Skip to main content

From Peter Elbow's Writing with Power

A selection from pages 201-204, which seemed particularly important to my 'mission':


What concerns me in this chapter, however, are tricky audience situations and, in this case, I am thinking about the many times when you are trying to persuade someone in a straightforward way but actually you are wasting your time...

If your readers have a stake in what you are arguing against, you cannot talk straightforward persuasion as your goal. You must resist your impulse to change their beliefs. You have to set your sights much lower. The best you can hope for--and it is hoping for a great deal--is to get your readers to understand your point of view even while not changing theirs in the slightest. If you can get readers actually to entertain to experience your position for just a moment, you have done a wonder, and your best chance of getting them to do so is not by asking them to believe or adopt your point at all.

In short, stop trying to persuade the enemy and settle for planting a seed. If you think about the way people do change their beliefs--which is rarely--it is usually a gradual process and depends on a seed lying dormant for awhile. Something has to get them to a position where they might say, "Imagine that. He actually believes this stuff and he's not crazy... Of course they are all wrong deeply misguided arguments, but now I can see why they appeal. It's interesting to know what it's like for a person to actually see things that way."

If you can get a reader to take your point of view for just that one conditional moment--to inflate your words with his breath--then future events will occasionally remind him of the experience. Contrary views are inherently intriguing. And if your position has any merit, your reader will begin--very gradually, of course--to notice things that actually support it... A seed is the best you can hope for.

So how do you plant a seed? You do it by getting the person actually to see through your eyes. There are many ways of doing this, but I think they all depend on one essential inner act by you: seeing through his eyes. And it's not enough to just do it as an act of shrewd strategic analysis: "Let's see what actually passes for thinking in the minds of those rednecks." For them to experience your point of view even for a moment, they must let down their guard. You can't get them to do so unless you let yours down, too: actually experience their point of view from the inside, not just analyze it. Though persuading can employ the doubting game, planting a seed calls for the believing game.

What does this mean in practice? If you relinquish your effort to make readers change their beliefs and settle instead of trying to get them merely to entertain yours for a moment, and if you start with an honest attempt to see thing through their eyes, you will find a whole range of specific skills to write your letter, article, or report--depending on your skills and temperament. You can trust your instinct once you understand your goal: somehow to persuade readers to work with you rather than against you in the job of breathing life into your words. For example, if I were writing a short article or leaflet to readers with a stake in what I'm trying to refute, I wouldn't say, "Here's why you should believe nuclear power is bad." How I can get them to invest themselves in words which translate "Here's why you've been bad or stupid"? I would take an approach which said, "Here are reasons and experiences that have made me believe nuclear power is bad. Please try to understand them for a moment."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

This post was a whole long longer and more emotional an hour ago...

First off: It's sad that I get better wireless reception in my backyard than in my apartment, right? Sigh. I normally try to stay out of the quagmire that is the abortion debate, but as usually, elyzabethe wrote something insightful about feminist issues that I had to comment on. Actually, I had to comment on the framing war that was going on in the comments section between elyzabethe and another friend. Then I ended up emailing back and forth with her for awhile. Then someone at work mentioned how the "choice" frame is starting to lose ground, even though advocates don't want to admit it. I started scribbling notes, sighed, and thought, "well, I'm gonna have to blog about this." Elyzabeth rants often against anti-choice organizations and legislation, as is her wont as a libertarian feminist. She’s particularly good at teasing out how anti-choice (A, if you’re reading this, bear with me, I’m referring to ‘anti-choice’ as more than just the abortion issu...
The City of Milwaukee launched this ad campaign this week (along with Serve Marketing , my new dream employer). My first reaction was that it was a striking and effective ad, but then I realized it was aimed at co-sleeping, not just putting babies to sleep on their backs. I know next to nothing about co-sleeping, but I have a feeling that there are healthy ways to co-sleep, and un-healthy ways to co-sleep. Putting a child in bed on their stomach would be one of those un-healthy ways, but so is putting them on their stomach in their cribs. I don't know that it's necessarily fair to confuse the two issues. Plus, according to the City of Milwaukee's web page , Between 2006 and 2009 there were 89 infant deaths related to SIDS, SUDI, or accidental suffocation.  Of these 46 (51.7%) infants were sleeping in an adult bed at the time of their death.   Meaning that 48.3 percent (or 43 babies) were not co-sleeping, but presumably in their cribs. Although I loathe to say tha...

Foodies vs. Libertarians, Round Two

Round One wasn't really a fight, but whatever. Caught your attention, right? Elyzabethe posted about Montgomery County's trans fat ban, which inspired my post last week on the Guerrilla Nutrition Labels, which inspired her response . Well, over on my new favorite website, Culinate, there is a review of a --I guess you could call it a debate--between food and agriculture writer Michael Pollen, and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. Apparently, Mackey impressed the Berkeley crowd with his commitment to reforming the food system. I have no doubt he's genuine, either, but this article points out some of the facts he left out of his (seriously) PowerPoint presentation. What got me especially (no surprise to anyone who heard me ramble on about Spinach and e.coli last semester) was his classification of Earthbound Farm as a group of small organic farms banding together under one brand name, allowing him to say that 78% of Whole Foods produce comes from small farms. I call bull...