In the introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of Jane Austen's Persuasion, the editor quotes Dr Johnson, who wrote one of the most influential dictionaries, published in 1755. It's definition of persuasion, therefore, gives us a glimpse into what Austen and her readers would have understood by the term. Dr Johnson quotes Paradise Lost:
The Serpent with me
Persuasively hath so prevailed, that I
Have also tasted.
Persuasion is morally fraught, or certainly was for her readers. The editor notes that in Plato's Gorgias, Socrates says that rhetoric "is the craftsman of persuasion, which yields conviction but does not teach about the just and the unjust."
I am fascinated by Plato's observation, given the extent to which persuasion plays a role in every relationships. Rhetoric is used at the political rally, but it is much more commonly used in daily interaction, within the family, within the classroom, from parents to children, teachers to students, bosses to workers, leaders to followers. Plato points out that all of this, which may appear to be successful parenting and teaching, in fact teaches nothing about right and wrong.
Our adolescent psychology course indicated that the increased brain plasticity which makes adolescents so impressionable (and such good language learners) tapers off by age 25. I still feel quite impressionable though. I suppose there are points on which I would stand firm, or have a stronger sense of my own belief than I would have five or ten years ago, but I remain amazed at the effect that one comment or opinion from someone I respect can have on me.
In light of Plato's thought, the real hope is that my mentors would make their opinions known and then engage in conversation so we may determine what is right and wrong, or at least consider from several angles the pros and cons of an action. Teaching a certain text, highlighting a certain element of history, these are teacher's actions which involve an implicit persuasive act (well, perhaps its coercive: read this. But really, I can't coerce my students to read (scores on well-publicised reading quizzes attest to this), so I'm trying to persuade them to take seriously what I have the class read, and to see merit in the practice of reading it, even if they don't like it.
So then, as a teacher, I must ask them, what do you think about this text? Is what Anne does right? Who is in the right? Is the money that was earned dirty money? Is the film adaptation maker's decision significant, to include images of the common English people working below the nobility who serve as protagonists? What is motivating Austen's choices? What is motivating the film-maker? Are they not also trying to persuade us? Indeed, I am persuaded by this novel not to try to persuade anyone. Though the introduction points out that one can be right in having succumbed to persuasion, while the persuader was not right to have interfered (thus is Anne's case).
Have I persuaded you to read the book?
The Serpent with me
Persuasively hath so prevailed, that I
Have also tasted.
Persuasion is morally fraught, or certainly was for her readers. The editor notes that in Plato's Gorgias, Socrates says that rhetoric "is the craftsman of persuasion, which yields conviction but does not teach about the just and the unjust."
I am fascinated by Plato's observation, given the extent to which persuasion plays a role in every relationships. Rhetoric is used at the political rally, but it is much more commonly used in daily interaction, within the family, within the classroom, from parents to children, teachers to students, bosses to workers, leaders to followers. Plato points out that all of this, which may appear to be successful parenting and teaching, in fact teaches nothing about right and wrong.
Our adolescent psychology course indicated that the increased brain plasticity which makes adolescents so impressionable (and such good language learners) tapers off by age 25. I still feel quite impressionable though. I suppose there are points on which I would stand firm, or have a stronger sense of my own belief than I would have five or ten years ago, but I remain amazed at the effect that one comment or opinion from someone I respect can have on me.
In light of Plato's thought, the real hope is that my mentors would make their opinions known and then engage in conversation so we may determine what is right and wrong, or at least consider from several angles the pros and cons of an action. Teaching a certain text, highlighting a certain element of history, these are teacher's actions which involve an implicit persuasive act (well, perhaps its coercive: read this. But really, I can't coerce my students to read (scores on well-publicised reading quizzes attest to this), so I'm trying to persuade them to take seriously what I have the class read, and to see merit in the practice of reading it, even if they don't like it. So then, as a teacher, I must ask them, what do you think about this text? Is what Anne does right? Who is in the right? Is the money that was earned dirty money? Is the film adaptation maker's decision significant, to include images of the common English people working below the nobility who serve as protagonists? What is motivating Austen's choices? What is motivating the film-maker? Are they not also trying to persuade us? Indeed, I am persuaded by this novel not to try to persuade anyone. Though the introduction points out that one can be right in having succumbed to persuasion, while the persuader was not right to have interfered (thus is Anne's case).
Have I persuaded you to read the book?
No comments:
Post a Comment