An Overview of Eloquence - PDF

An Overview of Eloquence his chapter attempts to provide an overview of eloquence by defining it, reflect- ing on its importance and power, and discussing listening—the act of receiving eloquence. 1.1 DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING...

An Overview of Eloquence his chapter attempts to provide an overview of eloquence by defining it, reflect- ing on its importance and power, and discussing listening—the act of receiving eloquence. 1.1 DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING ELOQUENCE What is eloquence? Is it inborn in the individual’s nature or acquired through the indi- vidual’s learning and practice? Is it a complex art that is indecipherable to the analyz- ing mind? Or is it a science with clear constituents, each of which is analyzable and learnable? If so, what produces eloquence? What is its function? This section attempts to explore these questions concerning the issue of eloquence through quotations by noted orators, amassed from a variety of sources. “It is but a poor eloquence which only shows that the orator can talk” (Joshua Reynolds, 1723-1792, British portrait painter). “Talking and eloquence are not the same: to speak and to speak well are two things. A fool may talk, but a wise man speaks” (Heinrich Heine, 1797-1856, German poet and writer). “There are certain things in which mediocrity is intolerable: poetry, music, painting, public eloquence. What torture it is to hear a frigid speech being pompously declaimed, or second-rate verse spoken with all a bad poet’s bombast!” (Jean de la Bruyere, 1645-1696, French satiric moralist). These quotes point to the understanding that eloquence is a form of art that requires high excellence. Eloquence is not the presence of words or the faculty of speech, but the inventive composition of words deftly delivered. The tree of eloquence finds its root in a vital heart and a wise mind, its branches in animating words, and its flowering in the moving voice. The heart, the mind, the word, and the voice are the four pillars on which the edifice of eloquence stands. “Every idea is an incitement... Eloquence may set fire to reason” (Oliver Wen- dell Holmes, 1809-1894, American physician, poet, writer, humorist, and professor at Harvard). “If the truth were self-evident, eloquence would be unnecessary” (Mar- cus Tullius Cicero, 106 BC-43 BC, ancient Roman lawyer, writer, scholar, orator, and statesman). “As the grace of man is in the mind, so the beauty of the mind is in elo- quence” (a proverb). These quotes point to the understanding that eloquence is not a passive reflection of what is evidently out there. It manifests what is already there, but adds emphasis to it, gives clarification of it, and puts it on fire. Eloquence depends on a “preexisting condition,” which could be a social need, a rampant discontent, an 1 2 Chapter 1 ONSET OLESEN EL LLL SELLE IAL ELEE DALE ELLEL OLLLELEL IESE DEES ELISE LLLSD LLL LEED LLLELEALLEDL LLL LLLLE AES DEDEESIELEELASEAL LEE i aspiration in the heart, or a fuzzy and yet ubiquitous dream. The “preexisting condi- tion” is the ore that contains the diamond. Eloquence is the craftsmanship that mines the ore, extracts the geode, and then polishes and presents the diamond before its audience, in such brilliance that its glow becomes unavoidable. Franklin D. Roosevelt, when asked about his secret of leadership, said, “I listened, I understood, and I put into words what is in people’s hearts.” FDR inspires us that eloquence is the messenger, the representer, the clarifier, the emphasizer. Eloquence discerns the fuzzy message in the common heart, presents it in concrete words, clarifies its essence, and enlarges it with unmistakable volume and vivacity so that no ear cai shun it and no eye can ignore it. “To feel your subject thoroughly and to speak without fear, are the only rules of eloquence” (Oliver Goldsmith, 1730-1774, Irish-born British essayist, poet, novel- ist, and dramatist). “It is of eloquence as of a flame: it requires matter to feed it, and motion to excite it; and it brightens as it burns” (Publius Cornelius Tacitus, AD 56-AD 117, senator and historian of the Roman Eimpire). “There is eloquence in true enthu- siasm” (Edgar Allan Poe, 1809-1849, American short-story writer, editor, poet, and critic). These quotes point to the understanding that eloquence requires the ingredient and the contagious energy of enthusiasm and passion. The energy of eloquence, like the flame of a fire, contains courage, luminescence, and agitation. Eloquence must be able to stir the heart and animate the hand. According to Theodore C. Sorensen, the celebrated speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, leadership that hopes to inspire action must first be inspirational in language: “The most important quality for a president, as Kennedy and Roosevelt demonstrated, is not how many roll call votes he answered sitting in the Senate, but his qualities as a leader who can mobilize people, inspire them, galvanize them, arouse them to action” (cited in Applebome, 2008). However, Mr. Sorensen believed that great eloquence does not have to be florid in language and flamboyant in presentation. “Speaking from the heart, to the heart, directly, not