Notes on The New Rhetoric’s discussion of the difference between /persuading and convincing/

07 January 2013

Convincing is the act of gaining the adherence of every rational person in the fullest sense of the word “every.” Persuasion includes that moment of action, when an audience in a specific situation adheres to the arguments being made by the rhetor, which, sometimes, even defies reason, and is an example of why a new rhetoric warrants an examination of persuasion beyond the scope of subjectivity, since conviction is not necessary for persuasion (p. 29). Yet, P/O-T concede that this process of defining which is which is rather slippery and is contingent on numerous factors, including how the rhetor decides to conceive of his/her audience.

A preferred time to persuade someone would be when the rhetor recognizes that s/he does not have to motivate them to change their position on a subject, but, instead, simply motivate them to some desired action, even if it defies their rhetorical stance on a subject in question. A preferred situation in which to convince is when the rhetor appeals to the rational mind to adhere to the logic and reason presented to them on a particular subject, but that which does not necessitate action.

So, what kind of audience are appropriate for each of these actions? If I consider Hermagoras’ system of stasis, a rhetor who finds that the audience does not see an existing issue on a particular subject, i.e., no held stasis-in-being, must first, at the very least, convince them to concede that an issue, in fact, exists. In other words, if a person wants to deliberate and/or debate on a subject, a person, sometimes, must first reveal the issue between the two. Yet, even if the rhetor convinces them of such, they may not desire to actually take action on the matter; such an impetus on the audiences part would require the rhetor to persuade them to do so.

With regards to persuasion, I consider the act of PhD student, defending his/her a dissertation, before an audience of academic peers, requires the justification of his/her’s work before his/her peers without in fact changing the fundamental positions held by the audience. More to the point, even though some committee members may disagree on some claims made in the dissertation, the PhD student must still persuade those members to “pass” the defense; a clear, action-oriented goal must be met.

On the the case of convincing, if a scientist convinces a Christian, (and I’m not suggesting that a person cannot hold these beliefs and not be scientist!), who claims that they believe in the literal truth of the Bible, that the earth is much older than claimed in the Bible, yet the Christian neglects to change their position on the original claim, than the scientist, according to P/O-T, has yet to persuade the Christian on this position.