LANGUAGE IN INDIA
http://www.languageinindia.com
Volume 4 : 5 May 2004

MEANING RETRIEVAL IN CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT
PERSUASION AS A SIGN
M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO HOME PAGE | GO TO THE MAIN PAPER

1. PERSUASION IS FOUND EVERYWHERE

Persuasion is found everywhere.

  1. Between seller and buyer.
  2. Between husband and wife.
  3. Between parent and child.
  4. Between politician and voter.
  5. Between teacher and student.
  6. Between individuals and groups; between nations, etc.

2. INDIRECT PERSUASION

There is persuasion even when there is no direct contact between the parties. Suggestions are given to one person to persuade someone else to act up to the suggestion. Models in literature, cinema, in religious discourses, etc, persuade us.

In personal disputes, there is always an attempt to persuade parties for compromises.

3. INSTITUTIONS AND MEANS OF PERSUASION

Society has evolved institutions of persuasion: persuasion through individual's kinship, through respect for elders, respect for certain castes and professions, through religious precepts and practices, etc. The list can be easily multiplied.

Casting lots, casting flowers, interpretation of natural phenomena, etc., are also employed to persuade.

There is also the social constraint. Whereas one can stretch a point to a level of breaking up of relations with some sets of peoples (strangers, not economically connected, no blood relations, etc.), in several other cases acceptance of even the adverse position advocated by a kin or elder is insisted upon. This social constraint works as a great persuasive force.

Animals tend to solve their dispute by fighting, or by pretending to fight; humans, in addition, tend to use persuasion. Persuasion is, indeed, a human art that is greatly facilitated by the use of language among other human institutions.

The increased dependence we have on one another is responsible for the current importance of persuasion. As human interaction increases, the necessity for persuasion also increases.

4. WHAT IS PERSUASION?

  1. It is generally defined as the act of influencing the mind by arguments and reasons.
  2. It is the act to convince a subject of the truth of something that something is true, etc.
  3. It causes the subject by reasoning to do something.
  4. It induces a person to believe something.
  5. To persuade means to urge (as statement, opinion, etc.) as credible or true, to go to prove, make probable.
  6. To commend to adoption, advise, advocate, recommend (an act, course, etc.)

The above characteristics have been identified in standard English dictionaries for persuasion in English.

The collocations for the act of persuasion as found in English may be seen from the following given in Roget's Thesaurus.

Persuadability                           Persuader                                 Persuasive

   credibility                                  motivator                                  influential

   willingness                             Perusable                                    plausible

   irresolution                                credulous                                  credible

   Persuadability                           impressive                                inducing

 

Persuade                                  Persuasion

   influence                                   classification

   convince                                   influence

   induce                                      positiveness

   request                                     belief

                                                   teaching

Persuade against                          inducement

   dissuade

 

Persuade one

   suppose

5. ART OF PERSUASION

We do get a characterization of the act of persuasion in this set of words, but, alas, not the art of persuasion! The art has to be identified elsewhere from the descriptions given by Aristotle down to the practices adopted by media men and politicians! We will not focus here on the performative part, or rather the art of persuasion, but will discuss features of persuasion as a sign.

As already pointed out, persuasion is an act, it influences the mind, and it does so by means of arguments and reasons. A distinguishing feature of persuasion is that it always communicates. Self-persuasion also involves communication, but within oneself.

In another phenomenon we have messages unintended to the one who is persuaded by the message. For example, in a vegetable shop in Mysore market, I overheard a conversation that the brinjals (eggplants) being sold today are all spotted and worm eaten, and so I decided not to buy any brinjals today!

6. UNINTENDED MESSAGES AND PERSUASION

Not all unintended messages constitute persuasion. In order to be persuasive in nature, a communication situation must involve a conscious attempt by one individual to change the behavior of another individual or group of individuals through the transmission of some message. It should be those situations in which some source deliberately produces a message designed to elicit specific behavior on the part of a receiver or group of receivers.

Note that this characterization of Persuasion makes it a process involving the manipulation of signs. One of the characteristics was that a sign is a communicative device taking place between two human beings intentionally aiming to communicate or to express something. Once this position is assumed, my decision against buying brinjals (eggplants) today is not because I am persuaded.

Let us consider another "unintended message" phenomenon. Very often we come across individuals who testify that they have been touched by the message of a discourse and that they have, as a consequence, decided upon doing something positively or refrain from doing something they have been doing so long. It could be a religious discourse, it could be anything.

There is also the second step that, in most of the cases, the affected individuals invariably say that they felt that the message was intended specifically for them. In reality the message was intended for the whole body of people assembled, and, for all we know, none might have received it as a communication! This particular person takes it as a message intended specifically for him, all because he has been with the message in him, even before he came to attend the discourse. There is intentionality very much in his thoughts, overt or covert, and he is suddenly awakened, taking the message intended for the whole audience as something specifically intended for him.

