Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Charisma And Rhetoric

Matthew Fluxington

20:04 / 25.11.02

Over in the Chomsky In London thread in The Gathering forum, there's been some question as to whether it matters or not if Chomsky is a charming and charismatic guy when he's giving lectures, or if the strength of his rhetorical skills is enough for him to get by on.

I would think that there's a strong argument in favor of Chomsky and similar leftist intellectuals making some effort in being more charismatic, if just to make their ideas more accessable. Let's face it - the common person does not often trust lofty leftist academia, and it does the intellectual no favors to be seen as a boring old professor droning on and on humorlessly. Even those most sympathetic to the views of a person like Noam Chomsky tend to be put off by his writing and lecturing style. Why stubbornly cling to a style that is ineffective in reaching the overwhelming majority of people when it's in the best interests of the speaker to try to reach out and inspire as many people as possible? Is this really just rhetorical purism, or is it actually insidious intellectual elitism? Since when does charm and charisma cancel out rhetorical depth, anyway?

What say you, Barbelith?

21:09 / 25.11.02

I would say that charisma is a rhetorical skill. To neglect this side of your craft, no matter what you do, is neither purist nor elitist. It's lazy.

13:13 / 26.11.02

i've only seen chomsky once. i may tend to err on the side of wishing he would devote more time to syntax and less to lecturing on politics, but i didn't think his lectures were that great either. i've heard him on npr and stuff, though, enough to know that he can be a good and engaging speaker. the main impression that i got from hearing him is that he's old more than boring.

12:54 / 27.11.02

I think one should be clear about what Chomsky tries to achieve. He wants to inform and educate on matters of politics, usually US foreign policy. He has opinions which he believes are supported and in fact hard to disagree with if you have access to the relevant information and basic ethics. This last part is important.

What he is not trying to do is to drum up support by drawing on the backgrounds and political grievances and allegiances of the audience. He wants to convince you because he is right, not because you hate the US, are sick of Bush or feel politically dissatisfied - although these might be reasons to listen to him in the first place. Is it intellectual elitism for him to assume that you can and want to follow a closely argued case against US imperialism? I would say it is rather the opposite.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:38 / 27.11.02

I'd suggest first off that "rhetorical purism" is a difficult term already - generally, when people on Barbelith use the term "rhetorical" they are using it to mean somebody is *not* addressing the issues.

However, as I understand the question, it is whether it is advisable for an idealogue to learn a set of rhetorical and presentational techniques that will make them more likable or personally engaging, and thus make their positions *seem* more enticing than they actually are, rather than just setting down the facts as they understand them and their interpretations thereof.

It must be said, there doesn't seem to be much *point* in going to a lecture if you could get exactly the same impression from the book, unless perhaps it is to satisfy one's curiosity about what the author looks/sounds/walks like. But then, I do not entirely understand why people go to see pop stars who mime on stage, so what do I know?

Of course, all language is to some extent rhetorical, and certainly any prepared speech will be, but the question might be as much "is it ethical to use showy techniques and personal charm to persuade people to react more favourably to your cause" as "is the refusal to make listening to you a more pleasurable experience academic elitism".

Lots of other interesting stuff to think about here - I am going to hunt down the last rhetoric thread.

14:52 / 27.11.02

i agree, rhetoric includes charisma. its all the same set of skills. rhetoric is not about how right you are, its about how you put that across.

noam is a linguist, for goodness sake, a respected one...is he really that bad?
i have never seen him, and will be quite crestfallen if he is that unaware.

15:19 / 27.11.02

But he isn't that kind of linguist. I'm not even sure if understanding how to use a repertoire of techniques that serve to persuade through style rather than content is linguistics. Thats public relations, isn't it?

15:28 / 27.11.02

i take your point, thats not his particular field of specialisation, but rhetirical technique is definitely a branch of linguistics, i mean, that is the study of how we speak, and/or understand communication. how else would you categorise it?
public relations doesnt really cover it, it relates more to when one would use rhetoric than its composition and effect.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:27 / 27.11.02

Former thread on what rhetoric is here (don't mind the side-discussion about Ancient Greek. That;s just me and Qalyn flirting. Although, to save time, I'm right about everything).

Also possibly of interest, an earlier discussion on the distrust of (left-wing) "Intellectuals" here.

01:24 / 28.11.02

rhetoric n 1 art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. 2 language designed to persuade or impress (esp. seen as overblown and meaningless).

09:11 / 18.12.02

There is the question of why one would give lectures if one is not interested in entertaining an audience.

However, there is also the question of the nature of the intended audience. Deliberate populists are often discounted by academics; to a certain extent one must choose between the intelligentsia and the proletariat. Chomsky recognises that only a small part of the population can be swayed by rhetoric, while the rest are fickle and look merely for entertainment. In his case, it seems pointless to address the latter. I suspect he just gives lectures to get his name in lights, in the hopes that some previously unsuspecting academic will happen upon his ideas.

09:51 / 18.12.02

There is the question of why one would give lectures if one is not interested in entertaining an audience.

To educate, inform and persuade the audience?

only a small part of the population can be swayed by rhetoric, while the rest are fickle and look merely for entertainment.

Thats a pretty dim view of people there. If you were speaking to a group of people with anti-globalisation sympathies, would you have to choose between "rhetoric" (I'm not sure I understood how that is being used here, TBH) or putting on circus jugglers? I think you could also talk about the issues involved. Similarly if you were talking to labour groups, political activists or simply those with some interest in politics.

