3.6 Successful Rhetoric and Rhetorical Imbalance
Tim Personn
We think you can see that learning how the rhetorical triangle (with all its elements) works allows you to consciously (and with skill) perform a range of communicative tasks – from writing an email to more complex actions like changing someone’s perspective on an issue through argumentation (perhaps in an academic paper!). However, this is not yet the whole story. Here, at the end of the chapter, we invite you to think about the broader and more serious implications of argumentation, especially if we regard the idea of “successful rhetoric” only as a matter of being persuasive to an audience. Consider the possibility, for instance, that the audience might simply be wrong to accept an argument. Or consider, in turn, that the audience has been manipulated to give their agreement to a dubious claim by a speaker who is good at addressing their psychological idiosyncrasies or relative beliefs? In this case, the speaker or writer’s rhetorical stance or orientation is both unbalanced and unethical.
History provides many examples of the devastating effects that rhetorical imbalance can have if it serves the interests of dictators and authoritarian leaders. You may well study historical instances of such rhetorical imbalance that has impacted your own cultures. Certainly in Canada, Indigenous peoples have long understood and countered unethical, irresponsible rhetoric by Canadian politicians, educators, and others in positions of colonial authority. But we don’t have to look into our history books to see why catering only to the prejudices of a particular audience might undermine a common basis of truth. In today’s online world of echo chambers (where your own beliefs are “echoed” back to you, and you rarely encounter other points of view), this danger has even intensified and, from the point of view of some commentators, threatens the free exchange of ideas in a democracy. At times, it may even threaten our species’ survival.
An area where this can be seen at work is the current debate over the issue of human-made climate change. As many commentators have pointed out, often by using humor to great effect, there is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human behavior is indeed the cause of a warming planet. Still, this does not prevent climate change deniers from calling global warming a “hoax” as in this Forbes article from 2012.[1] The author of the article labels the measures taken to mitigate the effects of climate change “the crime of the century” committed by “liberal elites.” Thus, the Forbes article clearly appeals only very narrowly to its audience of business-minded readers in the context of the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Other writers have taken a different approach. For instance, an article from The Guardian in 2019,[2] which also addresses questions around the reality of climate change, invites its readers to consider how climate deniers might be persuaded t