Every human lives a solitary life. We are not always so separated in time or space, but in our minds we are truly confined, alone. The interaction between our physical selves is governed by the laws of the physical world, leaving open a scarcely finite myriad of possible interactions. Conversely, the link between our minds is comparatively one-dimensional. The complex thoughts of our mind do not transmit unaltered from one person to another, but instead the body translates them into discourse that is transmitted through light and sound. Words, when spoken are just sound waves; when written are just light waves. Another person does not experience your ideas through your words, at least not directly. He instead senses, perceives, and interprets them: those waves given meaning by mutual experience. However, that shared human experience varies from one individual to the next. As such, a thought, directly translated into language and then interpreted by another, would not resemble the original thought of the sender. Something is lost in translation to the unique differences between our individual human experiences. So the effort must be made to alter our transmission of our thoughts such that the translation of our language comes as true to the desired effect in the receiver's mind as possible. This act of translating in order to persuade your audience. You are not just conveying your thoughts, but rather designing your words to best manipulate the mind of your audience. We call this act of persuasive language rhetoric.

We are all already familiar with being human; intimately aware of what binds and separates us. Because of this, support for the statement that we all live solitary lives is perhaps better served by showing an example of what humans are not. Our separate minds define how we must communicate, but imagine not having this handicap. For a glimpse into this type of shared conscious, let us consult “The Hive Queen,” from Ender’s universe created by author Orson Scott Card. The hive queen is one of the few sentient beings of a fictitious species called the formics, first introduced in Card’s novel Ender’s Game. There are many formics, at one time or another, but only a handful of queens. The queens alone are sentient and wise; the vast majority of their species being comprised of drones. Each hive queen, while a separate being, does not maintain a mind separate from the others. When the hive queen learns about the human occupation of historian, she doesn’t understand the need for someone to continually study the stories of the past and make sense of them for the present: “Why don’t they just remember their stories accurately in the first place? Then they wouldn’t have to keep lying to each other.”{1} Here the hive queen exhibits her own xenocentricity. Similarly though, we are unable to visualize or understand the experiences of perfect memory and shared consciousness. She makes the point, however, that telling a story about something differs from the truth of the matter. A story, however, represents a sort of information packet, which condenses the complex act of sharing complete understanding of a subject into a manageable package. To use computer terminology, the stories we tell one another are archived files of knowledge that can be “unzipped” by our audience’s perception. The limitations of human language and communication impose upon us the requirement of story telling, in the place of passing on exact information as it exists in our minds. The perspective of the hive queen should help us to understand what we are not. This “we” that I continually refer to is humanity; we are humans. We do not share a single conscious, and as a result, our language does not represent an absolute translation of our thoughts.

Knowing that we translate our thoughts in order to communicate, how is it that we attempt to persuade? In order to persuade, we must know our audience. This seems like common wisdom, but merits deeper consideration. We cannot reliably know how our audience might interpret what we say, but through experience, the developed skill of reading out audience is fine tuned. As a result a good persuader does not merely attempt to present good logic in hopes that his audience might understand and be moved, but instead tries to say what he believes will best change their minds to produce the desired outcome. This amounts to a form of manipulation. If persuasion is not based directly on the speaker’s own opinion and logic, but rather the speaker designs it to affect the audience in a desirable fashion regardless of what the speaker might think of what he says; that is manipulation. Fantastic examples of manipulative persuasion can be found in almost any political speech. From the recent 2008 presidential election, Republican candidate John McCain said in a speech that despite recent chaotic economic events, “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.”{2} Whether or not he actually believes this remains unknown. He does however likely believe that by telling this to his audience, he might be able to improve their confidence in the economy; an important factor in averting economic crisis. His intentions would then seem good (though manipulative), despite the belief of many that his statements show a certain misunderstanding of the economy. That being said, it is indeed possible that economic downturn was in itself a self-fulfilling prophecy, the intended outcome of other persuaders. Ask yourself for a moment how often you are told that the economy is suffering. If you believe it, does this cause you the cut down on spending? If that is true, you, and the millions of other Americans who have cut down on spending in fear of a weak economy have in fact contributed to the very problem they fear. This is all political maneuvering, however. In reality, only a few experts likely understand the situation, and they would probably not do well to convince you of the truth, as the economy, not persuasion, is their strong suit. On the contrary, persuading their audience (not being an expert on the topics that they cover) is the true strength of politicians. It seems like a grim view of those people who would persuade you, but in reality is necessary, as they possess the communication and persuasion skills that their advisors do not. To bring this back to the presidential election particularly, the non-expert opinions of candidates, coupled with their charismatic persuasive skills, lead to the close inspection of their advisors and the branding of who they are rather than specific issues. The specific issues are not definite and subject to interpretation. We must choose between two people trying to manipulate us to their whims. The branding of them exists such that we might determine the person that we would rather be manipulated by. Often we feel best about being manipulated by those who seem most similar to ourselves.

