293. The rhetoric of trust
Rhetoric can make or break trust. It can be
positive and negative. Positive rhetoric seeks to achieve mutual understanding.
Negative rhetoric seeks to twist or hide the truth, or to dispose the other to
one’s advantage, surreptitiously, hiding it.
Intuitively, one is inclined to say that
the positive is good for trust, the negative bad. I think that is largely
correct, but some cases are less clear, such as framing and priming. I will
come back to that.
As discussed previously in this blog, trust
requires openness and voice. Openness about errors, receptiveness to
explanations, in an attention ‘to work it out’ when problems arise. (See item 259 on parrhesia). Positive
rhetoric is needed to cross cognitive distance, trying to achieve mutual
understanding and moral compatibility.
In communication, one will in the first
attempt try to assimilate what the other says and does into one’s existing
cognitive framework (in a wide sense, including moral considerations). If that
fails, in the second approach one may try to accommodate one’s framework to
enable assimilation. Creative use of metaphor by the other helps.
Since trust is at stake when expectations
are not fulfilled, one should not elicit unrealistic expectations, not pimp one’s
promises. That is often what rhetoric is tempted to do, and the intention may
be positive, but the effect is likely to be negative. Intentionally false
promises are outright negative. Politicians, in particular during elections,
are tempted, and thereby lose trust. Negative also is the inability or refusal
to listen, or to listen only to what one wants to hear, such as false promises.
An effective negative ploy of rhetoric is
the following. When confronted with inconvenient criticism or a difficult
question, do not respond to the substance of it but retaliate by making the
other’s motives suspect, or conducting an attack dressed up as a rhetorical
question. ‘Are you serious?’. ‘ Do you always conduct such aggressive
questions?’. ‘Who do you think you are to ask me questions like that?’ This
ploy has a triple benefit. It avoids the issue. It turns a challenge to defend
into an attack. And how can the other possibly prove that his/her intentions
are good?
I was recently confronted with this ploy. I
responded with a challenge to respond to the question I had posed. The dialogue
ended in a shouting match. I was wrong. Shouting is always wrong. And I should
have framed my question more sensitively, avoiding any tone of aggression or
condemnation that may have lurked in it. That also is part of positive rhetoric.
Another negative form of rhetoric is projection
(a notion derived from Freud). It entails seeking to see and interpret the
actions of the other according to how one would have acted oneself. This
clearly blocks understanding the other.
Yet another, related, negative form is
pre-emption: anticipating the other to react before he/she does it. In
particular when it is a pre-emptive strike. ‘Of course you will not agree with
me …’.
Now, how about framing and priming? One may
frame a discourse, prompting a response, or prime the interlocutor, so as to
create a disposition in your favour. This can be done with the choice of
setting, mood, wording, and expression.
This can be positive and negative.
Manipulative when crafted to dispose the other in one’s favour. Positive when
honestly trying to provide the basis for mutual understanding. But does one
always recognize which it is, in the other and in oneself?
No comments:
Post a Comment