too complicated, relatively brief sentences, words that are clear to everyone,” he said of the fine art of eloquence (cited in Applebome, 2008). “Brevity is a great charm of eloquence” (Marcus Tullius Cicero). “True eloquence consists in saying all that should be said, and that only” (Francois de la Rochefoucauld, 1613-1680, French classical author and leading exponent of the Maxime). These quotes point to the understanding that eloquence is compact, characterized by economy, par- simony, and brevity. Brevity has always been associated with good use of language. Verbosity, on the other hand, has long been deemed negative and unnecessary. This is perhaps the exact reason why feeble and meaningless speech-fillers such as “like,” “you know,” “stuff like that,’ and “everything else” find no fitting place in eloquence. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, an oratorical gem in U.S. history, is only 278 words. “Persuasive speech and more persuasive sighs. Silence that spoke and,eloquence of eyes” (Homer, ca. 8th century BC, ancient Greek epic poet, author of the Iliad and the Odyssey). “Often there is eloquence in a silent look” (Latin proverb). These quotes point to the understanding that in the diamond of eloquence, there is this facet in the nonverbal. The wordless language of the body and the voice must collaborate with the language of the tongue and magnify the latter.  An Overview of Eloquence 3 LORE OLE ERLEOEE LLL LETTE ELLE SLRS i se EEE The word “eloquence,” per its lexical analysis, is composed of the prefix “e-” which means “out” and the root “loqu” which means “speech.” Apparently, in its elemental sense, eloquence denotes an outflow of speech, giving an emphasis to the mellifluous fluency and facility of the tongue. However, true eloquence is much deeper than the superficial phenomenon of a facile tongue, but goes deep into the root of a vital mind inexorably connected with the common heart, deftly expressed and presented in stir- ring language, and assisted by fiery enthusiasm. This is the reason why this book con- siders the following as the four pillars of the edifice of eloquence: psychology, thinking, language, and delivery. 1.2. THE IMPORTANCE OF ELOQUENCE Virgil (70-19 BC), the classical Roman poet, author of the epic Aeneid, said, “One man excels in eloquence, another in arms.” To Virgil, there are two ways for men (or women) to accomplish excellence: force of the word or force of the sword. A similar thought is expressed by Demetrius (305-280 BC, Athenian orator, statesman, and philosopher), “Everything that steel achieves in war can be won in politics by eloquence.” Edgar Qui- net (1803-1875), French poet, historian, and political philosopher, even believed that eloquence—the power of great speech—possesses a greater force than philosophy. “Philosophy may be dodged, eloquence cannot,” said Quinet. The truth of the claim by Virgil and Demetrius has been and still is consistently and abundantly attested by history or by contemporary human affairs. The two great- est agents that create history are the leader and the army. The former personates the power of the word; the latter, the power of the sword. Revolutionary and apocalyptic change occurs via the agency of the leader, the army, or rather, both. When we think of great events and memories in history, we think of great leaders winning great wars: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mao Zedong. Yet great leaders can also win great victories, not via violent force, but via forceful visions couched in vital words: Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela. A great orator can be more powerful than an army. In contemporary life, force and duress are still amply employed, as seen in war- ring nations, the state machinery of police and prisons, and the violence of torture and murder. However, life in general has attributed legitimacy and civilization to the use of the word over the use of force as the means of accomplishing one’s ends, be it in the arena of politics and education, or the arena of business and commerce. You may claim that great leaders and revolutionary wars have little to do with your personal life and thus the importance of eloquence may be much attenuated in your own life. However, certain innate and unchanging desires in every human heart will attach enduring importance to the effective use of the word, either written or spoken. For instance, we have a desire to leave a certain imprint upon the track of time after our mortal footprints dissipate into the ashes of oblivion. Yet, one’s imprint left behind after the mortal death is always defined by one’s influence on his or her human fellows. The celebrated and legitimate agent for influence again is the skillful wielding of the word, not the employment of brutal force.  