ad is not aiming towards one demographic. Putting all the components together, make the ad very effective.

A Thought on Ethos

When I first considered this question, I was sure what side I would come down on. It was a forgone conclusion that I would make the argument that a speaker’s reputation is far and away more important in every situation, absolutely dwarfing the weight that a particular rhetorical moment plays. The more and more I thought about it, the more and more I concluded that the question proposed isn’t exactly fair. In fact, no person can make the claim that one is more important than the other on a broad level, because every situation that a speaker/author has to express themselves must be analyzed on an individual level. For example: The United States has just come under a major terrorist attack carried out by an unknown rebel group. The country is in a panic. Someone must bring this situation under control and restore calm in the minds of her country. So who else pops on the television other than well known Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. After several minutes of listening to his well thought out, emotionally compelling piece, Americans have a chance to process what has just happened. Will they respect and support his unusually supportive ideas on how the situation should be handled? Well, the obvious answer is absolutely not. Not only is Bin Laden well known for his terrorist attacks on sovereign nations in other countries, but also for helping coordinate the devastating terrorist acts in New York on Sept. 11 2001. Therefore, following the suggestions of this murderer on how to handle a post terrorist attack operation would most obviously be foolish, because even the most naive of us could conclude that because of his reputation as a hateful, anti-American terrorist, he most definitely doesn’t have the United States’ best interests in mind. On the opposite side, one can not only rely on reputation as indicator of one’s ethos in a given situation. If a well known, well liked politician were to advocate to re-instate slavery, it wouldn’t matter how respected and well thought of this individual was, nearly every person that knew of this would write off anything he had said and his ethos would therefore be affected in a highly negative way. The point we see from looking at both of these cases is that the possibilities for a particular situation where ethos can be judged are endless. There are speakers/authors who have terrible reputations with the public but give rousing speeches, those who have an impeccable public identity and deliver bombs, and others who lie in between. When it comes down to it, arguing in a dogmatic way may seem appealing, but in reality, ethos must be judged differently in every individual case, taking into account each person’s own reputation along with the content of his or her rhetorical piece.

Reputation Cannot be Avoided

It is possible, in Aristotle’s time, that his contention, that ethos should be derived from what the speaker says and not his past reputation was a fair argument. In this media saturated age this statement is much more controversial. In most cases we, the public, are very aware of people’s past actions and we take those actions into account whenever we see a well-known person speak, or take action. As college students we are taught to be aware and critical of the world around us. Aristotle’s argument almost goes against this notion of the student as a critical thinker. When we hear Barrack Obama make a speech, we do not turn off the knowledge we have gained from the constant coverage of him for the past two years. For me, and for other students, I am sure this is impossible. On the other hand, as critical thinkers we must also use our minds in the moment to decide what we think of any speech or rhetorical action. In this sense our education gives us a double-edged sword, while Aristotle’s argument can be seen as a single sharp blade.
Another point to consider is the vast amount of people who can make public arguments, after all that is what we are doing in this class. In this case and in any case where you are reading someone’s blog who you are unfamiliar with, your sense of ethos will no doubt come from what the writer has said and argued for. In fact, there are numerous rhetorical actions that require us to make judgments of character based on inanimate objects and one-line phrases. Someday when you’re walking between class take a look around you at all the bumper stickers on cars and buttons and patches on people’s backpacks. We see things such as “support our troops” and “impeach bush”, in this case we can make reasonable judgments about an individual’s political affiliations and thus what we think of their ethos. All this from the back of a car, without ever hearing the individual speak a single word.
Then there are the cases where the public knows more than they ever should, or want to about someone, thanks to the Paparazzi and the constant coverage of all celebrities. Whenever we hear celebrities speak, there are events from their past that immediately come to mind. O.J. Simpson running away in a white Bronco, Michael Jackson dangling his baby off a balcony and of course Brittany Spears, well there aren’t really any specifics besides that she is a mess. Imagine if Brittany Spears got up and read one of Barack Obama’s speeches as if it were her own. There is no way anyone in their right mind could take her seriously and believe what she was saying. The obvious and indisputable reason for this is her reputation, her unavoidable and disastrous reputation. The example doesn’t have to be this extreme for us to discount most of what celebrities say. The lesson here is that it is possible to damage your reputation so much, that anything that comes out of your mouth will be completely disregarded.
In conclusion, I don’t believe that in this modern age we can discount reputation. There are times, when reputation isn’t there and in this case we have no choice but to base our judgment of ethos on what an individual says. In contrast, any well-known speaker’s reputation is very apparent and cannot be discarded. We all saw Barack Obama on TV and in the news for two years plus, finally concluding with a half-hour infomercial. Is it really possible for us to forget everything we have seen and heard when hearing him give a speech now? No it isn’t.