Aristotle’s Rhetoricis the first known systematic treatise on audience analysis and
adaptation. His work therefore begs the same question discussed in the introduction to this section on public rhetoric: Is it ethical to alter a message to make it more
acceptable for a particular audience?
The way I’ve phrased the question refl ects a Western bias for linking morality with behavior. Does an act produce benefi t or harm? Is it right or wrong to
do a certain deed? Aristotle, however, spoke of ethics in terms of character
rather than conduct, inward disposition instead of outward behavior. He took
the Greek admiration for moderation and elevated it to a theory of virtue.
When Barry Goldwater was selected as the Republican party’s nominee for
president in 1964, he boldly stated: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no
vice . . . moderation in the pursuit of justice is not virtue.”
16
Aristotle would have
strongly disagreed. He assumed virtue stands between the two vices.
17
Aristotle
saw wisdom in the person who avoids excess on either side. Moderation is best;
virtue develops habits that seek to walk an intermediate path. This middle way
is known as the golden mean. That’s because out of the four cardinal virtues—
courage, justice, temperance, and practical wisdom—temperance is the one that
explains the three others.
As for audience adaptation, Aristotle would have counseled against the practice of telling people only what they want to hear, pandering to the crowd, or
“wimping out” by not stating what we really think. He would be equally against
a disregard of audience sensitivities, riding roughshod over listeners’ beliefs, or
adopting a take-no-prisoners, lay-waste-the-town rhetorical belligerence. The
golden mean would lie in winsome straight talk, gentle assertiveness, and appropriate adaptation.
Whether the issue is truth-telling, self-disclosure, or risk-taking when making decisions, Aristotle’s golden mean suggests other middle-way communication practices:
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..