Chapter 1 (CSTE Human interactions and transactions and even human experience itself represent a never-ending contest among different perceptions, definitions, and value frames. Beyond the point of comfortable physical survival, the bulk of life becomes one of the nonphysical, the mental, the spiritual, the realm that is determined by what we think and how we feel. Therefore, what resides in the mind and stirs in the heart becomes the ultimate arbitrator of the quality of life, either for the individual singularly or for humanity collectively. Yet how do we connect and communicate with what resides in our own mind and heart and with what resides in the mind and heart of our fellows? Skillful application of the verbal language still remains the staple wherewithal for such connection and communication, despite the importance of ancillary instruments such as painting, music, and technology. As human life quickly goes from the physical and wades into the nonphysical, our ability to define and modulate our own and others’ perceptions, values, and desires individually and collectively lies at the heart of the quality of “human experience.” All this depends on our application of language to mediate among ourselves and between us humans and our physical world. On a more mundane level, in the prose of daily life, one’s capability and facility with the spoken word plays an indispensable and prominent role, be it during our schoollife, professional life, or personal life. Human business and affairs, when stripped to their foundational instrumentation, depend above all on the use of the word. The spoken word may actually play a greater role than the written word during occasions of grandeur and ceremonious significance. In the classroom, the teacher assesses the student’s participation and intelligence by what and how the student talks. The profes- sional interview for one’s prospective employment to a large extent sees its success in what and how one talks. In so many employed jobs, one’s success depends so much on how well the person communicates with the boss, colleagues, customers, and various other constituents. Even within the intimate environment of one’s personal life with family, friends, or strangers, the content and manner of one’s speech constitutes the bedrock on which others erect their judgment of you as a person. The conversational string of informal words, in countless scenarios of life, has to be formalized into a public speech. You may have to give a presentation in the class- room. You may have to present before your boss a proposal of a new product or a new idea. In the role of the boss, you certainly have to present to your employees the rationality and implementation of a new policy, a new procedure, or a new product. As a businessperson, you have to present your product and service to your prospec- tive customers, hopefully in a manner effective enough to elicit their purchase of your product or service. As a spokesperson for your organization, you may have to defend your organization’s practices or salvage its image when it is severely compromised bya crisis publicized by the press. The value of the spoken word for political campaigns is even more pronounced. With democracy now endorsed almost as the sole legitimate agency of governing, the spoken word, with its ultimate function for persuasion, logically becomes the sole agency of politicking. The business of the politician and leader is the business of per- suasion and influence. The instrument for the business of persuasion and influence is largely the spoken word. Visualize the single most important and most common thing  An Overview of Eloquence 5 SES EOE LORI REEL LLL TLE LEED EEEEL EES EESLEDS ELLOLS! OSLO CLINORIL ELLE LI STELSXLEISIESESLBLS LLU DOSES OUALED TSO that the president of a nation does; what emerges in your mind more than likely is the image of a person standing behind a podium giving a speech. Politicians use the spo- ken word to get themselves elected into their desired office. When incumbent, they use the spoken word to win support for and to defuse opposition against their advocated policies. A leader weak with the spoken word is also likely weak with their capability to fulfill their programs. 1.3. THE POWER OF ELOQUENCE The power of eloquence is amply seen both historically and contemporarily, both within and beyond the United States. The power of eloquence is vividly and vitally illustrated in the example of Booker T. Washington, a black person that rose from slav- ery to become a national icon of exemplary moral character. His 1895 speech at the Atlanta Exposition was thus described in New York World: Professor Washington’s speech represented the “beginning of a moral revolution in America... It electrified the audience, and the response was as if it had come from the throat of a whirlwind. Within ten minutes, the multitude was in an uproar of enthusiasm—handkerchiefs were waved, canes were flourished, hats were tossed in the air. The fairest women of Georgia stood up and cheered. It was as if the orator had bewitched them.” (Washington, 1906, p. 239) According to B. T. Washington’s own account, the reaction from the audience was one of delirium. Tears rolled down the faces of many, especially African American members among the audience. The whole audience was so psychologically synchro- nized with Washington that he claimed he could easily spot anyone in the big crowd not deeply affected. Such was the power of the speech that high accolades from all major national papers snowed upon Booker T. Washington for months. Wherever he went in the city of Atlanta the day after the speech, people introduced themselves to him