10.1: A Brief History of Public Speaking

Since humans have been using language and living in social groups, the act of one person speaking to many has been occurring in some form or other. Whether it was to instruct, persuade, motivate, celebrate, or mourn, language is the tool humans use to form and maintain social connections.

Even though we know public speaking is as old as language itself, in our Western culture, we typically consider the foundations of our current understanding of public speaking to have been laid in Ancient Greece more than 2,500 years ago.

Public Speaking and Democracy

The development of public speaking as a specific skill is strongly linked to the development of democracy in Ancient Greece. Starting in 621 B.C. in Athens, laws began to convert from an oral tradition heavily controlled by nobility to a written form that could be applied equally and consistently. This codification (creating an organized system of laws) took power from the nobility and moved it into the courts. Assemblies were formed to review, revise, and create laws. Accordingly, there had to be substantive debate and persuasion to reach agreements on how to manage this evolution of legal doctrine, and those coming before the courts needed to engage in public speaking to advocate for their position.

Democracy demands public speaking as a tool for self-governance. Since being proficient in public speaking was so valuable, the study of how it works likewise became important, emerging as the study of rhetoric.

The Athenian Greeks and Aristotle

Widely considered the founder of the study of rhetoric, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), was the first philosopher to consider the dynamics of public speaking and persuasion and to compile those observations in The Rhetoric. In effect, this became the first textbook on public speaking. Aristotle defined rhetoric as “all available means of persuasion.” In other words, rhetoric and rhetorical theory refer to the study of techniques for persuasion as they apply to various audiences and occasions. In his work, Aristotle presented three methods, or “modes,” of persuading an audience. We still consider these Aristotelian modes of proof the core of how we teach and study persuasion.

Ethos: persuading another based on the character of the speaker. We all have friends or family members we trust, and if they tell us something, we assume they are telling the truth and should be believed. This persuasion by the nature of the speaker’s character is ethos. An especially important aspect of ethos is that credibility is something the audience gives the speaker. Since the audience can judge the character of the speaker only on their performance at that moment, the speaker’s credibility is a function of the perception the audience has of that speaker at that time. No matter how trustworthy and honest a speaker is, their credibility is only as strong as the audience believes it to be. Accordingly, speakers need to prove their trustworthiness through their delivery and content. Since this is a standard consideration in the development of a speech introduction, specific methods of enhancing credibility are addressed there.

Pathos: engaging the emotions of the audience. Human beings are deeply emotional creatures, and we are most emotionally comfortable when our beliefs and actions align. If James believes giving to the community is an important activity, that may lead him to donate blood during the college blood drive. He may feel a sense of satisfaction and contentment that his actions and beliefs align. On the other hand, if he avoids giving blood, he may feel troubled that his actions are not aligning with his beliefs. This disconnect is at the core of using emotion to persuade.

Humans like feeling positive emotions and don’t like negative emotions. A speaker can offer an audience a way to act that will make them feel good and avoid negative emotions. For example, a famous charity advertisement for Feed the Children claimed, “For the price of a cup of coffee, you can feed a starving child.” This simple statement aims to trigger a sense of guilt each time we buy a cup of coffee, and then offers a way to erase the negative emotion of guilt and replace it with the satisfaction of helping those less fortunate: donate your coffee money to Feed the Children.

Logos: using argument and logical reasoning. While we are deeply emotional creatures, we also place a high value on rational thinking and thoughtful decision-making. Through the application of logical reasoning accompanied by credible evidence, we aim to persuade the audience of the best course of action. The study of logic and reasoning are huge fields of study, and we encourage you to consider additional courses in Logic, Argumentation, or Debate.

The Romans

After the time of the Athenian Greeks passed and the Roman Republic emerged, two Romans emerged to make significant impacts on the study of rhetoric: Cicero and Quintilian.

Cicero (106-43 B.C.), argued for a balance of content and delivery, that “the perfect orator should be able to speak wisely and eloquently on any subject with a dignified, restrained delivery.” He also believed, however, that style without substance was to be avoided. Cicero’s importance lies in his writings.

Quintilian (35-95 A.D.), wrote extensively on speaking, style, and content. He organized what we now know and teach as the five canons of rhetoric:

1. Invention: compiling the content of the speech.
2. Disposition: arranging the content in an effective order.
3. Style: the wording of the presentation.
4. Memorization: knowing the presentation and content thoroughly.
5. Delivery: the presentation of the content.

Quintilian’s five canons reference both content and delivery, acknowledging that both are important to the success of the persuasion. As Quintilian stated, rhetoric was “the good man speaking well.” In other words, effective public speaking combined substantive, ethical content with good, effective delivery.

The Middle Ages

As the Roman Empire fell and Europe moved into the Middle Ages (400-1400 A.D.), Christianity grew in power and supplanted the human-centered philosophies of the Greeks and Romans. While rhetoric was still considered one of the three great liberal arts during this time, along with logic and grammar, due to Christianity’s distrust of the field, rhetorical theory did not advance significantly during this time.

The Renaissance

During the 14th-16th centuries, a revival of interest in classical culture occurred. This renaissance of culture led to a revisiting of the works of the Greeks and Romans, including the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and others. Art, philosophy, literature, and all manner of human endeavor flourished. There was a strong interest in both art and science, with each claiming prominence in discerning truth, justice, and beauty. The humanists believed that language and art could reveal the inner world of the human experience, while the rationalists believed that through science, truth would be revealed.

Poetry, prose, rhetoric, and philosophy were paramount to the humanists as they believed that through the creation and study of these works, truths of the human condition could be discovered. The rationalists, on the other hand, had little regard for such human expression. Evidence, logic, and reason were the focus of the rationalists. They felt that through scientific inquiry, the truths of the natural world could be discerned.

