During winter break, I went a short road-trip with some friends, and along the way we talked about everything from the latest gossip to current affairs. All four of us share similar views, so at first the conversation went off without any glitches, until the subject of the Middle East came up. A friend of mine and I had a different opinion about the role of Iran in the past decades. The battle seemed endless, with neither of us making concessions, until one of the other guys interrupted us and told us to stop. Although I was happy the conversation was over, I was curious as to why my friend stopped our conversation. He told us that whenever discussions of the Middle East came up, he is immediately annoyed. When I asked him why, he preceded to tell us that it didn’t matter which side was right, because no one was going to give any concessions. He was right, as our conversation had gotten nowhere in the last twenty minutes. Neither of us even entertained the notion that the other could be right. Thus, even though we were trying to persuade each other on our view, it wasn’t going to happen. Although this represents a time when persuasion cannot flourish, I do not think persuasion is dead. Instead, the dominate form of persuasion has changed, and the pure persuasion has become more difficult. The difficulty of persuasion has increased exponentially because of the tendency to surround ourselves with like-minded people and our social behavior.
The people we chose to surround ourselves with tend to have the same beliefs and opinions. From the beginning of our lives we are taught different attitudes from parents, teachers and our communities. In many cases, where we grow up has a profound influence on our future beliefs. These beliefs that are installed at a young age may change as we get older, but then so do the people we surround ourselves with. It may no longer be parents and teachers influencing our every move, but instead it is the media we watch, people we spend our time with, and even where we go to school. All of these groups tend to coincide with our beliefs. For example, many people that choose to come to Madison come for the liberal atmosphere it provides. But the people that are attracted to the liberal aspect, most likely will be liberal. I am not saying that everyone shares the exact same opinions on every subject, but it is probable that there will be some common ground. So even in an institution that is supposed to provide an atmosphere for persuasion, there is no need for persuasion. Likewise, a person who considers themselves to be democratic or liberal is probably not going to be listening to a Republican talk show, and if they do it is more of a joke. Instead people are going to listen to the media sources that most agree with their own beliefs. Even if persuasion is attempted it will be much more difficult. When an outsider tries to persuade a group of like-minded people, the second group has the upper hand. They are not going to be persuaded because there are many other people that will back their up the opinion in question. Even though this is the norm, there is a possibility that someone in the audience will be persuaded to switch their views, but this is not all that common.
This inability of one group to persuade the other, gives rise to the new prominent form of persuasion. Instead of persuasion as a means to join a particular side, persuasion is used as a means to call or rally a group to action. The most prominent example of this is in presidential debates. Instead of the candidates trying to appeal to both sides, they are just going to appeal to the people that are already behind them. Going into debates, it is as if there is no need for them to persuade, instead they want the people to make sure they vote and rally for them. Therefore, persuasion is not dead; it has just changed its form.
I agree that persuasion is not dead; it has just changed its form. The tendency for us to surround ourselves by others who have the same beliefs and opinions as ourselves makes persuasion more difficult. It makes us feel accepted and comforted to know that we are surrounded by those people that have the same opinions as ourselves. This way, we worry less about being disagreed with. You mentioned how you were involved in a debate about the Middle East that went nowhere because neither side would even entertain the ideas that the other side was presenting. On the flip side, I have witnessed “debates” that went nowhere because the two sides were arguing the same point. The word debate is in quotations here because this wouldn’t really be called a debate. I have watched friends talk politics who are discussing a subject that they both have the exact same feelings about. Yet, it still turns into a shouting match as each side piles on details that they both agree with. There seems to be no persuasion in this situation. This is because the argument is being presented to a sympathetic audience. In another situation, the same arguments could be seen as persuasion. It is just less likely that one of these sides to the argument would be willing to present it to someone who did not have the same opinions and beliefs as they do. The problem with persuasion now is finding the audience to persuade. Maybe this is telling us that we as an audience need to become more open-minded and step out beyond our comfort zones every now and again. It is often a good idea to at least hear what your opposition has to say. You may be persuaded or it may help strengthen your argument. It is unlikely that a large majority of people will begin stepping beyond their comfort level any time soon. Until then, persuasion is not dead, it is just more difficult to persuade.
ReplyDelete-Jaclyn E.