I suspect he just gives lectures to get his name in lights, in the hopes that some previously unsuspecting academic will happen upon his ideas.

From what I understand, this is pretty much the opposite of what he does.

10:05 / 18.12.02

the entertainmenmt aspect may be misleading; but shurely the point of personal appearances is to add a dimension to that information already given in the books?
if not, then why?

and if those lecture are dry, would one not be better reading the books to a soundtrack of the best songs in ones collection, thus making the experience more pleasurable?

12:51 / 18.12.02

I think that Chomsky's case is one example of how certain purposes prevent certain methods from being used (think Christ becoming violent and cracking the whip on the vendors in the temple - was that the best approach to the issue?).

The fact that his lectures are - allegedly - not as engaging as they could be is actually good. It's only fitting for him to be as far from the image of the engaging lecturer as possible: His point his that he has information that needs to be shared. To take advantage of whichever mnemolinguistic methods for audience captivation that he probably knows, being a linguist himself, would feel wrong.

His libertarian, humanistic points of view (that messianic figures are dangerous in the long run because they undermine the self-confidence in their followers) are only strenghtened when he presents himself as an average man, not priviledged in any way, only willing to demonstrate through documented facts the things that are usually kept away from the public eye - something that any of us could do. I know that the term "messianism" is too strong, but my point is this: On concentrating on the hard facts, demonstrating what's going on in the world these days with the same certainty that a math teacher shows that the result of 2+2 is 4, Chomsky not only reaffirms his (and here I'm assuming from his texts) distrust of media-friendly, frenzy-inducing characters; he is trying to make people realize that the things he talks about are real. "This happened like this, there are these reports, and testimonies from the involved, and here is some footage...". It's the same as saying: "I won't sell you this exciting picture, I'm not asking anything of you. This is the information. You do whatever you wanna do with it".

However, in a broader stroke on the subject, I consider strong rhetorical skills *alone* really exciting. Any other trait - if the lecturer has a good speech rhythm, if he throws candy at the audience etc, it's a bonus.

02:41 / 22.12.02

I think toksik did a good job of agreeing with me better than I do myself. Lurid Archive, my point was that books can accomplish Chomsky's stated goals better than lectures. It must cost a lot of money to travel around giving lectures. How many books could be produced for that money? (That's a rhetorical question...)

It is clear to me that Chomsky uses his lectures to expose himself to people who either don't read books or have not found them yet. Lectures are often advertised in newspapers, posters and the like. Books usually have to wait until someone stumbles across them in the library.

Jupiter Jade, that's a really good point. So good that I don't think I can add anything to it.

23:02 / 23.12.02

Not to be completely irreverent, but I think the main reason why people listen to rockstars' opinions and comedians' opinions more than, say, Noam Chomsky, is because one does have to develop some charm and engaging behaviour in order to grab anyone's attention. Whether that says something about the decreasing attention spans at the advent of the twenty first century, or whether that says something about our ape origins, I'm not sure.

Jupiter Jade said: On concentrating on the hard facts, demonstrating what's going on in the world these days with the same certainty that a math teacher shows that the result of 2+2 is 4, Chomsky not only reaffirms his (and here I'm assuming from his texts) distrust of media-friendly, frenzy-inducing characters; he is trying to make people realize that the things he talks about are real. "This happened like this, there are these reports, and testimonies from the involved, and here is some footage...". It's the same as saying: "I won't sell you this exciting picture, I'm not asking anything of you. This is the information. You do whatever you wanna do with it".

Maybe it's more decent and less whorish to not make your audience laugh or cry or scream or have a visceral reaction to your subject matter, but, ultimately, it's those who plug into our emotions who will have the longest-term effects, for ill or for good.

That said, I don't think that Chomsky needs to become a great orator or even a bellydancer, but it would be easier for him to do so than to expect the rest of the world to all of a sudden become more introspective, quiet, or have more of an attention span.

::a::

01:14 / 24.12.02

Not to be completely irreverent - aphonia

Irreverance is to be treasured.

but I think the main reason why people listen to rockstars' opinions and comedians' opinions than, say, Noam Chomsky, is because one does have to develop some charm and engaging behaviour in order to grab anyone's attention

I disagree. Most rockstars and comedians aren't trying to convince you of anything other than to buy their product. Choosing between 1000 different flavours of candyfloss is often a choice of most expensive ad campaign. Its easy because its so shallow.

You might cite Bill Hicks as a comedian with a message, but I ask you, how many accountants really have killed themselves? More importantly, how many have been convinced by his views?

22:19 / 02.01.03

I believe Bill Hicks wanted marketers rather than accountants to kill themselves.

Charm ultimately focusses attention on the speaker rather than the speech, so if the idea is to win large crowds over then yes, it would be "better" if he made an effort to be charming. Folks like Noam Chomsky however state that their intent is not to win crowds over, in fact a substantial portion of his writing serves to illuminate the morally dubious ways in which crowds are won.

I have difficulty with the argument that the problem of short attention spans, whether inborn or the result of marketing bombardment, can be effectively addressed by catering to that problem. It seems like trying to protect your family by bringing guns into your home. It seems so obvious that more show and less substance does not and cannot equal a better informed audience, any more than more guns could equal greater safety.

None of this, however, contradicts the equally obvious importance of charisma for speakers generally. Would you want your party to promote somebody clumsy and semiliterate as their candidate, even if, as is true here in the States, that person can wind up being the president?