1600-1800

During this time, Western Culture began to transition into the political and social structures we have today. Democratic rule began to re-emerge, nobility rule began to wane, and a dispassionate, equitable structure of courts and laws took the place of the rule of the social elites. During this time, as these social and political structures were evolving, new views of public speaking were also emerging.

The Gilded Age

From the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, the ability to speak at length with an ornate style was held in high esteem. Politicians and traveling speakers would go from town to town delivering long, impassioned speeches on topics of the day. Since there was no mass media, other than newsprint, these were public events that would draw everyone in the community. Without microphones or sound systems, the speakers would use a loud, boisterous style, very much elocutionist in style, to carry their message throughout the audience.

The ability to speak for hours in this style was considered a sign of intelligence and personal power, so speeches not measuring up were considered reflective of a lack of personal strength and character. A good speaker was expected to have a very strong command of language, much in the belles lettres style, and to be able to express himself with a sense of poetry and artistry. Debate was a very highly regarded skill, especially the ability to form well-phrased, targeted arguments. Besting another in an intellectual clash generated much respect.

Present Day Influences

Today, what we consider good public speaking has been altered by several factors from the 20th century. It has been heavily influenced by the introduction of radio, film, television, and the internet.

First, radio introduced audiences to the ability to hear a natural voice of political figures in their own home. Most renowned are the “Fireside Chats” of President Franklin Roosevelt. According to History.com, “From March 1933 to June 1944, Roosevelt addressed the American people in some 30 speeches broadcast via radio, speaking on a variety of topics from banking to unemployment to fighting fascism in Europe. Millions of people found comfort and renewed confidence in these speeches, which became known as the “’fireside chats’” (History.com, 2010). Instead of the loud, projected vocal style needed to fill an auditorium, this new medium allowed a far more intimate, conversational style of presentation.

Second, putting an elocutionist-style speaker, such as William Jennings Bryan, in the close-up view of a movie enhanced the artificial nature of this style of delivery. Since such delivery was intended to reach an audience of several hundred without the aid of a sound system, to now show the speaker’s exaggerated vocal factors, gestures, facial expressions, and body movements up close via film or television made the speaker appear cartoonish by today’s standards. Since we can now see speakers up close regardless of the size of the venue, a more natural delivery works more effectively at establishing trust and sincerity.

Third, now that we could not only hear but see the speakers, the nonverbal, visual elements of the speaker have become more pronounced. In the 1960 election, U.S. citizens saw the first televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. A mark of the impact of this new medium of television is that those who listened via radio felt Nixon won the debate, while those who watched overwhelmingly felt Kennedy won: “Nixon was recovering from a hospital visit and had a 5-o’clock shadow, having refused makeup. In contrast, Kennedy’s delivery was smooth and charismatic. Viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Kennedy won the election” (Newsweek, 2016). Accordingly, “The Kennedy-Nixon debates not only had a major impact on the election’s outcome, but ushered in a new era in which crafting a public image and taking advantage of media exposure became essential ingredients of a successful political campaign” (History.com, 2010). The delivery aspects of public speaking, especially appearance, emerged as a far more crucial element than before.

Fourth, with the emergence of the internet giving us 24/7 access to virtually all the knowledge in the world, speaker’s words can be carefully assessed for accuracy. Instead of taking a speaker at their word, we can check and cross-check the truthfulness of a speaker’s claims in a matter of moments. We have seen the emergence of fact-checking sites that specialize in holding speakers accountable for what they say. Politifact.com, FactCheck.org, and Snopes.com produce assessments daily of current claims by public figures. More than ever, speakers must carefully cite evidence and sources.

Along with accurate citations, speakers must carefully weigh the value of the source itself. Since the internet allows for anyone to publish anything (there are no editors on the internet), speakers must evaluate sources to determine the trustworthiness of the source. We must be cautious of distorted or biased news and opinion, and instead focus on objective, balanced information.

Fifth, in addition to the emergence of the internet is the development of echo chambers fed by partisan, or even hyper-partisan, news and information sites. This means that more than ever different political viewpoints are fed by specific news sources. Typically, sources such as Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and Nationalreview.com are considered conservative, while MSNBC, Huffington Post, and Salon.com are considered liberal. For us as speakers, it is important we have a sense of what the audience deems most acceptable. To cite Fox News with a liberal audience or MSNBC with a conservative audience may harm the speaker’s credibility. In other words, there are sources some audience members immediately deem biased and lacking credibility, so if we use them, we may have created a barrier with the audience. Instead, to advance our position, we should look for sources that do not carry such pre-existing baggage and are more likely to be seen as credible.

Lastly, another effect of the internet has been little patience for engaging long discourse. Since the virtually infinite web always has something else to look at, we are becoming less and less satisfied with long, detailed presentations. This “Twitter Effect” pushes us to favor short, to-the-point presentations versus longer, exploratory speeches. CNN’s Doug Gross (2011) lays out 5 ways that Twitter is altering our relationship with information and how it is presented. He states, “Some thoughts just can’t be summed up in 140 characters. For all its ability to provide quick blasts of information, critics have argued that Twitter dumbs down…conversations that deserve to be fuller and more fleshed out.” Accordingly, as speakers we need to be clear, distinct, and avoid rambling. Depending on the audience and occasion, a shorter, more direct presentation may work more effectively than a longer, more detailed speech.

References

Gross, D. (2011, March 21). 5 ways Twitter changed how we communicate. CNN.

History.com. (2010). The Fireside Chats.

History.com. (2010). The Kennedy-Nixon Debates.

Newsweek. (2016, September 22). Presidential debates’ iconic moments, from Kennedy-Nixon to Obama-Romney.