The intentionality of the discourse maker is already there. But the specificity of the linkage is made possible by the already agitating intentionality in the receiver of the message. He is persuaded.

7. EXPRESSING THE CONCEPT OF PERSUASION IN INDIAN LANGUAGES

In Tamil, there is not an exact equivalent word for persuasion. The concept is expressed by several different words, each one emphasizing one or more aspects of the concept of persuasion. That it is so is clearly revealed if one goes through English-Tamil Bilingual dictionaries. While some of these dictionaries list several different words (each one depicting one or more aspects) as equivalents of persuasion in English, some others go in for the translation of the various aspects found in the Oxford Dictionary of English (for the concept or word persuastion) in phrasal constructions. This is yet recognition of the difficulty in finding and providing a single equivalent for the word persuasion in Tamil.

There is also evidence provided for this difficulty from another source. Make a listing of places wherein the word persuasion is used in King James Authorized Version of the Holy Bible in English and identify the use of words used in the Holy Bible in Tamil in such places. We find, to our amazement, that, here also, several different words are used in different places to cover the aspects constituting persuasion in English. I made use of the Bible in Tamil for this purpose because there is no better deliberately translated work in Tamil. T Bible was translated into Tamil in several stages, at least 175 years ago, directly from the Hebrew and Latin originals.

Another noticeable feature is that several of these words are compound constructions. This again is a pointer that aspects of the concept of persuasion are not expressed straightforward in single words; they are derived from words that originally denote something related to the concept but are nevertheless not quite the same. The aspects covered are agree, accept, be in conformity, be of a fit, instigate, feel attracted, prove, convince, teach, demonstrate, make one to believe, be of conviction, be of one mind, act/speak sweetly, and reform, etc.

To me it appears that of the very few single words (non-compound, words of a free form) that fall within the domain of the concept of persuasion, the word iNanku more or less denoting 'agree' is the closest to the central meaning of persuasion in Tamil. The syntactic behavior of this word appears to reveal how Tamils/Tamil language view the functioning of persuasion. This form occurs only in intransitive and does not have a corresponding transitive form, indicating the volitional character of the act denoted by the verb.

Persuasion is simply an internal process of the one who is persuaded, and not dependent upon the act of persuasion indulged in by someone else. We shall see later how this intensely volitional act depicted in the behavior of the Tamil verb is exploited to make the act of persuasion an arbitrary sign.

8. SOME SELECTED EPISODES OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION

Persuasion is, indeed, a matter for intense investigation in psychology and mass communication on the one hand, and rhetoric, pragmatics, philosophy, and literary criticism, on the other. In particular, psychologists have contributed a lot to the elucidation of persuasion. Schools of conditioning and cognition have presented several models. So, we shall not go into the experimental model, conditions, and conclusions. Our aim,here, is to show certain contexts in which the act of persuasion itself, and not the contents of persuasion, becomes a purely arbitrary sign. This can be illustrated and discussed well with the help of literary works. Hence I present below some selected episodes of persuasive communication. The episodes will be presented first and then taken up for discussion in the next section under various points.

The Apostle Paul and Agrippa

Saul became Paul the Apostle. Previously Saul was a young man persecuting Christians in and around Jerusalem. As Paul, he started preaching Christ all over, the Jews laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. He was later brought before King Agrippa. Paul gave his testimony of some one called Jesus "which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." He told King Agrippa (Acts 26:22-29):

Lazarus the beggar (Luke 16:19-31):

Persuasion by Suggestion

The king of toNDainaadu had great enmity towards Atiyamaan, a great benevolent king of a neighboring country within Tamilnadu. The king of toNDainaadu was extremely arrogant of his martial power. Atiyamaan took pity on his ignorance and sent Avvaiyaar, an esteemed poetess and a good friend, as messenger to enlighten him about the horrors of war, the certainty of his thorough defeat and destruction in a war, and the consequent ruination of his land and his people.

Avvaiyar arrived in the country ruled by the king of toNDainaadu place. The king of toNDainaadu took her to his armory and showed her various arms, new and shining, in order to impress upon Avvaiyaar his mighty strength in warfare. Avvaiyaar understood his intention and sang the following poem: "These (arms of yours) are beautifully designed to show their potent strength, garlanded, well-oiled, and kept under watch within your great palace. Those (arms of his) are continually sent for repair to the small forge of the blacksmith due to the breakage caused to their edges by frequent piercing of the enemy."

Persuasion by Personal Experience

Manimekalai is the daughter of Kovalan and Madhavi. The goddess Manimekalai had once helped the ancestors of Kovalan. So, the parents named their daughter after goddess Manimekala. After the murder of Kovalan (in the hands of the Pandya king at Madurai, story detailed in another epic called Silappatikaaram, Madhavi became a Buddhist nun. She made her daughter Manimekalai also to become a Buddhist nun. One day Manimekalai went to the garden to gather flowers with her friend. She was carried away to the island of Manipallavam by the goddess Manimekala.

