Page 206 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 206
What Do We Know about the World?
3.1.1. Ethos
Aristotle (1959) in defining ethos as depending upon “moral charac-
ter” stresses that it is the “moral character” of the orator that represents
the most influential means of proof when persuading the audience. He
explains that to persuade by means of perceived “moral character” the
orator needs to deliver a speech in such a manner that the audience will
find him/her worthy of confidence. Following Robert and Susan Cock-
croft (2005) ethos will be divided into personality and stance.
Personality is rendered as the power to win trust and confidence in
the audience, impress them with individuality. Trust, as Garver (1994:
132–138) and Cockcroft and Cockcroft (2005: 16) stress, comprises “mor-
al strength (arête), benevolence (eunoia)”, “constructive competence or the
ability to offer shrewd, practical but principled advice (phronesis)”. As to
the individuality, it translates into differentiating such traits of charac-
ter that would best suit the audience and the topic. What also affects the
persuadee is the level of the individual engagement of the persuader, the
higher the level appears to be, the more compelling the persuasion.
Stance equals the persuader’s viewpoint, vantage point, the issue
which rests upon the source of the process of interaction, for the success
of the exchange cannot be guaranteed in its absence. Stance is inherently
interactive, and evinces group values, yet, it is entirely contingent upon
the persuader.
The assessment and confidence of the audience placed in the per-
suader will be substantially dependent on the persuader’s stance, along
with the personality and image. The persuader, on the other hand, must
be attentive, observe, adjust to the needs of the audience, establish empa-
thy with the audience. Lynette Hunter (1984, quoted in Cockcroft and
Cockcroft, 2005: 31) asserts that what matters is not the topic someone
relies on, but the manner with which they do so. The persuader can as-
sume either a firm, rigid and authoritative stance; an indecisive and flex-
ible one; or suppress it before disclosing it later. The stance may take the
form of a structured and ordered process of interaction or a disorgan-
ised and uncontrollable one. Nevertheless, as Quintilian (1920) upholds,
no fixed rules are to be found that can facilitate persuasion. Still, prag-
matism, adaptability and flexibility in one’s stance are requisite in order
that success is guaranteed. Human capability of choosing the rhetorical
language facilitating persuasion cannot be excluded as well.
Hunter (1984, quoted in Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 32) also
discriminates between positive and negative rhetoric, the former expli-
3.1.1. Ethos
Aristotle (1959) in defining ethos as depending upon “moral charac-
ter” stresses that it is the “moral character” of the orator that represents
the most influential means of proof when persuading the audience. He
explains that to persuade by means of perceived “moral character” the
orator needs to deliver a speech in such a manner that the audience will
find him/her worthy of confidence. Following Robert and Susan Cock-
croft (2005) ethos will be divided into personality and stance.
Personality is rendered as the power to win trust and confidence in
the audience, impress them with individuality. Trust, as Garver (1994:
132–138) and Cockcroft and Cockcroft (2005: 16) stress, comprises “mor-
al strength (arête), benevolence (eunoia)”, “constructive competence or the
ability to offer shrewd, practical but principled advice (phronesis)”. As to
the individuality, it translates into differentiating such traits of charac-
ter that would best suit the audience and the topic. What also affects the
persuadee is the level of the individual engagement of the persuader, the
higher the level appears to be, the more compelling the persuasion.
Stance equals the persuader’s viewpoint, vantage point, the issue
which rests upon the source of the process of interaction, for the success
of the exchange cannot be guaranteed in its absence. Stance is inherently
interactive, and evinces group values, yet, it is entirely contingent upon
the persuader.
The assessment and confidence of the audience placed in the per-
suader will be substantially dependent on the persuader’s stance, along
with the personality and image. The persuader, on the other hand, must
be attentive, observe, adjust to the needs of the audience, establish empa-
thy with the audience. Lynette Hunter (1984, quoted in Cockcroft and
Cockcroft, 2005: 31) asserts that what matters is not the topic someone
relies on, but the manner with which they do so. The persuader can as-
sume either a firm, rigid and authoritative stance; an indecisive and flex-
ible one; or suppress it before disclosing it later. The stance may take the
form of a structured and ordered process of interaction or a disorgan-
ised and uncontrollable one. Nevertheless, as Quintilian (1920) upholds,
no fixed rules are to be found that can facilitate persuasion. Still, prag-
matism, adaptability and flexibility in one’s stance are requisite in order
that success is guaranteed. Human capability of choosing the rhetorical
language facilitating persuasion cannot be excluded as well.
Hunter (1984, quoted in Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 32) also
discriminates between positive and negative rhetoric, the former expli-
