This is the most interesting kind of rhetoric, and a style to be used by anyone who wants to be a better communicator.
We think of everyday communication as the passing of information from one to another. That is often true, but listen carefully, and it is clear that more is going on. It’s one thing to receive directions for driving to a new restaurant. But its another when the “information” being passed on by a friend is, incidentally, a judgment on its quality.
Yah. I know the spot you are talking about. It’s at the corner where Awful meets Expensive. Actually, keep going straight and its about a mile on the right.
Maybe you know fewer wise guys. But we get the point. We embed attitudes, judgements, and evaluations in almost everything we say. Most of us have an endless store of descriptive adjectives to employ. Those silos never seem to be drawn down by overuse. And in the company of friends, it can be affirming to our egos to have an opinion. But everyday rhetoric that is essentially a string of opinions is its own ersatz style. And it seems to be the norm as we “converse” more and more in very truncated messages. Talk to your uncle Fred or listen to the President, both of whom should pay a surcharge for all of their dismissive one-liners. It’s too much. A few more samples:
This novelist never had an original character. End of story.
He’s a nice guy but is only good for three chords on that guitar.
Her dozens of movies in the 1950s were pretty mediocre.
Except for the Bolt, Chevy never made a good car.
The problem here is partly that we are smuggling unearning attitudes into a conversation, skipping the obligation to explain ourselves. We owe others the courtesy of having real reasons. Because we are blessed with the vast resources of ordinary language, our conversational partners deserve at least a little more substance and less attitude. A renewed obligation to explain turns what is may be a truncated introjection into a clearer critical stance.
By the use of the term “critical” here, I mean judgements and information that include useful detail. All we need is the will to do it and an interlocuter with a little patience. A person is not a drama critic if their view is represented in one simple dismissal. They are not a thoughtful judge of a musician if their efforts can be reduced to the brevity of a social media troll. Good criticism paves the way to more understanding and insight.
If we become more aware of assertions that should be explained we are using a critical style to elevate an exchange with another. We often let ourselves off the hook too easily when we offer a blustery contention that too often signals that no more need be said.
The classic film My Dinner with Andre (1981) offers a sense of what it like to use conversation to fully interrogate our thoughts. As the film suggests, good conservation is a worthy goal of two souls trying to make sense of their place in the world.
As Researcher Deborah Tannen described in the 1990s, the genders may be wired differently. With many exceptions, a pattern of clipped dismissals may still be more typical of men than women. Whether there is still a preference for opinion giving in lieu of more dialogical communication is open to debate. But I have no problem identifying male friends or even the current President with a communication style front-loaded with declarations, and final judgements: all without a hint of putting them to the test by hearing from others.
To be sure, a critical style is bound to retain loose ends and unexplored contentions, but if it is augmented with evidence and good reasons, it is a more useful way to relate to others. The style requires having the will to explain oneself rather than merely recycling one easy summation.
One route to thinking in terms of a critical style is to get in the habit by reading more thoughtful writing about areas of special interest, which could range from art or architecture, or novels and music. Critics and columnists online or in print are paid to explain their opinions. We read them because we want to hear their reasons, not just a curt thumbs up or down. This is the most interesting kind of rhetoric, and a style to be emulated by anyone who wants to be a better communicator. One-word judgments just don’t cut it.
The model assumes that serious attempts at advocacy or involvement must gain a strong foothold in our consciousness. Those messages that get scant attention are said to be “peripherally processed.” A message like an advertisement or a casual request from another may wash over us quickly. We are not especially interested or motivated to hang on every word. And, as you would guess, the message is not likely to produce significant or lasting change. It has not created an impression that sticks.
