Propaganda

Roots of Propaganda

Plato was probably the first to describe a theory of rhetoric. He was concerned with the nature of truth and how man's quest for truth can be either foiled or enhanced through the power of rhetoric and persuasion. To warn of this danger, he wrote a series of dialogues, three of which, the Gorgias, the Phaedrus, and the Menexenus, were concerned with the principles of rhetoric. These dialogues took the form of conversations between Socrates, a seeker of truth, and a sophist, who is concerned with the appearance of truth rather than the reality. The Sophists were itinerant teachers who gave lectures and wrote books on persuasion. These books contained "commonplaces," general arguments and techniques that could be adapted for a variety of persuasive purposes. The Sophists were known for their dangerous views of the role of persuasion, hence the negative connotation of the word sophistry-meaning trickery or fallacious argument.

     For the sophist there is no absolute truth and no means, whether through divine inspiration or human intervention, for finding the truth. They believed that persuasion is necessary to discover the best course of action. Arguing and debating can show all sides of an issue whereby the advantages and disadvantages of a situation can be more plainly seen. Plato saw the sophist position as dangerous because they used word tricks to win their arguments. He believed that men who use the power of speech unjustly could do great harm. The sophist tradition of arguing both sides of an issue could further cloud the understanding of truth rather than enhance it. Plato strove to achieve his goals by logical means and by appealing to the audience's emotions. Emotional appeals were often applied during funeral orations, moving the audience by appealing to the listeners' pride in their country and past glories while looking to the future for the purpose of promoting nationalism or other 'isms (Marlin 46).

Return to Top

     Aristotle, Plato's pupil, said the function of rhetoric "is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow." In Rhetoric, he wrote that persuasion is based on three elements: ethos, the personal character of the speaker; pathos, appealing to your audience's values; and logos, appealing to the evidence of the reasoning process. To persuade an audience the spokesperson must be credible, someone the audience can trust and look up to, and he must be able to speak directly to the audience's feelings or values in a positive way in order to have an emotional impact. The Sophists believed that persuasion was needed to discover important facts where Aristotle believed knowledge could be gained only by logic and reason. Aristotle did agree that persuasion was necessary for less literate individuals in order to communicate truth to them so they might come to the right conclusion.

Return to Top

     The Romans continued the Greek rhetorical tradition in the courts of law, the Senate, and during funeral orations. Cicero was one of the most famous statesman-philosophers of his era. He established what he called the official oratoris, the duties of the orator, to charm or to influence the audience by establishing the credibility of the orator, to teach by presenting a message with sound arguments, and to move by appealing to the audience's emotions. He believed that a statesman-philosopher should speak on all topics persuasively and must be thoroughly knowledgeable in literature, philosophy, law, and logic.

     In his first rhetorical work, De Inventione, he began with the remark that "Aristotle proposes expedience as the end of this species of oratory; we prefer to consider its ends as being the expedient and the honorable" (Cox 1113). Cicero was infamous for defending some of Rome's most notorious criminals, and he did his utmost to achieve an acquittal even though he knew the defendant was guilty. He believed that in a court of law the defender must appeal to the jury by using entertaining digressions and arousing their emotions to the point where they would disregard unfavorable evidence. Like his classical counterparts, Cicero was a man of principle and ostensibly spoke for truth and honor. He was, however, capable of using his rhetorical powers to sway an audience for his own purpose when necessary, for instance by defending a criminal he knew was guilty, thereby violating his own moral principles. The difference between classical period rhetors and modern day propagandists is that the former theoretically spoke for truth and honor, while the latter use persuasive rhetoric for their own ends.

Return to Top