Quora Answer: Do Toastmasters Speech Contests Exemplify the Best in Public Speaking?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do Toastmasters speech contests exemplify the best in public speaking?”

No.  Toastmasters speeches are an example of a specific category of speech, with an emphasis on entertainment, and emotional connection, up to a certain level.  Such is the vast field of rhetoric, there is no one type of speech that exemplifies the best in public speaking since we have to contend with the audience, the prevailing mood due to current affairs, the familiarity with the dialect of the audience, and their body language.  These vary by culture, by demographic, by the time period, by the venue, shaped by preconceived expectations.  A winning speech in one context is an incomprehensible speech in another.

The role of Toastmasters is not to create exemplary speakers, despite the naïve notions of many in the movement.  The primary role Toastmasters is to help ordinary people overcome their fear of public speaking, and master the foundational tools of giving a good speech.  That process of mastering these skills may take a lifetime, and therein lies the appeal.  A Distinguished Toastmaster is someone who has undergone the process of acquiring those skills, but necessarily mastering them.  It is like a black belt in martial arts.  Once it is achieved, the real journey to mastering the schools of rhetoric actually begin.

Toastmasters is an opportunity for ordinary people to taste being extraordinary.  As such, the entire process is run by volunteers, of varying levels of competency.  There is a vagary ingrained in the system that would be unconscionable in a professional context.  It is a celebration of ordinary people punching above their weight, in the hopes that if they do it enough, they will grow as people.  A such, the judges are drawn from the demographic of the place, of varying quality; the contests vary wildly in standard; the District Officers are often novices in leadership and management.  This is designed to give people opportunities for them to polish themselves.

The exemplification of public speaking is found in the field of rhetoric.  Its unyielding foundation is the mastery of the language medium in all its sciences, from pronunciation, enunciation, rhetorical devices, grammar, vocabulary, etymology, and morphology.  It is the command of the psychology of the self, and the audience; the concept of speaker persona and audience persona.  This is well beyond the Toastmasters level, but unless one is a Toastmaster, and a very good one at that, it will likely be out of reach.

As a result, paradoxically, being a champion speaker in the Toastmasters circuit, even the World Champion of Public Speaking, does not necessarily make you an effective communicator in a political context, or a business context.  That is because these different circumstances require specific skills and an understanding of the science of delivery that would not be emphasised, or even disregarded in a Toastmasters setting.

For example, in Toastmasters, people are often told to “use the stage”, which means there is an emphasis on movement.  As such, internationals speeches are more theatrical plays than forums celebrating the nuance of language and the subtle psychology of moving the audience in a specific direction in a policy speech.  Such a style would be incompatible in a business meeting, trying to convince shareholders to vote for a proposition; or in parliament, advocating a measure.  This is not Shakespeare in the park.

For example, many evaluations in a Toastmasters setting have this emphasis on acronyms.  In a more serious setting, such an analysis would be considered childish.  This is how we teach children, not how we break down an argument, and explain how to improve it.

The Toastmasters programme is useful, and I advocate it, being a club officer, district officer, language evaluator, and workshop speaker.  However, it is useful up to a point.  It is not, in any way, the exemplification of rhetoric.