Page 409 - Between One and Many The Art and Science of Public Speaking

376 Part 4 Contexts for Public Speaking

little money in a run-down city center. But how do we really know that this is
the case?
Remember the expression that it is better to remain silent and be thought
a fool than to open your mouth and prove it? We think that in a majority of
cases, inferring too much about an audience’s individual psychological makeup
is riskier than inferring nothing at all. Thus, unless you know audience mem-
bers on an individual level, or have the resources to canvass them on an indi-
vidual level prior to the preparation of your persuasive speech, you are far better
off basing your speech on what is culturally and demographically known for
certain.
Throughout your life as a public speaker, you will face audiences with vary-
ing degrees of familiarity. You also will fi nd yourself up against time constraints
that will moderate how much you can learn about an audience in advance of
your speech. It is absolutely essential then that you take advantage of opportuni-
ties to learn as much as possible about the larger world. Research investigating
the attributes of highly infl uential communicators, for example, reveals that they
are better read and more acutely aware of their environment than less infl uential
people.
Simply put, highly infl uential communicators are paying attention to the
world, not just their own backyard. It’s only natural, therefore, that they (a) know
more about the diversity of their potential audiences than those less engaged,
and (b) use this knowledge to increase their chances of realizing their persuasive
purpose when they actually speak to an audience.

Constraints

Given its overriding signifi cance, the fi rst constraint we need to consider in-
volves ethics. The fact that you think or even know that you can realize your
persuasive purpose doesn’t automatically mean you should go through with your
persuasive speech. Before going ahead we need to analyze even the least likely
potential harm that could befall our audience. We also need to see the possible
shortcomings in what we sincerely believe is an entirely “noble” purpose. For
example, does the realization of our noble purpose require sacrifi ces from our
audience that we as speakers will never face?
Even when we understand an audience’s diversity and have answered the eth-
ical questions raised, there is no guarantee that our audience can be moved in
the direction we’d like to take it. The intensity of an audience’s attitudes, beliefs,
and values, for example, may lead audience members to distort or misperceive
your speech. If the audience is committed, moreover, the chances of your mes-

sage being rejected are amplified. At least 100 years of research from a variety of
disciplines tells us that when people are publicly committed to a philosophy or
a group that represents an ideology, they are not very susceptible to persuasive
messages intended to change their minds or lessen their commitment. 3
History is replete with examples of this phenomenon. Consider the individu-
als and organized groups that continue to publicly deny the Holocaust. In spite
of unimpeachable evidence, they continue to cling to the belief that the Nazis
either did not exterminate 10,000,000 people during WWII, or the belief that
the number of victims of the Nazis has been greatly exaggerated.
Although this example is admittedly extreme, the point remains the same. Au-
dience constraints are real. Thus, any hope of realizing your persuasive purpose