Convincing In Everyday Life: Stakeholders & Dynamics

Rhetoric isn't just for professional communicators.

As soon as you express yourself, there's rhetoric. Every day we have to convince, or be convinced, in an infinite variety of situations. Despite this constantly renewed diversity, rhetoric is not a disorderly jungle.

On a daily basis, the same configurations come up again and again.

We need to understand these dynamics to be able to adapt to them. Because we don't use the same methods and tools depending on the context in which we find ourselves. You'll see: being able to spot at a glance the dynamic in which you're evolving is in itself already a convincing asset.

1. The stakeholders

Before categorizing the different rhetorical dynamics, it's important to distinguish between the different stakeholders who interact.

Listeners and Viewers

As we said in [2/52], in “The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation” Chaïm Perelman defines the audience as all those the speaker wishes to influence by his argument. The audience therefore encompasses all the people we seek to convince, both orally and in writing, both listeners and viewers.

Let's take a few examples of listeners:

• In a court trial, the listeners are the jurors and the judges who decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the attorneys try to convince them.

wsj.com

• The listeners of successful writers who are interviewed on the release of their latest book is made up of their readers.

Writer Leila Slimani (on the left) and an interviewer

• When influencers create content on Instagram to advertise a product, the listeners are their followers or specific target audience potentially interested in the product.

But alongside this, there are many occasions (more and more with the media, internet and social networks!) when people witness an attempt at conviction. In rhetoric, we call them viewers.

Let’s go back to our three examples before. At a trial, the viewers are the spectators watching from the sidelines that have no influence on the outcome, so the attorney doesn't need to convince them. However, for writers and influencers, the situation is different. Writers aim to attract readers who have never read their books and convince them to read their books. Beyond their followers, influencers target every viewer who might be interested in their content and the products they promote.

Speakers and interlocutors

"Speakers" encompasses all individuals who express themselves, whether through spoken or written communication. Besides lawyers, other parties like the accused, victims, and witnesses also speak to present their cases and perspectives. In a less intuitive situation, when writing a cover letter for a job, one is also considered a "speaker" because they are expressing themselves in writing to convey a message.

nicolas_/Getty Images

When two speakers interact, they become interlocutors. Examples include two attorneys confronting each other through their respective pleadings, two politicians debating, or two friends disagreeing over the destination of their next vacation.

Shutterstock

We can also mention the typical response of a public figure who addresses the public on camera when faced with a scandal resulting from media revelations or allegations by another individual. In this situation, the person under attack speaks alone to rally the widest possible audience to his or her cause. Within the rhetorical framework, both the attacker and the person being attacked are considered interlocutors, even if they do not speak simultaneously.

Taking the time to define all the stakeholders in a persuasive situation helps to fully grasp the dynamic nature of rhetoric, where each role is constantly evolving regarding the context.

2. The 4 rhetorical dynamics

All types of communicators, whether speakers, interlocutors, listeners, or viewers, can face numerous persuasive situations. These situations can be categorized into four types of rhetorical dynamics that you should be able to recognize immediately and easily.

The monological dynamic

The easiest scenario for a speaker to handle is when they are trying to persuade listeners who are silent and not physically present.

Examples include a manager presenting a project to their team, an entrepreneur pitching to investors, a columnist reading their piece on the radio, or a YouTuber posting an advocacy video.

Written rhetoric is also mainly one-sided, with the writer or journalist presenting their message to the readers without receiving any immediate counterarguments.

The deliberative dynamic

Each person simultaneously acts as a speaker, an interlocutor, and a listener. They defend their position and try to convince others while remaining open to being convinced. It emphasizes the importance of aiming for a productive agreement and, if that fails, resorting to negotiation.

This dynamic is part of everyday life for all of us: deciding on an activity or vacation destination with friends, convincing our partner to go to bed early so we can work out the next morning instead of going out clubbing, or asserting our position over a colleague's in a project.

Whatever the initial disagreements, we need to find a way to resolve them to arrive at a solution accepted by all, whether it's a rhetorical consensus or a negotiated compromise.

The competitive dynamic

This occurs when several speakers act as interlocutors without being listeners, confronting their positions knowing they have no chance of convincing each other.

This impossibility of reaching agreement can have several explanations: values too far apart, interests too divergent, egos too big, and so on. Each seeks to defeat the other to win over those who listen without participating. Demonstrating that you're right presupposes making it clear that the other is wrong.

This competitive dynamic of rhetoric is experienced not only by lawyers and politicians but also by us all, far more often than we might think.

A frequent and painful example from private life is when siblings are torn apart over the fate of a house inherited from their parents. Suppose there are 3 heirs: two wish to sell the house to pay funeral expenses, while the other one want to keep it as a family vacation home.

Another example is a disagreement between colleagues in the marketing and communications department of a SaaS company. One group believes in a strategy of paid ads on Google and LinkedIn, while the other thinks creating organic content to attract and educate prospects would be more profitable.

In the end, they decide to arrange a meeting with the CMO to decide on one strategy or the other.

The conflictive dynamic

Same as the competitive dynamic, the parties involved all know that they will find it impossible to reach an agreement, resolve the dispute, or call on a trusted third party to make a decision.

Everything is ‘resolved’ through confrontation, violence, and conflict.

This is the typical rhetoric of overly impassioned political discussions, heated family dinners, and drunken late-night parties.

Sadly, it's not uncommon for an aperitif or meal to start well, only for two guests to clash over controversial topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, global warming, or feminism. These guests hold radical positions, and the tone escalates until they realize everyone else has left the room to escape the hateful atmosphere.

From a rhetorical point of view, the confrontational dynamic is absurd, as there is no listener to convince. It's simply a waste of time for both speakers. According to some psycho-sociological researchers, these useless verbal confrontations stem from our irrepressible need to justify ourselves, deriving pleasure from shouting our truth in the other's face.

Adapting your attitude to rhetorical dynamics

As a speaker, identifying the dynamic you're in as quickly as possible is a superpower.

Each requires a specific attitude and practice:

• In monological situations, we adapt our argumentation to the audience we are addressing.

• Deliberative situations require us to approach contradictions with great care, as the people we are confronting are also the ones we need to convince.

• Competitive situations, on the other hand, allow us to use more aggressive techniques, seeking to discredit the opposing argument.

• Finally, in conflict situations, we should ask ourselves whether confrontation is worthwhile or if it would be better to accept the disagreement and exit the conflict.

You can now analyze the situation you find yourself in, whether by choice or accident, and identify the stakeholders and dynamics involved, so you can adapt your behavior accordingly. This is the first and most important step toward convincing!