Persuasion is an art practiced every day. Each day we are faced with numerous situations where we would need to convince or persuade others in agreeing to or achieving something. This practice of persuasion through argument is known as rhetoric and it is being practiced for centuries. Starting from ancient times, historians have put together strong instances where rhetoric has been studied and practiced by scholars including the likes of Aristotle and Socrates. In an attempt to understand rhetoric and its effectiveness, this article focuses on two scenarios taken from ancient Greece – an excerpt 'The Envoy Pleads with Achilles' from Homer's Iliad and an account of 'The Mytilenian Debate' by the Greek historian Thucydides. The former being an unsuccessful yet an extremely strong attempt at persuasion while the latter is a strong policy debate involving deliberations from two frontline Athenian politicians involving international policy affairs. Both provide magnificent discourses in persuasion indicating strong establishment of the tradition of oratory and rhetoric even at that time. Two key issues come out from the two extracts which are fundamental in understanding policy advocacy. The extract from Iliad puts 'self-interest' as the key for any advocate while appealing to the audience. Thucydides' extract on 'The Mytilenian Debate' , focuses on the legitimacy of political discourse and the extent to which the vulnerability of logos is at stake in persuading the stakeholders.
The excerpt from Homer's Iliad reproduces only Odysseus's plea to Achilles and Achilles’ reply to Odysseus. In the battle of words, we clearly see the participants engaged in a deliberative discourse. The objective of the persuader in this type of discourse is to show the audience that the recommended course of action to take place in the future, is a good deed in itself or that it will benefit the person in some way (Corbett 1990). The background of the excerpt shows Achilles refusing to participate in the Trojan war on King Agamemnon's side because of an insult to his pride and dignity. Throughout the speech of Odysseus, we see him employing strong rhetorical strategies to persuade Achilles. He begins by conciliating himself with Achilles, describing the current state of affairs and then moves on to present all his means of persuasion to support his cause. He tries to influence Achilles through patriarchal devotion which was important considering that Greece was known to be a strong patriarchal society at that time. Moving on, Odysseus then tries to appeal to Achilles’ self-interest, focusing strongly on the great deal of wealth being offered by King Agamemnon. Odysseus applies his final strategy of appealing to Achilles’ self-interest, but this time on a more higher level than being pure materialistic – his personal glory.
Despite such strong attempts to persuasion, Achilles did not move from his stance. Achilles’ reply on the other hand can be considered impulsive. His speech was passionate but lacked the delicacy shown in Odysseus's oratory. What was interesting in his rebuttal however was his resorting to qualifying his options based on degree. As presented by Aristotle, with several options of good, the best possibility often is based on the degree of good that a particular option presents itself. In this case, Achilles thought that life appeals more over wealth and honour (Corbett 1990).
So why would a failed attempt at persuasion be of any use in modern day policy advocacy? Despite the failure in persuading Achilles, a key message is left among the discourse which is applicable in any modern day rhetoric. Odysseus has crafted his oration well, touched on all available means of persuasion. Yet he was unsuccessful because he failed to understand that given a number of options to choose from, Achilles would choose one with the highest degree of self-interest. At that point in time, it was in Achilles’ self-interest to not join the war and give more value to his life. Successful policy advocacy must ensure that it appeals to the audience's self-interest. That is exactly what the rhetoric has tried to signify. This discourse between Achilles and Odysseus is something that is quite common in today's modern world. More often than not, we are involved in some kind of situation which demands persuasion of the other person in achieving an outcome which caters to the interest of self or others.
In the second excerpt, Thucydides gives an account of Athens’ debate about whether to murder or spare the adult male Mytilenians, whose leaders had rebelled against Athens. The Athenians had thwarted the defection and now had to decide on the level of harshness in trying to punish the betrayal. Their actions – whichever way they go, would bear consequences for Athenian democracy, both internally as well as internationally. The debate takes place between two politicians – Cleon & Diodotus, whereby Cleon, portrayed as a violent and boastful demagogue is eager to impose death penalty upon the Mytilenians for their betrayal and Diodotus, who is more inclined towards Athens to take a more diplomatic stance and not resort to impulsive measures. At first glance, this would seem like a deliberative discourse whereby Cleon is anxiously waiting for the death penalty to be carried out to the Mytilenian population, in the future. However, a more detailed analysis also shows that the discourse is in fact forensic in nature as they refer to events in the past – the Mytilenian revolt, and concerns itself with the guilt or innocence which will be imposed on to the Mytilenians at the end of the debate (Hubpages 2010). Cleon shrewdly chooses the forensic approach as he is aware that the Athenians have begun to feel sorry for their actions and are refuting the death penalty. Not taking into consideration Athenians’ compassionate nature that is held dear and virtuous could well rate Cleon as a severely malevolent and bad-hearted leader. Rather than appearing unfriendly and unsympathetic, Cleon focuses on strongly stressing that the Mytilenians are more than guilty as they have revolved with clear calculation against the Athenians and that they are not worthy of the Athenians’ sympathy. Cleon therefore puts forward his argument focusing on guilt or innocence of the perpetrators with special implication on 'injustice' which is most fitting to the occurrence. In his speech, the role of justice is wrapped up in interest. His prime focus is on the punishment of the Mytilenians based on the crime they have committed. He argues that it was a crime to revolt against Athens and for this they deserve retribution. Cleon wants to set an example to other states in order to deter them from similarly revolting. His ideology is that punishment must ensue, no matter how cruel.
