{"id":915,"date":"2015-06-11T08:56:33","date_gmt":"2015-06-11T07:56:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/?p=915"},"modified":"2015-06-11T08:56:33","modified_gmt":"2015-06-11T07:56:33","slug":"every-speech-needs-its-own-gravitas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/2015\/06\/11\/every-speech-needs-its-own-gravitas\/","title":{"rendered":"Every Speech Needs its Own Gravitas"},"content":{"rendered":"

How do we classify such different types of political speakers as Angela Merkel<\/strong>, Barack Obama<\/strong>, Bill Clinton<\/strong> and Margaret Thatcher<\/a><\/strong>? Perhaps the Roman classicist, Quintilian, three categories of public speakers can help us out here<\/strong>. He tells us there are three basic styles: the \u2018forensic<\/strong>\u2019 one (plain, argumentative and suited to the law courts), the \u2018intermediate<\/strong>\u2019 style, (suited for teaching and instruction), and the \u2018grand<\/strong>\u2019 style, (often seen as inspiring and motivational).<\/p>\n

It is obvious that Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama fit Quintilian\u2019s \u2018grand\u2019 style<\/strong>, while Angela Merkel\u2019s \u2018intermediate\u2019<\/strong> style gives her that air of reliability and ordinariness for which she is famous. The third category, the \u2018forensic\u2019 one, is probably best represented by Margaret Thatcher<\/strong>, the former British Prime Minister. But where does the current U.S. presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton stand?\u00a0 Which of the three categories does she fall into?<\/p>\n

Hilary Clinton<\/a><\/strong> does not have the \u2018intermediate\u2019 style of Angela Merkel nor does she have the \u2018grand\u2019 style of Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton. In my opinion, she is fundamentally a \u2018forensic\u2019 speaker who is making great efforts to embrace the \u2018grand<\/strong>\u2019 style because the American presidential system rewards those who can inspire and motivate the electorate at large <\/span><\/a>, principally through public meetings, radio and television. Perhaps this is the reason why Hilary Clinton has been making such a tremendous effort to change people\u2019s perception of her; for them to see her as likeable and in this \u2018grand\u2019 style tradition.<\/p>\n

Although this generalization may reflect the priorities of American politics, forensic speaking does have an important place in the worlds of politics, law and business in general. Forensic speaking, according to Aristotle, is associated with past events, law courts and argumentation<\/strong> (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.3, 10-15). Although these clear divisions should not be interpreted today as exact, they do give us a pointer in understanding the term. Aristotle goes on to tell us that forensic speaking either attacks or defends somebody (or an idea or course of action) which indicates its original purpose as the method of the law courts<\/strong>. In political speaking, he emphasises the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposed course of action. If he urges the acceptance of the action, then he does so on the grounds that it will do some good. Likewise if he urges the rejection, it must be shown that it will cause harm (Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book 1, Chapter 3).It is based on a simple triad of our \u2018ability to reason, analyse and use language effectively\u2019<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Forensic speaking can be seen as a mode of address, both at the public and interpersonal levels, that is rather cold, calculating and logical. To counter this rather negative impression, \u2018gravitas<\/strong>\u2019, that is a solidness of character which can be relied on especially in times of great uneasiness, must also form part of the forensic style<\/strong>.\u00a0 It is from this gravitas that respect and acceptance is generated.<\/p>\n

Our protagonist is Margaret Thatcher, from whose profile the following the points are deduced. These, I hope, will help those of us who tend to be forensic speakers in our aspiration to be effective as communicators whether we are in public life, business or the law<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Be rational<\/strong>, detailed and fact oriented rather than idealistic and inspiring<\/li>\n
  2. Communicate a perception of solidness of character built on a high level of gravitas<\/strong> and likeability<\/li>\n
  3. Sound and look like a leader<\/strong>: develop the right tonality and appearance<\/li>\n
  4. Work hard in a never ending preparation of facts, evidence and argument<\/strong><\/li>\n
  5. Like and even feel at ease and thrive in an argumentative environment<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    However, Mrs Thatcher\u2019s experience may also teach us:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The need to have respect for others<\/strong>; for without this respect, people may see a forensic speaker as cold and calculating or ideologically orientated without regard for people.<\/li>\n
    2. If this respect is not present, the old adage \u201cThose who live by the sword die by the sword\u201d<\/em><\/strong> may suddenly become a reality.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      How do we classify such different types of political speakers as Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Margaret Thatcher? Perhaps the Roman classicist, Quintilian, three categories of public speakers can help us out here. He tells us there are three basic styles: the \u2018forensic\u2019 one (plain, argumentative and suited to the law courts), the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":313,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[59617,20444,60000],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-deliberative-oratory","category-speeches","category-inspirational-speakers","megacategoria-mc-leadership-and-people-management"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/915","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/313"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=915"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/915\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":916,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/915\/revisions\/916"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/leggett\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}