Translator: Morgane Quilfen
Reviewer: Claire Ghyselen "I am not one of those who believe that we can suppress
the suffering in this world, that suffering is a divine law; but I am one of those
who thinks and asserts that poverty can be annihilated. Poverty is a disease of society, just as leprosy was a disease
of the human body; we can see poverty disappear
just as leprosy disappeared. Poverty: do you want to know
the extent to which it can reach, the extent to which it has reached? There are in Paris,
streets, houses, cesspits, where families, entire families,
live chaotically together, men, women, children, having nothing for beds,
nothing for bedding, I almost said for clothing, than grubby heaps of fermenting rags, where creatures bury themselves alive
to escape the winter cold. This is a fact. Do you want some more? Recently, an unfortunate
literary man died of starvation, died of starvation, and it was established after his death
that he had not eaten for six days. Well, I say that these are things
that should not be; I say that society must do all it can, show all its solicitude, all its understanding, all its resolve, so that such things do not come about" I say that such events,
in a civilized country, engage the conscience
of the whole of society; that I feel, I who speaks,
complicit and part of it, and that these are not
just wrongs against humanity, but that these are crimes against God! This is why I would like
this assembly to be of but one soul to take steps toward this great goal:
the abolition of poverty!" These few words were uttered
on July 9th, 1849, at the French National
Legislative Assembly, by a young representative
called Victor Hugo. Well, you might agree with me that this is an address
that is both moving and convincing. Well, this is precisely what interests me. There is a connection
between emotion and conviction. It is because the words of Victor Hugo
have the power to move us that they achieve
the power to convince us. This connection has been known
for a long time. Already 2,500 years ago, Aristotle considered that pathos
was an essential element of what he called rhetoric. Today, this connection
between emotion and conviction is validated by cognitive
and behavioral sciences. But there is a problem,
that of manipulation. Because if we can be lead to accept
that by which we have been touched, it means that our emotions
can manipulate us. This is what comes about
when a speaker moves us skillfully with a mendacious discourse, a discourse that does not
correspond to actual world reality. I'll give you an example. In August 2002, the Vice President
of the United States of America, Mister Dick Cheney, frightens the entire world
by stating that: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein
now has weapons of mass destruction." The fear we felt then was real. It had been caused by a speech, but that speech was
based on erroneous facts. A few years later, the US administration admitted to lying: Iraq did not possess
any weapon of mass destruction, and Dick Cheney had been
fully aware of it. However, is every use of emotions
in discourse going to be manipulatory? Well, no. Because we are not computers. The social world is not
an Excel spreadsheet. To make decisions, we need our mental powers, of course, but we also need
our feelings, our emotions. And this explains why Victor Hugo
chose a speech overflowing with pathos to talk about poverty
in front of his fellow representatives, representatives who, for the most part,
had only ever known opulence. For them, poverty
was a theoretical concept. If Victor Hugo wanted to stand a chance
of influencing their vote, he first had to change
their way of looking at the world, and in order to do that, he needed
to address their emotions. If I am telling you all this, it's because for more than 10 years I've been studying
the art of argumentation, and I have been teaching it
to all citizens, from political science students
to highschoolers, from private sector
employees to activists, how not to let themselves get manipulated, but also to defend their thinking,
their point of view, efficiently, for sure, but also ethically. So, what does an expert in rhetoric
say about emotion in discourse? Well, you see, classically,
there are three methods that provide for the creation
of emotion in discourse, and we can find them all
in Victor Hugo's speech. Remember, Victor Hugo started
by associating poverty with leprosy, with a disease of society. It was not without design. In rhetoric, it is called
a work of metaphorization: the use of an image, of a comparison, to convey a message. In this case, this comparison
allows Victor Hugo to create a very
specific emotion: disgust, disgust of poverty,
just as we had a disgust of leprosy. This disgust provokes within us
a desire to take action, a desire to eradicate poverty, just as we had the desire
to eradicate leprosy. I was telling you that it was
a very classic tool. Let's teleport ourselves to 2002
for another example. In 2002, the Earth Summit
took place in Johannesburg, the Earth Summit that was one of the first
big conferences on global warming. From the platform in Johannesburg, Jacques Chirac, president of France, will put forward an image
that will stick in people's minds: "Our house is burning,
and we are looking the other way." It was a comparison. It was made to stir up emotions, in this case, surprise at first, and then anger, the desire to take action. But back to Victor Hugo. Later in his speech, you will remember,
Victor Hugo spoke at length describing all the things
that families could do to escape the cold of winter
as best they could. This part of his speech
is also not without design. This description constitutes
one of the means of stirring up emotion in an audience. In this case, Victor Hugo's
working of emotion is very interesting: he seeks to induce sadness, sadness that within us leads to shame, a shame that leads to anger, and it is this anger
that prompts us into action. I am going to give you another example,
a more disturbing one, this one. In 1974, in the French parliament, Simone Veil was making the case
for legalizing abortion. Several representatives
were actively opposing her. Among these representatives
is Monsieur Pierre Bas. Pierre Bas, speaking
from the speaker's platform, did not hesitate to describe the bins in which the little bodies
of aborted children would pile up. "The bins in which the little bodies
of these aborted children will pile up." Here we have a description being used
to create an image that shocks, to stir up an emotion of disgust,
and incite against voting in the law. To return again to Victor Hugo,
to the third stage of his speech, that narrative, that account, of a literary man dead of starvation because he could not buy food. Once again, it is not without design. Narration is the third classical method
to bring out emotions. In contemporary communication,
we would call it storytelling. In Victor Hugo's speech, we again find the same
working up of emotions as earlier: sadness, shame, anger,
the leading to action. One last example to show you
what a classic technique it is. It was used quite notably
by Robert Badinter in his fight against the death penalty. In 1977, Robert Badinter -
he was a lawyer then - was defending the murderer Patrick Henry. His sole endeavor in court is to try
to save him from capital punishment. In his closing speech, he turns directly
toward the members of the jury and explains to them what will happen
if they condemn his client to death. He tells them: "Time will pass, let me tell you,
we will abolish the death penalty, and you will be on your own
with your verdict for ever, and your children will know that you once
condemned a young man to death." Here, yet again, this narration
is to stir up emotion, in this case, fear and shame. Metaphorization, description, narration, these are the three
classical tools of discourse that allow us to stir up
emotion in an audience. This shows us that emotions
are not a totally mysterious entity, they can be worked, fashioned, and used in the noblest of ways,
or in the most dubious of ways. Apart from that, what we have
just seen regarding emotion is a variation of a broader observation: rhetoric is a technique, it can be learned, it can be taught, and I advocate that it be disseminated
as widely and as soon as possible, probably as soon as middle school, because we all need it. Whether it is in our professional lives
or in our personal lives, we need strength of conviction
and not let ourselves be manipulated, because yes, indeed,
rhetoric is a form of power. The only way to make sure
this power will be used equitably is to ensure it is imparted to us all. Thank you. (Applause)
