The Dynamics of Persuasion by Richard M. Perloff.

Introduction to pursuasion summary 

To truly understand the dynamics of persuasion or rhetoric it is helpful to look into the history of Ancient Greece. The Greeks considered to be the inventors of rhetoric, for their love of public speech and debate had much use for it. A group of teaches called Sophist was formed, Sophists sacrificed truth for the art of persuasion (20). Greek philosopher Plato disagreed with the Sophists and regarded truth with the upmost importance. These two opinions on rhetoric can still be identified today. The ‘Plato’s’ of today oppose the stretched truth that can be seen in advertising, politics and sales.  Whereas the Sophist’s of today are those who have to rely on persuasion within the capitalist global market place in order to promote their products and messages (21). Plato’s student Aristotle believed “the goal of rhetoric wasn’t to much finding the truth of the matter as convincing an audience to make the best decision about that matter” (22). Aristotle was the first philosopher to break rhetoric down into a scientific function and believed rhetoric has three main modes; ethos (the power of the source of the message or communicator), pathos (the appeal to the emotions of the audience), and logos (the persuasive argument that is accepted for its logical conclusions) (22).

18^th Century America was a haven for merchants, lawyers, politicians and editors using persuasion to alter and manipulate public opinion. Persuasion shows that “disagreements between people can be resolved through logical arguments, emotional appeals, and faith placed in the speaker’s credibility” (28). When using persuasive language it is important to consider ethics, it is hard to determine weather rhetoric is moral or immoral, many philosophers like Plato believe that truth is the only way to be truly moral. Whereas rhetoric has also been considered moral as the audience has a choice weather to accept or reject the message. Rhetoric is also considered amoral, so neither moral or immoral, this is because persuasion can be used for both good and bad. When considering rhetoric in this way it is helpful to have a utilitarian approach, utilitarianism suggests that if the message leads to more good than bad then it is inherently moral, whereas if it leads to more bad that good it is inherently immoral (31).