An explain article

In times of flexible truths, alternative facts, and wavering interpretations, speakers face entirely new challenges. It has never been more important than today for them to reflect on their role in societal debates and to remember their responsibility: Rhetoric in its original meaning always includes the speaker's good intentions. Their tool is language awareness.

Why Rhetoric Excludes Manipulation

Is there rhetoric that consciously manipulates people? This is not a rhetorical question, but a very serious one. The answer, as counterintuitive as it may sound in these times, is no. A rhetorician who values themselves, a speaker in the Aristotelian sense, will not use their speaking skills to consciously steer, control, or deceive people. Their art is not manipulation, but persuasion.

This determination is important to draw a clear line between which phenomena can be attributed to rhetoric in current debates and which cannot. Populists, autocratic heads of state, and forgetful officials are not misguided rhetoricians. They are populists, autocratic heads of state, and forgetful officials. They have always existed, and they always will. "Bad actors" have always had the opportunity to misuse the tools of rhetoric for their purposes. But the fact that they speak does not make them rhetoricians—and rhetoric is not a tool of manipulation.

The construction sites where the good reputation of rhetoric is endangered are entirely different.

A drop poisons the well

The greatest threat to the reputation of speakers is not the manipulators lurking in every corner of public opinion formation today. The central threat to the credibility of speakers is carelessness. The crisis of mass media provides a good comparative value for this. It was not irresponsibility or lack of a value code that plunged them into crisis, but negligence. They allowed themselves to be cornered and seduced into sloppiness to keep up with the pace at which debates are conducted today.

They made mistakes, stumbled over them, and that is why their interpretive power wavers. We, as speakers, are exposed to the same danger—every single one of us. A drop can be enough to poison the entire well. An unverified fact, an inaccurate quote, a misquoted study can destroy our credibility. Apart from factual accuracy and the review of all content to the best of our knowledge. How can we, as speakers, contribute our part to responsible debates with rhetorical means? How can we inspire people to take responsibility themselves? The answer is as simple as it is complex because it penetrates to the smallest branches of rhetoric and down to the micro-level of our speeches: through language awareness.

Language Awareness as a Tool of Responsible Rhetoric

How important consciously cultivated language awareness is—not only, but especially for speakers—becomes clear from the metaphors that shape the discussion on many topics today. Many linguistic images are deeply rooted in our language use—even without always having a specific intention. We all use everyday metaphors, such as when we complain about the "flood of information," wish for more "quick wit," or get upset about "neglectful parents" on the train.

When people unconsciously accommodate this metaphorical language in conversation, it's bad enough. When we do it as speakers, when we speak before other people, it is irresponsible.

A first step towards more language awareness is: Take words and images literally. Whether I say, "I work in marketing" or "I am responsible for marketing" makes a big difference. Even this seemingly trivial example illustrates how important it is to taste our words and chew thoroughly on them before we take them on stage. Our words have an effect—and as speakers, we must care about how.

How to Demonstrate Responsibility

I am often asked how to model perceived competence, thus presenting oneself as a reputable speaker on a topic. Indeed, this skill is a core competency today, where there are more self-proclaimed experts than fields of expertise. Here are some tips on how to showcase one's expertise rhetorically as well.

#01

Speak concretely. The simplest and most obvious feature of a serious argument may not be very exciting, but it is indispensable. If someone knows what they are talking about, they have concrete evidence in the form of facts at hand and can transparently distinguish between fact and opinion. Without falsifiable statements, we ultimately convey only assertions, and people sense that.

#02

Put the facts in context. For the facts to have their impact on the audience, they must be translated into their living environment. Speakers who want to reach their audience and do justice to their responsibility must ensure they are understood. Metaphors and analogies that relate to the audience's life are ideal for this. However, they must also be theme-centered and do justice to the complexity of the topic. No sensationalism!

#03

Question one's own competence. It may run counter to some trends in the speaker scene, but there is no way around it for responsible positioning: Nothing can replace expertise. It is part of the speaker's responsibility to comment on topics where they can contribute something substantial—and to do so only after forming a clear opinion. Otherwise: keep quiet. Sometimes silence is more responsible than speaking.

#04

Argue with differentiation. Responsible speakers resist the temptation of simple truths and impermissible exaggerations. The short-term impact should not outweigh the long-term integrity of the speaker. People sense whether a speaker is serving their own purposes or genuinely wants to help them. Those who insult the audience's intelligence by claiming sole interpretive authority quickly encounter credibility problems as a speaker.

#05

Maintain respect. A speaker who does not allow for a second opinion quickly loses the respect of the audience. Respect is not a one-way street. Defaming colleagues, competitors, or those who think differently is incompatible with the good intentions of rhetoric. The audience will socialize with the affected person. Respect for the counterargument is an important feature of responsible rhetoric.

Inspiration is responsibility

The responsibility of the speaker is already expressed in the millennia-old Aristotelian ethos: Whoever seriously claims the means of rhetoric places themselves at the service of the people they are speaking to. Inspiring people as a speaker is, therefore, a responsible mission. If the words serve the speaker more than the listeners, they do not live up to their responsibility. Recognizing that, especially as a speaking expert, one serves a greater purpose also greatly helps with a sympathetic demeanor. Nothing stands more effectively in the way of a speaker's personal impact than their own ego.

The goal of rhetoric is not to persuade people, but to convince them. The message, not self-serving ends, is the measure of the words we choose. We are obligated to them and the people we reach. That is our responsibility as speakers. Make a good impression!

René Borbonus