Obstacles Arising from the Rhetorical Communicator

Chapter 10

It’s unlikely that we can overestimate the importance of the communicator in the rhetorical experience. Aristotle described the ways a communicator can make a persuasive message to an audience: logos, pathos, and ethos. And it is ethos—the character of the communicator—that we must carefully consider both as an audience member and as the speaker, ourselves. We are very much influenced by the character of the speaker, and often we accept the ideas or beliefs of the speaker because we trust and respect them. Aristotle claimed that ethos may be the most potent source of influence for the communicator, even more powerful that the argument—the evidence used to make the case. What Aristotle believed then, is largely accepted as truth even today. Today we think of ethos as the attitude the audience has toward the speaker (the source of the message) at any given moment. Naturally, sources held in high esteem or prestige by the audience is more apt to be successful in persuading than one who is not. The factors that an audience will evaluate are (1) the communicator’s prior ethos; and the (2) the ethos affected by the rhetorical act, itself.

Prior Ethos of the Communicator—

The attitude of audience toward the rhetorical act comes from five areas:

  • The communicator’s reputation or track record: We tend to like and believe people who are like us; who live near us; who we have personally known. And when someone is from somewhere else or unlike us in many ways, we are much less likely to accept what they say, at least initially. And we prefer people to be systematic or consistent in their beliefs; and skeptical of those who make dramatic shifts in a position. For example, we often doubt a politician who suddenly “finds the Lord” after getting caught in an extra-marital affair. In short, when we appear to be in conflict with our past record, we will encounter a serious rhetorical problem.
  • The communicator’s appearance: We make decisions about people based on such factors as clothing, movement, posture, and facial expressions. We can overcome these obstacles, but must never assume there are insignificant or trivial to an audience. Dress appropriately for the audience, pay attention to your movements, and facial expressions (as much as possible).
  • The communicator’s introduction: This creates an important climate that establishes the tone of the message to come. Whether you do it yourself, or have someone else introduce you, this is vital to setting the stage for what will come later.
  • The Context: The initial impression of the communicator will be influenced by the context of the event. By context we mean the surrounding events and facts affecting your message.
  • The Occasion: The reason why we are here; the event that brought forth the need for the rhetorical message. The occasion calls for a specific type of message. To violate the occasion usually results in the audience viewing the communicator with much less ethos. For example, having a celebrity rail on about some political or social issue when they are supposed to be expressing gratitude for a movie or music honor they have received.

Ethos from the Rhetorical Act—

Audiences will assess the communicator’s ethos on four factors: (1) degree of authority; (2) trustworthiness; (3) dynamism; and (4) identification.

(1)Authority—the communicator must be perceived to a knowledgeable, intelligent, reliable and qualified to speak or write on the topic.

(2)Trustworthiness—the communicator must be perceived to be honest, friendly, pleasant and more concerned with the good or audience than with his or herself.

(3)Dynamism—the communicator must be perceived as being energetic, emphatic, bold, assertive, etc. While it is vital to appear interested, this factor can be a bit tricky since too much dynamism can back-fire, depending on the audience being addressed and whether the speaker is male or female.

(4)Identification—the perceived similarity between the communicator and the audience members. This one is worth more discussion and depth than the others.