and tried to shake his hands. Along his train ride back to his Tuskegee Industrial and Agricultural Institute in Alabama, of which he was the founding president, people came to every station where the train stopped just to see Booker T. Washington. People’s reception of him back in Alabama was no less dramatic. This single speech catapulted Booker T. Washington into national fame. Invitations came to him in great number from prestigious agencies for him to speak all over the nation. Many offered him hundreds of dollars a day (a tremen- dous amount more than a hundred years ago) for his words of power and eloquence, but he chose to remain committed mainly to his work for his own race at Tuskegee. The power of great speeches resides in their capability to frame the audience's perception of realities, especially challenging and trying realities, so that people see light in dark and hope in despair. This power enables the audience to muster their inner strength and optimism to face a reality that may warrant no such strength and optimism, a reality whose grave problems on the other hand mandate such strength and optimism.  Chapter 1 at ELSES TREO SEEESELELSEESILLSESE EEEEEEL DELLE EDEL LALLA EEE LLLLED ELL LIL E DLL LILLLALL SELLA The power of eloquence often proves an indispensable ingredient in capable lead- ership. During World War II, when Hitler’s bombs were exploding around their houses, London residents would tune in to Churchill on the radio: “You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us....” According to Royal Air Force Captain Douglas Sader, it was Churchill, who came to be affectionately called Winnie, that made the deathly years an exhilarating period; Churchill gave everyone purpose and pride; everyone waited for his voice on the radio; everyone, in the air or on the ground, relied on this man (Cowles, 1956). At Churchill’s funeral, a Scotsman reminisced about the hope and pride that Churchill’s words gave him and his unit. The Nazis bombed their unit almost to com- plete destruction. Nazis dumped them along the roads. Traumatic memories left them screaming at night. Those that survived had to leave everything behind. Many lost even their boots. When Churchill got on the wireless and said that Britain would fight on the beaches and in the towns and that Britain would never surrender, the Scotsman cried, “We’re going to win!” (Cowles, 1956). The most recent illustration of the power of eloquence was seen in Barack Obama. Before his 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, Obama was largely unknown to the nation. The contagious power in this speech precipitated him into national fame. After what may seem a long absence of great rhetoric in Ameri- can politics, his eloquent words, coupled with his presidential campaign slogan of “change,” proved a breath of fresh air to the nation. News reports affirmed that women even fainted at his rallies, treating him with rock star status. It is no exaggerated claim that Obama’s eloquence proved an indispensable factor that elevated the first African American into the presidency. His care and compassion for the ordinary American was clearly visible in his inaugural address, in which he movingly declared, “A nation can- not prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” 1.4 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE POWER OF ELOQUENCE However, there have also been arguments against the power of eloquence, both in terms of its doubtful capability to accomplish political goals and its capability to engender the destruction of human welfare. Applebome (2008) believes that the link between a great political speech and a great politician is at best “tantalizingly impre- cise.” Applebome cited Professor Zarefsky of Northwestern University as saying that great political communicators can be so-so orators. Zarefsky instanced Bill Clinton’s 1988 Democratic Convention speech, which Zarefsky characterized as endless and belonging among the 100 worst speeches of the last century. The American public’s view toward great political rhetoric, according to Apple- bome (2008), has been rather ambivalent. On the one hand, they respect the fine art of great speaking. On the other hand, they negatively interpret florid political rhetoric as nothing more than bombast. Applebome cites a list of “spellbinding orators” in the history of the nation (i.e., John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and William Jennings Bryan) whose “gilded political rhetoric” failed to elevate them into the office of the presidency. The general public’s negativity toward political rhetoric is reflected  An Overview of Eloquence 0 ORIBLSLEELA EE ORIIDLEELA HEED SDTSTISTEREELED TLE LRU POSES ETE s in the fact that there has been a significant decline in the general level of rhetorical skills in the political history of the United States (Zarefsky, cited by Applebome, 2008). Cynicism and negativity against rhetoric and eloquence is seen in some known speeches. Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914, American writer, journalist, and editor) defines “eloquence” as the “art of orally persuading fools that white is the color that it appears to be. It includes the gift of making any color appear white.” A Latin proverb reminds, “Eloquence avails nothing against the voice of gold,” meaning all words lose power when pitted against the clout of wealth. The English logician and philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) even believes that eloquence may be incompatible to democracy: “To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy.” Russell’s caution against eloquence is certainly substantiated by historical and contemporary evidence. Adolf Hitler, especially in the initial stage of his political career, resorted to the power of symbolism and language to advance his occult philoso- phy concerning Jewish people. His diabolically fiery speeches and extravagant display of symbolism (e.g., the swastika) galvanized millions of German youths to engage in the very irrationality and barbarity of killing millions of Jews, using systematic and industrialized methods. In our contemporary world, it is no rarity that leaders of occult religions and of dictatorial nations use the power of rhetoric and imagination to cement their power-thirsty control over their people. The power of their occult lan- guage and images can be so poignant as to drive hundreds into death committed by their own hands. Therefore, the power of the word, not unlike the human ingenuity with technology, is always a double-edged sword. Humanity must always stand alert to sharpen the noble edge but to blunt the evil edge of the sword of eloquence. An ethi- cal speaker speaks always with candor, benevolence, and the best knowledge of facts, despite the strong force exerted by his strategic purposes. 1.5 LISTENING AND PUBLIC SPEAKING There are countless occasions in the course of our life where we listen to a public speech: a professor’s lecture in the classroom, a commencement speech at graduation, a speech at a friend’s wedding or at a colleague’s funeral, a dedication speech, a speech by a noted personality at a special occasion. According to Werner's survey (1975), col- lege students, for instance, spend 53% of their waking time engaged in some type of listening, a significant portion of which is listening to public speeches and public mes- sages. Listeners or the audience constitute an indispensable component in the process of public speaking, posing as the receiving end in message transmission. ‘This section addresses the potential problems in the process of listening to a public speech. Toad Prejudiced Listening With the facilitation of transportation and communication technologies, communi- ties in this world are becoming increasingly diverse and interconnected. The coexis- tence of multiple languages and the sheer necessity of communication among people of different mother tongues make the phenomenon of accent an inescapable one. Many people seem to have a problem listening to people with a foreign accent, a  Chapter 1 SOSSSLBLOSLOL 6 ROBES OUOLESPEIS ELLE DISSE DELLE ELD DAELEIEELESLSENEDTDEIEELIE EEE LEDEEE ADE EEE DDDELD DS EEE problem that seems to get in the way of understanding the speaker. As a result, these listeners could miss messages of tremendous value, wisdom, or practical utility that come from a speaker with an accent. Many people consider the accent of Albert Einstein and Nelson Mandela as heavy. Yet when I play public speeches by these speakers to my students, some seem to be perfectly fine with their accents, which does not pose any significant problem. Others however find these speakers’ accents so problematic as to dramatically hinder their comprehension. Apparently, different people have different degrees of tolerance and adaptability toward the same accent. My experience informs me that when | am willing to allow my attention to tran- scend the speaker’s accent and focus my attention instead on the speaker’s message, I hardly have a problem with people with even very heavy accents. Furthermore, my experience informs me that a message given with a heavy accent, when tran- scribed on paper, can prove of better grammar and diction than a message delivered in accent-free fluency. One colleague from the counseling department in my school shared an interesting experiment conducted in counseling. The experiment involved a Chinese professor and two similar groups of American students. The Chinese professor gave the first group of American students a lecture face-to-face so that the audience directly sees the face of the professor. To the second group of American students, the Chinese professor gave the exact same lecture through mediation of technology so that the audience did not see the speaker’s face. An examination of the Chinese professor’s lecture administered to both groups of American students revealed a clear difference between the two groups. The second group performed clearly better than the first group. The experimenter drew the con- clusion that sight of the speaker’s Chinese face apparently hindered the first group’s comprehension of the speaker’s words. On the other hand, members of the second group, when enquired, did not even know that the professor was Chinese. Some audience members apparently perceive certain personal attributes of the speaker (e.g., race, age, facial features) in a negative light, resulting in compromised reception and comprehension of the speaker’s message. The compromised comprehen- sion of the speaker, as the afore-cited experiment asserts, has little to do with the objective fact of the speaker’s certain personal attributes but has a lot to do with the way in which the listener chooses to perceive those personal attributes. A productive listener is either free of prejudices or consciously guards against prejudices and against potential interference from the speaker's personal attributes. In many important occa- sions (e.g., business transactions and discussions over grave issues), the listener per- haps cannot afford to misunderstand the speaker, which occurs, unfortunately, due to no inherent fault on the part of the speaker. 