Like most college kids, I benefit from the magical invention that is Netflix. My hallmate Paul’s newest addition to his queue is one of my personal favorites Thank you For Smoking. If you haven’t seen this movie I highly recommend it. The reason this movie is the topic of my rhetoric and civic life blog is because of the main character: a lobbyist.
In this movie, Erin Eckhart plays tobacco lobbyist, Nick Naylor, who smiles talks and argues his way into the hearts and minds of each and every person he meets.
Who is going to side with a sleazy grease ball who works for an industry that kills thousands of people daily? Exactly. But what is amazing is that with the power of rhetoric and argument Nick can convince anyone of anything. As the movie depicts the day in and day out of a lobbyist for big tobacco it also paints the portrait of a father compelled to teach his son every thing he knows and to show him first hand the intricate aspects of his job. Essentially everything he knows about rhetoric and argument. Nick tells his son to question statistics and always encourage discussion. As his son travels with him on trips to California and witnesses the not so nice aspects of “big tobacco” he also learns the power of convincing rhetoric and the art of relentless debate. Nick gets excited as he informs his son, “that’s the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you’re never wrong.”
Let’s take a look at that statement. “If you argue correctly, you’re never wrong.”
Is that the goal of rhetoric? To never be wrong? As a stubborn person myself, I know that my parents and friends think I take that statement to heart.
Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the available means of persuasion,” but can rhetoric be used as a means to justify stubbornness? Is rhetoric used to force your opinions on others?
Can you be wrong if you argue correctly? Can you ‘win’ and argument but still be wrong?
PS: I highly recommend the movie.
This goes back to what you said about politicians too. While learning to be good rhetors ourselves we also have to learn to be good consumers of rhetoric so that people can't just use it as a means to justify stubborness. I think there is a difference between arguing so you aren't wrong, and arguing because you have a valid point. Most people can tell the difference too. They just might not realize that the reason they got the creepy cralies from some person was because of the rhetoric they used.
ReplyDeleteDo you see yourself in the character Nick Naylor or do you want to be more like him? I agree with what Liz said-- most people can tell the difference if your argument is valid or not, we just have to be educated and neutral first to not be swayed by opinions so easily, because there are always the moral and immoral rhetors, or bit of both.
ReplyDeleteGreat series of questions, Ben! I watched Thank You for Smoking several years ago; it's really interesting, I agree!
ReplyDeleteFor the record: I do think you can argue "well" and still be wrong.
Sadly Sally, sometimes I see myself in Nick Naylor. I can't deny I love argumentation.
ReplyDelete