D5

Norbert Cunningham

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

A hearty good morning as we continue to enjoy the summer of '08, rain or shine. Today, I start in ancient Rome.

Origins

No, this isn't about Latin, rather it is a discussion prompted by some interesting observations in a recent BBC article pegged to a museum exhibition in London on the Roman Emperor Hadrian. The premise was this: "What have the Romans ever given us?" Roads, Hadrian's wall and Latin are obvious. But author Lisa Jardine argues the Romans gave the English-speaking world (and others) a much more significant legacy: how we use language to persuade.

Influence

Jardine notes our legal system, our debating conventions, and even the way hot issues are argued and presented in the media have been influenced and "defined" by a method devised by Roman orator Cicero (at least he gets the credit), later put into a set of practical rules entitled the Oratorical Institutes by writer Quintillian. At the heart of the system are various techniques for persuasive argument in "utramque partem," otherwise known as being able to take either side of a contentious issue. The whole system rests on an assumption that there are few debatable matters that can be settled solely by relying on the facts for or against. Cicero and Quintillian understood that most of the time opinions are formed, whether pro or con, and audiences are swayed by astute manipulation of limited evidence. And that involves a range of persuasive tactics designed to be convincing. Quintillian called these kind of arguments "controversiae", the origin of our word "controversial."

Emotion

I can't begin to get into all the tricks of rhetoric here today, but both Quintillian and Cicero were well aware that arguing/debating in this way is bound to arouse strong emotions. They thus noted it is essential for a good debater to anticipate such emotions and to control them to their advantage. It is no coincidence that politicians are constantly looking for positive buzz words for what they're doing (remember "a just society"?). It is also why politicians spend much time spouting platitudes and home-spun wisdom (who's against "family values," whatever it means?; who can miss the humility in a well-placed "God willing"; who can fail to notice the good looking wife and clean cut kids standing behind the politician?). Not all of it is cynical or insincere, but a lot is. Why are some politicians so successful, others less so? Sincerity matters as well as persuasiveness. If you don't come across as sincere, no amount of oratorical flash will help; you'll have aroused the wrong emotions!

Modern times

Jardine suggests that "Roman discussions of exemplary forms of public debate are particularly relevant today. Our press and broadcast media currently thrive on the lurid presentation of controversy, particularly in the areas of science and medicine. Some of us are beginning to think that the tradition of adversarial argument is being tested to the limit."

Jardine gives a specific UK example and her article turns off in another direction. I think she missed something. It is one thing to be able to argue both sides of an issue, but Cicero and Quintillian recognized the method has its limits and it does not apply when there is certainty and falsehoods are clearly demonstrable. Arguing the sky is pink when it is clearly blue is perverse: there are no grounds for a debate.

A twist

But Jardine is right, the media overflow with "lurid presentation of controversy." So should we question the arts of persuasion or something else? In a world of perfection, the best orator would convince all of us all the time. But in the real world, not only are some orators better, but the audience brings its own knowledge to debates as they consider which argument is most credible. The media make "lurid presentations", but are they really "controversies"? Or are they fake controversies only possible by ignoring demonstrable facts and truths, all of which makes for truly popular entertainment, however irresponsible it may be if one considers truth to be important? That's a rhetorical question!

To be sure, many are faux controversies. Look at how many TV shows push a "mystery" that is actually no mystery at all. Despite advanced detection science and more than 50 years without a single shred of evidence "aliens" have ever visited Earth, why do shows and stories promoting the likelihood continue? These are a perversion of the art of persuasion as well as the journalistic creed of "objectivity." Cicero's system is designed for when there are a limited number of facts and a case must be made; it is not designed for a case when there are no facts or for when all the facts clearly point to one conclusion.

One tactic is to ignore (usually) or outright deny (sometimes) a demonstrable fact. That tactic itself comes with considerable risk, particularly if the fact is well-known. And that's where the "lurid controversies" so often fail. If the demonstrable facts were properly considered, there'd be no controversy! There is absolutely no reliable evidence people have psychic powers; no evidence anybody has ever talked to a dead spirit; no evidence for UFOs; no evidence for a Bermuda Triangle. Yet many media thrive on this nonsense. I suspect that if Cicero visited today, he'd be horrified by these presentations. All they actually demonstrate is that there are, most certainly, a lot of gullible people.

The last word

Here is Cicero himself, who lived from 106 BC to 43 BC:

"A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation."

* Lex Talk! is researched and written by Times & Transcript editorial page editor Norbert Cunningham. It appears in this space every Monday.