By understanding the limitations of human interaction, we can better define rhetoric. However, the limitations of discourse and persuasion extend beyond the distances that separate our minds. Just as communication goes beyond the simple transmission of ideas to the intentional manipulation of the audience, so does rhetoric fail in more ways than just the handicaps that define it. In order to communicate with or persuade another person, the common experiences and mindsets provide the groundwork for the meeting of minds. However, some of the most precious of ideas require a specialized groundwork that is not shared universally. There the concept of a “universal language”, an intuitive and innate construction that is the formation of language. Noam Chomsky (another darling of the left - sorry)pioneered the concept of that universality. But that might be off topic. Wisdom, the most distilled of human thought and experience, is a gift that cannot be simply taught, discussed or instilled by persuasion. Yet, there are some topics upon which wisdom serves as the common basis for mutual understanding. These most valuable cases fall into the category of the ineffable. The understanding of the ineffable does not result from conversation or persuasion, but rather a personal path unique to the individual. One might lead another in the path that he or she followed, but it would not be the same for another. This can be illustrated by when Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha met Gotama. He knew that the Buddha had found the path to nirvana and had heard from him the way in which he did it, but that was not Siddhartha’s way. {3} No person could teach him wisdom, he must only find it on his own. But on that same note, the teachings of others helped him to that end. He did not learn what they were saying, or what they were trying to teach him, but he came to revelations on his own that were occasionally spurred on by his teachers’ actions. Their teachings then seem almost inconsequential. If he came upon his revelations alone, only inspired by them rather than influenced, would not gnomic preachers serve the same purpose as great teachers? Perhaps so, and then perhaps not. Often Zen masters teach their students only kōans, as to not burden their minds with understanding, and instead open them to intuition. Rhetoric, being dependent on the similarities between beings living in solitude, often fails in describing the most intricate and invaluable things.

Kōans can also be seen as “overburdening” the mind, and as the mind struggles to solve the puzzle, the self dissolves in a flash of understanding. As if I was so lucky to experience enlightenment.

And yet, despite its limitations, rhetoric is the only tool we wield to break our separation from one another. We are no different from bodies in space, communicating only through radio signals soaring through the void that separates us. Truly, we are only a little bit closer, sending different wavelengths, and the void is often filled with air. Through the consideration of rhetoric, we see first that it is not the absolute exchange that it often purports to be. It must be revealed as a tool for the conveyance for ideas in order to illustrate the distinct difference between the transmission of ideas and the ideas themselves. From this is born the cultural aspect of rhetoric. Often we view the words of people as the value of the people themselves. This stems from an illusion of connectedness. Through the eyes of this illusion, words often are elevated to a status beyond that which they are due. It is important to step back and realize that words are not the ultimate expression of thought, only the best we can do to communicate them to one another. Academia often suffers from this bias, and so do its victims. Academia, so invested in words, must do what it can to elevate the value of the skill set it brings to the world. The intent here is not to bash eloquence, only to warn against those who might paint it as the sole indicator of intelligence or wisdom. Certainly you would be hard pressed to find someone who would admit to such a prejudice against those who cannot but speak plain. However, every day we see people judged by that very standard, despite what the judges might say when pressed. To return to the example of politicians, think of the treatment of the candidates of the 2008 presidential race. One of the candidates exhibits the groomed lexicon of the Ivy league while the other speaks the more simple language of middle America. Nobody would argue with much validity that Barack Obama isn’t the superior orator, at least when compared to John McCain. Instead let us look at the current president: George W. Bush. Bush’s speaking patterns are well-developed and his skills at oratory are much more appealing to a large majority of Americans than the media would have you believe (as evidenced in part by the results of the 2004 election). But no matter how you swing it, his eloquence and language skills are far inferior to this election’s candidates, especially Senator Obama. This difference is apparently enough for much of academia to often praise Senator Obama and in the same breath vilify the speech of President Bush. So many times I have heard from my academic peers: “I cannot believe that America voted for Bush’s second term!” In light of what I’ve said about the value and bias of rhetoric, would this not help their understanding of this phenomenon? It certainly seems that many of the most vocal persons in society are those who know the most words! Despite the great lengths taken here to diminish the value of rhetorical skill, the truth the value of these communication skills is immeasurable, only often overstated. It is not preferable, if given the opportunity to develop a more sophisticated vocabulary, to shun it in favor of speaking plain. That being said, it still does not preclude those of simpler tongues from displaying a great measure of wisdom.

Jimmy Carter was another example of how “plain speaking” became a priority in an election, only to lose the next election, in a landslide, to Ronald Reagan. Reagan was considered the “Great Communicator.” He was an actor who knew his craft, the art of emotional manipulation. He was also found to be suffering from the beginning stages of Alzheimer's, especially in the later years of his presidency. The vilification of Bush is afterthought, in the light of recent history. I believe we are seeing a backlash against perceived “simplicity” of politicians who were found later to say one thing and do another. Is it not a somewhat refreshing image of an educated intellect offered as a choice for “leader of the free world?” It can be argued Bush is no different than other politicians (Bill Clinton) who have a “down home manner”, only to have an façade that belies their speech. Or.... is Bush really as simple as he appears (shudder).

And so, it has taken manipulative rhetoric in order to help you better understand the very same technique. By breaking down the value of something so invaluable as persuasive language, you might better step outside and view it more objectively. It is important to realize that rhetoric does not perfectly depict our thoughts. A skilled rhetorician does not necessarily a wise person make. Also, rhetoric alone, because of its many limitations, hasn’t all of the intrinsic value that its most deft wielders and peddlers would have you believe. This essay only portrays my thoughts, it is not them. My thoughts you can never truly know, but I’ll do my best to bring you, my audience, to the same understandings that I know. I will do this using rhetoric, the only tool I possess.

Once again, great ideas and you find me an agreement (for the most part). Thanks for “spoiling” Ender's Game. I have the unabridged audio book on iTunes for a while and was planning to “read” it...

For some reason the name: McCain is appearing as a link with no deliberate effort of my own...