I recently read a post by Olivia Mitchell called “Are You Ready for the Third Era in Presenting?”
In the post, Mitchell makes some sweeping claims that still have me scratching my head. The first claim she makes refers to great orators of the past and the era of the orator in general. She claims:
In this era, every speech is a performance. Each sentence is carefully crafted and the speech taps into a vast repertoire of rhetorical devices.
Every speech is a performance? Really? I’m not sure what the statement means.
Does it mean the speakers are insincere? Putting on an act? Not speaking from their hearts?
Was Winston Churchill performing when Britain was under the threat of extinction at the hands of Hitler? Was Martin Luther King Jr. putting on an act when he put his life on the line by speaking out about segregation and the oppression of black in America?
I’m confused.
Mitchell goes on to say that she originally learned this style of speaking at Toastmasters and had to unlearn it so she could “connect better with the audience”.
That statement really baffled me. After all, one of the fundamental building blocks of rhetoric is Pathos — an appeal based on emotion. Is it possible to connect with an audience without making an appeal to the emotions?
I get that people haven’t learned the art of oration well enough to connect with an audience, but that’s not the fault of rhetoric. Skilled orators can carefully script a speech AND connect with the audience. That’s why, in this era, tens of thousands of people will still fill a stadium to listen to great speakers. That won’t ever change.
The Third Era?
Mitchell goes on to say that the new era of presenting is the “era of the audience “. According to her, this era requires more audience participation because of changes in technology and audience expectations.
Huh?
Hasn’t public speaking always been about the audience? I know there are many presenters who are self centered and treat public speaking as a personal therapy session, but public speaking has never been about that. I also know that there are many speakers who fail to get the audience involved and lose out on opportunities to create deeper learning for the audience. Once again, that’s not what presenting is about. Those are mistakes that presenters make, but poor presenters don’t define what giving a speech is all about.
Giving a speech or presentation has always been about connecting with the audience and getting them involved. ALWAYS. This isn’t a new wave or new era. And while some are just coming to the realization that the key to successful public speaking is dependent upon crafting everything you say and do around audience needs, students of rhetoric have always known this.
Read the post and let me know what you think.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Great minds think alike, John!
http://www.vsotd.com/wordpress/?p=392&prod_abbv=vital
David Murray´s last [type] ..From Aristotle to Zig Ziglar—blogger blithely declares “third era” in speechmaking
Thanks, David. After writing my post, I stumbled upon the one you had written. In this regard, I’m fine with old-fashioned thinking.
Hi John
Looks like I need to do some clarifying!
Here’s what I mean by a performance. I mean that the speaker is aware of the different elements that they have at their disposal: their words, their body language and their vocal variety. They consciously manipulate these to create an impact on the audience. For example, the speaker might decide to speak in a low whisper while telling a certain part of a story, or to make a certain gesture to reinforce their point.
I do not mean that such a speaker is insincere or not speaking from the heart.
And here’s what I mean by “connecting with the audience”. I mean that I’m speaking to one person at a time and connecting as if I was having a one-on-one conversation with them. I may have been a bad student, but I didn’t learn how to do this until I left Toastmasters. But I get that “connecting with the audience” can also have the meaning that you have ascribed to it.
And then we come to our respective definitions of audience involvement. I agree that great speaking through the ages has been about meeting audience needs and connecting with the audience. But that’s not what I mean when I talked about the era of the audience. I’m talking about audience participation – having audience members talk out loud and actually doing things. And that’s what I predict that audience will be wanting more of – hence the challenge.
We may still disagree, but hopefully we can discuss it using the same language.
All the best Olivia
Olivia Mitchell´s last [type] ..Six Secrets from a Professional Speaker on Audience Participation
Hi Olivia,
Thanks for the clarifications. In North America, “performing” is thought of as putting on an act or being insincere, so I’m glad that’s not what you meant.
Audience involvement and participation may be new to business conferences, but they’re not new. When Jesus taught, both the disciples and the pharisees gathered around to ask questions about what he had taught.
Town hall meetings are another example of audience participation that’s as old as apple pie (a U.S. reference). When citizens are concerned about an issue, they are very vocal during these meetings.
Your post has proven a valuable point that has nothing to do with the topic you wrote about. The valuable point is that the right words do matter. If the audience interprets your words differently than you had intended, you chose the wrong words. That’s why I strongly advocate writing out your speech first. it gives you the opportunity to adapt and adjust your words so the audience hears what you mean for them to hear.
Hi John
” every speech is a performance” – I’ve always considered a speech or presentation as a performance and my last post is about exactly that.
I can see that you might think that “a performance” implies something that is not genuine but I don’t use it in that way.
In fact I use it to mean that you are so passionate about your subject that you are going to use all the stage techniques at your disposal to get your message across.
Interesting post John. I’ll head over and take a look at Olivia’s full post.
Keith Davis´s last [type] ..Two way traffic
Hi Keith,
It’s interesting how one word can have such different connotations. While I do believe there are performance elements within a speech, I don’t believe a speech should be a performance. I’ve seen people simply “act” on stage and it doesn’t sit well with me.
I think I feel another post coming on.
An interesting discussion.
John, I wonder if your perception of the word “performance” was influenced by your experience as a performer.
I agree on the importance of words. You might enjoy the book “The Stuff of Thought” by Steven Pinker.
{ 1 trackback }