Art of Persuasion

Paper 2 - Final Draft

Voice in Writing

During my first semester of college, I took a course about the sport of orienteering. Orienteering is the sport of navigating through the woods with a topographical map and compass, with the goal of finding “control points” that are marked on the map. At the control points, there are special hole punchers that the participants use to mark their punch cards to prove that they made it to all the control points. After all of the control points have been reached, the participant returns to the starting point.

For the final project of this course, our class went to Lory State park, where our instructor set up a course for us. I was paired up with a group of three upperclassmen, one of which was an RA. I practiced reading topo maps and using the compass and grid lines in class, and I was confident that I knew how to find all of the control points. I am great at convincing others that I know what I am talking about when I may not be 100% sure. My group members didn’t take much persuading, as they did not know any more about reading topo maps that I had learned in the few weeks of the class.

I led my group off trail and up a hill full of cacti. One of the girls that was in my group started crying and called her mom right from the side of the hill. We ran back to the staring point to get the instructor to deal with this hysterical girl and then went on our way.

The entire course was along the length of a valley. Logically, it was apparent that the instructor would not have us go off trail into the mountains. However, the rationality of the apparent logic was superceded by my confidence, and thus I lead a group of older, more experienced college students into a dangerous situation.

If you can convince others that your audience that you are a creditable source, they will believe just about anything; thus, voice in writing is all about style. It is not as important to have a legitimate argument in your writing as long as you can convince people that your argument is legitimate. To convince an audience to agree with a viewpoint, the writer simply needs to build creditability with the reader. To do this, the writer needs to pay close attention to his/her voice. In order to build creditability, the writer needs to write in a style that makes them appear confident and knowledgeable about the topic. Audience is important here, because different audiences will be wooed by different tactics. The type of language that is used makes a key difference in this. Using fancy, over-the-topic jargon can make the writer appear arrogant, unless the audience is a group of people that use the same type of jargon. Making the language or arguments too simple or too complex can make it seem like the writer is talking down to the reader or make the reader feel like the writer is trying to prove how much smarter they are than the rest of the population.

To demonstrate this, I will imitate a passage from On Truth by Harry G. Frankfurt, taking his academic style and molding it to make sense for the rest of us:

Often, people trick themselves into believing that subjective appraisals cannot be defined as either true or false. Their thinking leads them to believe that statements which do not make a factual claim cannot be correct or incorrect because these kinds of statements are merely a reflection of a personal preference or opinion.

Statements that seem to be subjective or opinionated do indeed rely on facts. For instance, to say "I don't like the blue paint job on that Ford Focus" requires the acceptance of several factual claims. The first is that "blue" is the same color "blue" that is accepted by others as being "blue." The second is the fact that the object that the speaker is referring to is what we all know to be an automobile. Third, the speaker must accept the fact that the car that he/she is referencing is a Ford Focus. Without accepting these facts, it is impossible to make a judgment about the color of a Ford Focus. So, it is possible to say that subjective appraisals cannot be divided along the true/not true lines; however, we must rely on factual information to come to those conclusions.

Factual statements are invaluable to our self-concepts. What we choose as important to us and how we choose to spend our time may appear to be ideas based on our feelings and our beliefs. Nonetheless, our feelings and beliefs are derived from factual information we have gathered regarding these choices. We must know that we are justified in making sense of what we feel, believe, or choose to do by evaluating the facts of each alternative.

In reading and imitating this passage from On Truth, I felt like I was translating Frankfurt’s arguments and examples in a way that reflected my understanding of the world. I used language that appeals to a different audience. I also brought in some of my own ideas in describing truth, like “factual statements are invaluable to our self-concepts,” in place of Frankfurt’s “…statements of fact are indispensable in explaining and in validating the purposes and goals that we choose and that we set ourselves to pursue.”

However, voice is more complicated than simply convincing your audience that you are right. If the reader knows anything about your topic, or can see through you manipulative ways, the writer’s argument cannot be solely based on style. Style is the method of constructing a valid argument based on facts. If the writer cannot base his/her argument on facts, than there really isn’t any argument at all.

I recall a sociology course I took called Sociology of Childhood. In this class, I was researching both camps of the gay adoption debate. The only research I could find that was against gays adopting was from evangelical groups. One of these articles attempted to explain that gays were unfit parents because of a collection of news articles that depicted situations in which children of gay households were beaten, molested, or otherwise abused. The author stated the flaws of his research, saying that newspaper articles were not an accurate sample, yet still tried to push the conclusion that gays were unfit to be parents. Someone with no knowledge of social science research may have been apt to believe that gays are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children; however, since I had an understanding of the rhetoric of social science research I knew that this information had no representative claim. What makes the news is what is sensational. News articles are not representative of the entire population.

Another example is child abduction. Parents are constantly worried that their children are going to be abducted by a stranger. In reality, child abduction by strangers is rare. Most abductions are perpetrated by the child’s own parent, often in the midst of a heated custody battle. Child abduction happens less often than physical and sexual child abuse, yet the public does not perceive this as the truth because of how convincing and scary all of the newspaper articles and news magazine specials that play on this fear to sell the news.

Voice cannot be lumped into categories of style and content. As I have demonstrated, the context of the rhetoric makes a big difference in which is regarded as more valuable. In the realm of political rhetoric, a politician’s style is viewed as a reflection of his character. It is impossible for the electorate to determine whether or not the politician will follow through with the content of his platform, but if he builds character with his constituents he is more likely to be regarded as an ethical statesman who will work to better his country. Also, when your job is to convince other people to trust your ideas all day, every day, being convincing is very important.

As to the question of style versus content: the more effective method of argument is determined by the discourse and the audience. Some discourses value the rhetorical style of an argument over the content. Others value cold hard facts over showy language. Some audiences do not understand the rhetoric of a field and are easily persuaded by people that appeal to their values or appear confident, regardless of the merits of their argument. Other audiences rely only on facts and neglect to look at the methods or assumptions involved in deducing those facts. The type of argument the writer uses depends on these factors. A good writer will take into account his audience, the discourse he is arguing in, and his ethics. The writer has the power to inform and enlighten, but also the power to deceive and manipulate. The ethical writer will state the limitations of his voice, be it an argument based on style or on content.