Diodotus takes a softer and gentler tone in the political discourse. He shows that such an attack would set a message essentially mandating 'death sentence' for all cities which would revolt in future. He doubts the efficacy of such a deterrent, because he feels it will remove any incentive for cities like Mytilene to repent, compensate Athens and continue to pay imperial tribute - an important source of war revenue. Instead, if Cleon's argument is followed, it will lead to these cities fighting to the death, leading to sieges and military actions for Athens which will only drain the city's resources. Diodotus, in contrast, does not speak of justice at all. Instead, he says that practicalities are what are generally important in times of war. In this instance, practicalities mean that mercy ought to be the result of the decision to be taken.
This political debate was eventually won by Diodotus. Diodotus had to take a defensive tone as Cleon had already warned the assembly against advocates who would try to pull a trick in trying to persuade them to agree to the wrong cause. As a result, he had to avoid any kind of appeal to simple morality and instead structured his speech focusing on self- and national interest. Diodotus has put forward just arguments, but the means by which he achieved them are cynical. He was aware of the popular support of which Cleon was heard boasting, and tried to appeal to the audience's base interests. However, the paradox that lies within his speech is disturbing: We see Cleon mentioning the danger that leaders are often bribed to mislead the people by their elaborate speeches (Warner 1972). Diodotus however turns against Cleon's indication of bribery stating that such accusations have a negative impact because they make it difficult for a politician to win with legitimate and just arguments. He suggests that flattery and speaking against conviction should not be adopted by politicians to win over people. But then again, Diodotus also declares in his speech: "Do not be swayed too much by pity or by ordinary decent feelings. I, no more than Cleon, wish you to be influenced by such emotions” (Warner 1972). This "disturbance"—highlights his assertion concerning the nature of mankind - that he will do wrong when he wants to do wrong, irrespective of laws and threats (Zaretsky 1992). This does put a strong implication on the legitimacy of the arguments at stake. If advocates focus more in appealing to the audience's emotions, then often the 'true' reasons behind the discourse would be hidden under the umbrella of flattery.
This article has reviewed two age old discourses. Both approaches are timeless classics in the field of policy advocacy due to its strong use of rhetoric. The societal norms may differ, the object may differ, but the basic human passion for reasoning and persuasion still remains the same. Each excerpt focuses on a different approach in persuading the audience. However, both discourses have a similar ingredient in its preparation – 'deceit'. We see Odysseus softening Agamemnon's message to Achilles by carefully leaving out certain parts of the message which he deemed would not work in his best interest. Odysseus thereby violates a critical rule of diplomacy by not complying with full disclosure of facts to his audience. Eventually he was unsuccessful in persuading Achilles as he failed to focus on the degree of self-interest that appealed to Achilles. 'Self-interest' is a key issue that arises from the first extract. Effective public policy must appeal to the audience's self-interest. The Mytilenian Debate is a classic law and order discourse. In 'The Mytilenian Debate', it is shown that one is occasionally obliged to 'lie' in order to strengthen one's case. Diodotus is seen to 'lie' about the reasons why the Mytilenians have to be spared, and instead argues along the lines of advantages to the Athenians (Zaretsky 1992). The paradox observed in his speech points to the issue of legitimacy of arguments in a discourse – a key issue in Thucydides' extract. In the extract, both Cleon and Diodotus confront the fact that in terms of real world politics, principles often fail under certain situations. The essential problem remains as to how to reconcile strong leadership, information, and advice while coping side by side with the danger posed by high ambition, selfishness, and issues regarding legitimacy of rhetoric. What has happened centuries ago is still happening in today’s world. In pursuit of convincing our audience, we have essentially made logos more and more vulnerable to deceit.
