session 2: virtuosity and politics
The silver-tongued orator and the Machiavellian master of public media both rely on virtuosity in argumentation, rhetoric, and receptivity to their audience. What are the roles of education, practice, experience, and exposure to politics as a field and the political as a domain of contention and conflict?
|
Text:
Paul McIlvenny, “Popular Public Discourse at Speakers' Corner: Negotiating Cultural Identities in Interaction”, Discourse and Society, 7:1 (1996): 7-37. Guest activity: De-escalation exercise led by Mike Glod of Pax Ludens, The Hague. |
student reflection
© Chuck KennedyBy Lys-Anne Sirks
BA (Hons) Liberal Arts and Sciences: Political Arts, Leiden University College The Hague
Paul McIlvenny’s article on Hyde Park Speaker’s Corner took a closer look at the creating and disregarding of identity groups by the speaker, the hecklers, and audience involved. Where Speaker’s Corner is a natural, flowing process of playing and interacting with each other, the exercise past Tuesday provided a stark contrast. People acted the parts of nations, the parts of the officials gathering at an UN convention, and abided the accompanying rules. They got into their role by researching information specific to their issue, for example the Paracel islands conflict between China and Vietnam, and then looked at data pertaining to their respective country’s opinion. By creating a biased view of the situation, it is easier to slip into the role. This is something I noticed when at our first failed attempt at the debate due to both parties arguing the same stance. When asked on the spot if I could argue the opposite view, I found myself unable to do so because I was still wrapped up in the one opinion. I had to take a couple of minutes and research opposing information in order to review the situation and create a new opinion.
Of course there was also the event of play occurring in the sense of playing with the audience using rhetoric, which was incidentally the goal of the exercise. It was the idea that the audience would be swayed not –only- by our content, but our delivery of our statements and interaction with the group. Yet when reviewing the debate between North and South Korea, when asked which side ‘won’ I believed that the group representing North Korea had a better presentation and use of rhetoric. However, when asked to vote who was in the right, I found myself conflicted. I agreed with South Korea on the matter, though not necessarily because of their presentation, but North Korea had more convincing speeches. Was North Korea then successful in the playing of the audience, and if not why not? Was it due to circumstance, i.e. everyone knew it was pretence and while no one stepped out of the magic circle necessarily, there was a disconnect in order to be fully swayed? While I think this is a legitimate option, I feel that in the particular situation of North and South Korea, there has already been a lot of play by opponents of North Korea (the whole word, essentially). On a daily basis, we are influenced and played by newspapers, the radio, people we interact with. This creates a bias which is hard to shake due to it being shaped and perpetuated by our direct environment, making it difficult for the opposing group to change our minds. In the case of North Korea, they cannot play me, for I have already been played.
BA (Hons) Liberal Arts and Sciences: Political Arts, Leiden University College The Hague
Paul McIlvenny’s article on Hyde Park Speaker’s Corner took a closer look at the creating and disregarding of identity groups by the speaker, the hecklers, and audience involved. Where Speaker’s Corner is a natural, flowing process of playing and interacting with each other, the exercise past Tuesday provided a stark contrast. People acted the parts of nations, the parts of the officials gathering at an UN convention, and abided the accompanying rules. They got into their role by researching information specific to their issue, for example the Paracel islands conflict between China and Vietnam, and then looked at data pertaining to their respective country’s opinion. By creating a biased view of the situation, it is easier to slip into the role. This is something I noticed when at our first failed attempt at the debate due to both parties arguing the same stance. When asked on the spot if I could argue the opposite view, I found myself unable to do so because I was still wrapped up in the one opinion. I had to take a couple of minutes and research opposing information in order to review the situation and create a new opinion.
Of course there was also the event of play occurring in the sense of playing with the audience using rhetoric, which was incidentally the goal of the exercise. It was the idea that the audience would be swayed not –only- by our content, but our delivery of our statements and interaction with the group. Yet when reviewing the debate between North and South Korea, when asked which side ‘won’ I believed that the group representing North Korea had a better presentation and use of rhetoric. However, when asked to vote who was in the right, I found myself conflicted. I agreed with South Korea on the matter, though not necessarily because of their presentation, but North Korea had more convincing speeches. Was North Korea then successful in the playing of the audience, and if not why not? Was it due to circumstance, i.e. everyone knew it was pretence and while no one stepped out of the magic circle necessarily, there was a disconnect in order to be fully swayed? While I think this is a legitimate option, I feel that in the particular situation of North and South Korea, there has already been a lot of play by opponents of North Korea (the whole word, essentially). On a daily basis, we are influenced and played by newspapers, the radio, people we interact with. This creates a bias which is hard to shake due to it being shaped and perpetuated by our direct environment, making it difficult for the opposing group to change our minds. In the case of North Korea, they cannot play me, for I have already been played.