Oftentimes the discussion of contemporary rhetoric turns to talk of unethical persuasion, crooked politicians, advertisements, or arguments. These days, it's near impossible to see media with people interacting peacefully, especially if they disagree with each other. The overwhelming presence of yelling in our TV-scape made one pillar of ancient Egyptian rhetoric poignant to me: silence.
The first of several canons utilized in ancient Egyptian rhetoric, silence serves a few purposes. Firstly it allows a rhetor to keep their own composure while their adversary pokes holes in their stance. More importantly to our modern landscape, silence can highlight the idea of listening. Listening to your opponent's argument gives you time to consider your own, and maybe just give thought to their points. Let's take a look at a few modern examples of people who could have benefited from utilizing the canon of silence.
In this scene from reality TV show Dance Moms, we can see a group of mothers screaming over each other over their individual perceptions of the truth. These stars could have benefited from silence as it would have allowed a clearer message to be conveyed rather than dissolving into an angry argument.
In this compilation from a 2016 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, viewers see all the time a candidate was interrupted. These speakers could have utilized silence to build their own credibility while their opposition damaged their own.
After examining the lack of silence in these examples, it's time to accept that maybe we should take a page from ancient Egypt's book. If we opened our ears as much as our mouths, the world would be a much better place to communicate.
So, I like what's going on here. You picked good examples to show your point. But what is up with ancient Egyptian rhetoric assuming that my rhetorical opponent is a complete dunce? Am I only to rhetorically engage with complete fools? The entire idea behind their idea of silence is that my opponent will always take one step forward and two steps back.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is implied that the only time one should engage in rhetoric is when they know themselves to be correct and their opponents to be wrong. Or perhaps when one is wrong they are incapable of proper rhetoric. It just seems so alien from our system that is perfectly capable of defending the wicked and punishing the just
i think in arguments we are quick to give our opinion because we fear that another's argument will overpower ours, so we fight to get to the reader first. silence however lets your opponent get tongue-tied, the reading wrote about how silence can show how strong of character and high of reputation a person has
ReplyDelete