I’m sure you’ve all experienced it. That awkward moment when
a person just does not seem to understand what you are saying regardless of how
clearly you articulate it. It can be frustrating and annoying. Are we to blame
rhetoric for not being clear enough, or are we to blame society for having the
idea of “reading between the lines”. I think it would be a pretty even split
between the two; some misinterpretation comes from poor rhetoric, but a good
deal also come from the notion that rhetoric can deliver hidden or subtle
messages. (I’m pretty sure there is also a third category, that being the
person is stupid/oblivious. That, however, has very little to do with rhetoric,
and is a discussion for another time.)
http://www.someecards.com/
Reading
between the lines, or the art of subtlety is a great rhetorical tool. It is
powerful. You can hint at things that are taboo or disrespectful in nature,
without coming off as rude and ruining your credibility. It has a shock factor
that makes the audience pay attention. The obvious example that comes to my
mind is Phil Knight’s speech at Joe Pa’s Memorial Service. The speech had
rebellious and accusatory portions that were nicely wrapped in a blanket
subtlety making it more acceptable to say. The audience had the, fairly easy,
task of reading between the lines of his speech. In between his words was a
powerful message of wrongdoing and blame directed towards the hierarchy of Penn
State University. The subtlety of his speech made it extraordinary. It engaged
the audience because it continually made them think about what he was saying to
get the real message.
So, while
subtlety is common in our society, and occasionally causes problems, it is a
great rhetorical tool. It is powerful in that is not obvious, yet there for
anyone to find.
Phil Knight's speech was by far the most influential speech at Joe Paterno's Memorial, and I guess it was for this exact reason. But it was not only his implications that made it great, it was his assessment of the entire situation from his own eyes, eyes far away from Penn State that made it what it was. I know that in the years to come with all of the interviews, I will be asked time and again my views on the situation so I printed and cut out a section of Phil Knight's speech and put it in my wallet for that time because I know it is the best explanation that will ever exist on the entirety and complexity of this situation.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Truly great rhetoric should operate on multiple levels, and subtlety is definitely a part of that. It can be tricky to manage so many different things at once, sometimes, and there's no guarantee that everyone (or even most) in the audience will connect with what we're trying to say. But we have to put forth the effort if we want a chance to really communicate well.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I laughed out loud a bit in class when I read the e-card. Love it!
I STILL haven't seen that speech. This must change. But I agree with you completely. There's a point where people read to much into what others say, and find meanings that aren't really there. Worse than that is when you try to be subtle and people just look at you like you're a crazy person.
ReplyDeletePhillip I totally agree that there were so many other things that were great about his speech. I wanted to focus on the topic of subtlety rather than his speech, but it was just too good not to talk about. Seth you really do need to watch it! Ben I'm trying to have an e-card with every week's post!
ReplyDelete