1.5.2 Uncritical Listening Opposite the extreme of resisting the speaker's message due to prejudice against the speaker is the extreme of accepting whatever the speaker says. Both practices are problematic as both hinder the accomplishment of the listener’s strategic goal in communication.  An Overview of Eloquence ) LEER LLC LLEL ELS SDE TETLEE EDA OETA ISSORTED CTSSO STERU erste MELLEL EL DLL LEE OEE DLE TLD TELLS DELETES! SLITISEETEEEEEESOE ESDEERE! ATTESTED DADE Messages from much advertising, when put under logical scrutiny, prove com- pletely nonsensical. However, if you let your critical ear down, these advertisements may look or sound exciting and glamorous, insidiously inciting your hand to reach for money in your wallet. One ad | heard for potato chips proclaimed, “Packed fresh— every day!” Upon hearing this, you can certainly acclaim, “Great! I love fresh food!” and buy the chips. On the other hand, you can challenge the message, which may possess no validity at all. “What do you mean by ‘fresh’? Any product, upon being packaged at the end of the assembly line, can be claimed as ‘packaged fresh. What I’m interested in is whether the food is ‘fresh’ when it reaches my mouth. Perhaps the chips have trav- eled far from the factory and have stayed long on the shelf. When it reaches my mouth, nothing in it is fresh.” A scrutiny of the ingredients and preservatives put in the chips may even reveal that they are not only not fresh, but potentially toxic as well. Although this book advocates the art and craft of eloquence, which is important from the speaker’s perspective, you as the listener must consume the speaker’s mes- sage with your strategic communication goal firmly in mind. That goal may be inves- tigation of the validity of the speaker’s claims, feasibility of the advocated solution, and the true rift between two controversial sides. Great eloquence may arouse your emotional enthusiasm and yet weaken your logical thinking. Many great speakers love to use analogies in their expansion of ideas. You as the listener may want to probe whether there is adequate comparability between the two things subjugated under the analogy to warrant that analogy. The seller of an insurance policy may compare the money you invest as “the seed” which will in time give you a great tree. The excit- ing analogy aside, is the actual accrual from your investment really such that the dif- ference between the terminal amount and the initial amount of your investment is like the difference between a large tree and a tiny seed? This is why Bertrand Russell admonishes, “To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy.” a Ree: Defensive Listening Defensive listening refers to listening colored by prejudice not against the speaker's personal attributes such as accent, but by the listener's prejudice against the speaker’s viewpoints. The single-minded goal of defensive listening is to go against the speaker's views by carrying a constant and silent argument with the speaker’s views in the effort to defeat and confute the speaker. Defensive listening aims for the listener’s mental message to win over that of the speaker. Defensive listening should be carefully distinguished from critical listening. Criti- cal listening assesses a careful analysis of the speaker’s words in order to pass an objec- tive judgment of the speaker’s words. The foundation for critical listening is complete understanding of the speaker’s words. Defensive listening, however, becomes too busy constructing its own counterarguments against the speaker’s words so that it often misses the central or true tenor of the speaker. Defensive listening often results in a stalemated war that tends to last perpetually, as defensive listening carries on a mental war with the speaker’s words by treating the latter with the ammunition of the listener’s counter-words. A habitually defensive listener rarely contributes to the  Chapter 1 emergence of constructive and consensual solutions to thorny problems; the mind of the defensive listener is too much clouded by biased partisanship. Let’s take a look at the following mental conversation between the listener (L) and the speaker (S) to illustrate defensive listening. S: Ladies and gentlemen, I stand here today as an honored representative of our union to address issues so important that they are permanently imprinted in our national consciousness, issues such as equity, justice, fairness. L: All high-sounding words. But I know you have but one thing on your mind, pro- tection of your own self-interest. S: What would you say, my friends, about a parent who takes food from their chil- dren’s plate so that when the family experiences financial crises, the parent would never go hungry and even continues to fatten while the child goes starving. L: Now, I know, tricky analogies are creeping in. To protect your selfish interests, you would spare nothing, certainly not scheming analogies. S: About this kind of parent, I’m sure you'll say, “What a lousy and hateful parent! Even a decent and compassionate stranger wouldn't do something like that! A par- ent as I just described is by no means worthy of the title of a mother or father.” Yet, this is exactly what our leadership and our management is doing to the people, the people they claim to lead, the people they claim to inspire, the people they claim to protect, the people whose lives they claim to enrich. Whenever we experience an economic crisis, our already meager salaries get frozen or deducted, while the managers’ already fat salaries continue to rise as if they instead live in a completely different world, one that is permanently impervious to economic depression. L: I don’t see anything wrong with that. Your self-interest spurs your speech here. The manager's self-interest spurs their salary increases. It is a universally acknowl- edged fact that all men are created equal—equally selfish. S: A leader, as I just described to you, deserves no such honorable title as the leader. More appropriately, they should be called greedy robbers and bandits. A leader, to inspire, must bear the brunt of the pain first, which at this time happens to be an economic pain. But we do not expect our leaders to inspire. We do not expect them to protect our lives. We just expect them to be fair by sharing a bit of the existing pain with us when we all are confronted with it. We expect our leaders and manag- ers to stop disappointing us, stop depressing us, stop oppressing us, stop bullying us. That is what we expect of them. The minimum level of fairness. L: What! If you have the capability or possibility, you'd probably also elevate your- self into the ranks of management and band together with the other “bandits” as you call them for your own interests. Stop your high-blown words. I don’t buy any of them. In short, for any meaningful conversation to emerge between the listener and the speaker so that constructive solutions to tough problems emerge, the listener must  An Overview of Eloquence 11 ELSES TIDES ADSENSE RELL wt OEE i sessELLE IE IEIS ELLIE EES EDDIE ELE EEELL — iDE SD ETSICLT ESE SESISEEDSESTEL SD ISIS LBUSSTOUS SIDUSTAULA UATE EUSSTELSLLELSIEUEUSO SELES RIDLAEAU USOOLRLISLSTRIBUS ELEDELEAI listen with an open mind not biased by prejudice against the speaker. Complete under- standing must be the foundation on which debates can hope to be meaningful. 1.6 SUMMARY Based on popular understanding as reflected in eloquent speakers’ quotations, elo- quence could be defined as a fluent outflow of speech that animates the audience into the orator’s desired actions. Language is the medium through which humans transact their daily business. Therefore, individuals that cannot effectively operate language will not be effective in the conduction of human affairs. The sword may address at the coercive force imposed upon the hand. Eloquence, however, addresses at the heart— the source that voluntarily sustains the action of the hand. In this sense, the power of eloquence may surpass that of the sword. Humans act not according to the objective reality, but according to their perception and understanding of the reality. Eloquent language is the lens through which the orator creates and configures the audience’s perception of the reality. In this sense, the orator could be considered the engineer of human behaviors, via the crafting of perception. However, like the power of technol- ogy and science, the power of eloquence can be applied to both noble and evil purposes. Listening is the audience act of receiving the orator’s eloquence. Three problems may occur in this act. One, the listener’s prejudice against the speaker’s personal attri- butes (e.g., accent, skin color) may hinder the listener from accurately understanding the speaker’s message. Two, the listener may admire the speaker so much as to accept the latter’s message with blind credulity, leading to the risk of deception and manipu- lation. Three, the defensive listener listens not for constructive communication but for destructive attack. The thinking of the defensive listener is clouded by the single- minded desire to defeat the speaker’s arguments. 1.7. Questions and Exercises 1. How would you define eloquence? What do you believe are the fundamental ingredients of eloquence? 2. Can you think of an occasion where your eloquent use of language helped you to influence another person or a group of people into actions you desired? Describe what occurred. 3. Cite from history an illustration of the power of eloquence. 4. Cite one or two experiences in which you committed problematic listening to a speech, as described in the chapter. 5. Inthe course of next week, see if you can catch either yourself or another person engaging in one of the three problematic types of listening described in the chapter.