The following
article is expanded from points based on my slide notes for my 90-minute
workshop, “The Power Dynamic of Language”, which is about using language to be
more assertive in our interactions with others.
This is part of the wider Moneynomist “Seize the Advantage” programme,
along with Eric Tan Shi Wei, Gerald Yong Kim Heong, Margrette Lo Foong Quan, Oh
Cheng Kok, and Zhuo Shu Zhen. The
Moneynomist team is from AIA Toastmasters Club, and are all past presidents.
It is important for us to understand what rhetoric is. Rhetoric is the art of putting forward a
coherent, cogent argument, for or against a position, to convince people to
believe as you believe and do as you suggest, because it is viewed to be in
their interest. Rhetoric is the very
basis of human civilisation. The moment
one man was able to convince a group of others to perform feats, as part of a
grander vision, civilisation was born.
What we see of the pyramids, the Great Wall of China, and other feats of
engineering, began with the art of persuasion.
Our purpose, in Toastmasters, is not merely to give speeches, and
evaluate them. We are part of the
inexorable march of humanity, in a river of time through the ages. That is the art of rhetoric, of which
Toastmasters covers only the very basics of it.
Within this framework, we have ethos, pathos,
logos, and kairos. Ethos is the characteristic values of the audience. The speaker undertakes the speaker persona,
and channels the crowd, but subtly influences their positions by appealing to
their perceived values, their ethics, their jingoism. This is also the appeal to their prejudices,
and fear of the stranger. As such, it
can go both ways.
A classic trope, for example, would be Nigel Paul Farage, of the
Brexit Party, claiming that Turks will join the European Union, flood the UK
through the EU’s freedom of movement, and challenge “British” values. This may also be found in Adolf Hitler’s
attack on the Jews, and how they are subverting the German state.
On the other hand, it has a positive side. An example would be Winston Leonard
Spencer-Churchill’s famous “Never Surrender” speech, which galvanised the UK,
and the Commonwealth, in opposing Nazi Germany.
It is found in Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which appealed to
common values, after the Union victory during the American Civil War, among the
first steps to heal a divided nation.
Ethos works with pathos, their appeal to emotion. It is literally an appeal to their sense of
injustice, their perceived injustices, and their rage. This is the tool of demagoguery, and has a
long history. This is also the best
means to move the masses, since the larger the crowd, the lower their intelligence
quotient. People, in large numbers, are
easily moved by emotions. This works in
tandem with kairos, which is an appeal to timelessness, the weight of
history, and the appeal to the divine.
Religion moves people to great works, and to great violence.
An example of pathos would be found in Malcolm X’s “House
Negro” speech, where he contrasts the “house negro”, who is complicit in the
disenfranchisement and oppression of the African-Americans, as accomplices with
their White masters; versus the “field negro”, who is barely held in check,
ever ready to rise up against their subjugation, and ready to fight for their
emancipation.
A modern, negative example of pathos would be Donald John
Trump’s first major campaign speech, where he said that Mexico was sending
murders, and rapists, across the borders, and appealed to the fear of the
disenfranchised White underclass, and blaming Hispanic immigrants for their
plight. It is illogical, and contrary to
facts, but it got him the Presidency of the United States, and disunited the
states.
Logos is, essentially, an appeal to logic. Whilst there is a need for an underlying,
seemingly coherent, and cogent, argument, it is not often necessary. These types of speeches are used to explain
policy, from a position of strength, not to gain votes, or move the
masses. People are often impervious to
logic.
A classic example of logos, in a major speech, would be Marcus
Porcius Cato’s speech to preserve the Roman Republic against the imperial
designs of Julius Caesar. Marcus Porcius
Cato is better known as Cato the Younger.
His speech ultimately moved the Senate against Caesar, and
succeeded. Rome became an empire after
his, and Caesar’s death.
Before we talk about the power dynamic, we have to
understand what power is. Within the socio-political
construct that we call society, power is the
capacity of an individual to influence the actions, beliefs, or behaviour of
others. We use the term “authority” to
refer to power that is considered legitimate within the social structure. Power is ethically amorphous. It is neither just nor unjust, except in its utilisation. This is as much perspective as it is intent. Within the context of what we are addressing,
we are looking at words as a tool to wield power and impose authority. Toastmasters is a leadership programme. There is no point in learning to speak if we
never learn to be assertive and exercise power.
Here, a power dynamic is the way different people or
different groups of people interact with each other and where one of these
sides has more power than the other one.
This is the dynamic of class warfare.
The language we think in greatly shapes the way we
interact with others. For example,
Germans and Germanic speakers tend to think and interact formally. This is because, while the modern English
language only knows the word “you”, the German tongue differentiates between formal
pronouns, such as the singular and plural, “Sie” from informal ones,
such as the singular, “Du”, and plural, “Ihr”. Similarly, German speakers commonly used
honorifics such as “Herr”, for “master”, and “Frau” for “mistress”. Spanish-speakers, on the other hand, tended
to use prefer communication on a first-name basis, regardless of rank. Similarly, Japanese tends to be formal, while
colloquial Malay is the opposite.
This is a tool to be used to assert authority, or
psychologically subdue people. When
affecting a formal tone, it tends to get the message across more effectively in
a command type situation, while using a colloquial form may influence people
better in an informal context – pretending to be one of them. For example, dressing formally for meetings,
and speaking formally conveys gravitas, and people tend to automatically listen
to you, unless they are, themselves centres of power and influence.
Likewise, even within the same cultural context, using
the same language, people at different socioeconomic classes tend to speak
differently. Recognising this, and
having mental agility, allows us to blend in, or subtly assert authority by
tweaking the language dynamic.