There she worshipped the Buddha Peetha. When she worshipped the peetha, she became aware of her previous birth. There, in the Manipallavam island, she got the Amuta Curapi (Amrita Surabhi) vessel, left there in a pond by Aaputtiran, through another goddess. With the help of the magical words taught to her by goddess Manimekala, she flew to KaveripuumpaTTinam, the capital of the Chola country. There she started feeding the hungry with the help of the vessel Amuta Gurapi. The Chola Prince made advances to her, which she rejected. The Prince was killed in an accident. So, the Chola King imprisoned her. Some time later, she was released.

Manimekalai, then went to the country that was being ruled by Aaputtiran in the present birth as Punyaraja. Aaputtiran did not know of his previous birth. Manimekalai met him, made him aware of his previous birth, took him to Manipallavam island and showed him the skeleton of his previous birth.

Later on she went to the city of Vanchi and enquired of the scholars of various religious schools as to what their schools considered the flawless eternal Truth to be. Her discussion covered scholars belonging to five distinct and not so distinct religions. Finally she asked the Bhutavaati what his school of belief held as truth. He said, "Knowledge/consciousness is created in this world by the mixing up of the five elements, just as the quality of intoxication is brought about by mixing several unrelated objects such as flour, flower, etc. When these five elements get destroyed one by one, the consciousness obtained through the conjoining of these elements also leave the body. There is nothing real in this world, which we cannot see and physically experience. Only this present life is real and there is nothing beyond this life."

On hearing this, Manimekalai laughed. She took pity on him since she had already been aware of her previous birth. She asked him, "Sir, you hold only those things you see as true, and real. If this were so, how could you be sure that your parents are indeed your parents, since such a definite conclusion depends not on seeing but on a purely mental construct, arrived at through deduction. Ah! How could you realize this truth, when you yourself do not see the need for deduction? Only one whose soul is attuned to it can find truth. (One who does not recognize the existence of truth will never find it.)

The Slaying of Vaali

Evening was approaching. Once more Sugreevan roared at the gate of Kishkindhai and challenged Vaali to fight.

Vaali who was then resting happily was startled and for a moment paled with puzzled concern, but was presently overwhelmed with rage and sprung stamping the earth as though he would split it.

Taarai, his queen, her heart full of loving fear, held him in arms in a close embrace and tried to restrain his impetuosity with affectionate counsel.

Put away this wrath, my dear lord, as one puts away a used garland, for you have had enough fighting today. Tomorrow would do as well for another battle, for you lack neither enemies nor valor.
I pray you not to rush out on the instant. It seems to me you should think calmly before going out now to meet your brother. I am afraid there is a deep game. Your brother was defeated and disgraced and ran for dear life and concealed himself for safety. Now he has returned and raises this noise.
Your brother is not such a fool as to challenge you again so soon after the punishment you inflicted on him unless he was assured of help and protection from an invincible ally of tried prowess.
Did you not observe that his very roar of challenge had a new note of confidence in it? I shall tell you what I heard from our scouts who range the forests. Two princes of unrivalled valor, Raaman and Ilakkuvan have come from Ayodhyai and Sugreevan has secured the promise of their assistance. My dear Lord, listen to my words.

Vaali said,

Oh! Cursed woman! You have committed a sin by speaking ill of the Lord (Raamapiraan) who has come upon this world to break the cyclic chain of births and deaths of those souls who wait for Him. He is the one who looks for and maintains dharma in this life and in life beyond and hence it will not be a pride for Him to do what you suggest He will do.
What benefit does He get out of this? Will Dharma itself lose its dharmic quality? He sacrificed the crown, which was rightfully his, in favour of his brother. Instead of worshipping Raamapiraan, you ascribe such motives to him! He is the one who conducts himself in this world as if He has no soul except those of His brothers.
He is the one who is always in consonance with His brothers. He is the ocean of mercy and grace. Will this Raamapiraan string His bow and shoot his arrow at me when I and my brother face each other in a battle?

Vaali was sure that Raman will not take sides in this ensuing fight between two brothers. The battle began and the brothers roared at each other.

Raman admired Vaali's strength and told his younger brother Ilakkuvan "Could there be any equal to Vaali among the gods and demons? Could even the oceans, clouds and the storms match (the size of) Vaali's body"?

But ILaiya PerumaaL (Ilakkuvan, or Lakshman), younger Lord, replied that Sugreevan had invited and brought Yaman, the God of death, to take the life of his own brother, meaning that the warfare indulged in by Sugreevan was against all the norms (since there was an arrangement that while Sugreevan and Vaali fought, