*2). The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?
I agree with this statement. The lines of communication between the audience and an orator are delicate enough, and would be even more obstructed if the speaker was viewed as one who could not be trusted. And the fact that goodness and truth are closely tied into communication even further cements my belief in this notion.
The chances are very good that each person participating in this class have been in the audience of both good and not so good speakers. Sometimes one mistake or one flaw in the speech, such as a lack of confidence or eye contact, could turn an otherwise good speech into a painful or cringing space of time. The point is that that channel of communication between the speaker/ orator and the audience is delicate.
Now just imagine that the orator is known to be an immoral person. Where does that leave your confidence level at as a member of their audience? The whole reason you are there is because you trust this speaker to teach you something. That trust is undermined by their violation of trust with someone else, whatever it may be. They have lost a great portion of their effectiveness as a speaker even before their introduction because of their immorality. This will in turn cause their credibility to dwindle.
As a country we still hold the same standard that the Greeks did in terms of morality. Just take a look at the lack of sponsorships singer Chris Brown has, and the lack of support for Senator John Edwards after news of his affair. These people have done immorality in the sight of the public and have not only lost their credibility, but potentially their public forums as well.
This is why I believe that goodness, truth, and morality are necessary in order to be an orator. They are the underpinnings of effective communication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think an orator morally corrupt but with a great rhetorical talent has a power to persuade. I believe goodness, truth and morality can bolster a message but are not necessary in effective communication. I do agree than an orator should be morally good so the rhetorical talent does not serve an evil purpose. I also think that lack of morality requires more skills as an orator to persuade. As I already mentioned in my post, Hitler is an example of an evil character and a great rhetorical talent. He was able to convince others to follow him. We also should take into account the circumstances under which speech is delivered. The position of the listener determines also the power of the orator. In the atmosphere of economic depression and insecurity society was very vulnerable to Hitler’s powerful speeches and this helped him to play on people’s emotions.
ReplyDeleteHello HodgePodge85! You said, "As a country we still hold the same standard that the Greeks did in terms of morality." Do you honestly think this is true? Or do you think that 'little indiscretions' are ok, while others, not commonly accepted by society are not? Has our society become one that accepts that we will be lied to in a public presentation? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteYou also stated that goodness, truth and morality are the underpinnings of effective communication. Do you think a person can communicate effectively without these qualities? If not, why not? If so, can you think of an example where this was true? :)
While I believe that an amoral person can have the skills (projection, posture, organization, memory) to be an orator, it does not mean that they will have anywhere near the convincing power of someone with the same skill set and a moral character. As a result, they will be an ineffective orator. The people must perceive the person to be moral.
ReplyDeleteOur society reflects those who are given microphones, such as singers, politicians, actors, etc. As a society that is on the moral decline there are still morals we adhere to, few as they may be. For instance, the average American frowns upon domestic violence, hence Chris Brown may be finished as an artist.
Little indiscretions are ok, but only because society has ceased thinking of those as entirely wrong. So as the Greeks held high standards for orators, we still do except that we have exponentially lower standards.
Can a person communicate effectively without goodness, truth, and morality? I believe not. I really believe that an audience has to see at least one of these qualities in the speaker for that speaker to be effective.
Hitler was used as my antithesis by Maisy, but Hitler was effective because he was perceived as a moral character by the German people. He was their "savior", so of course he was effective. If people perceive the person to be moral then he will be effective.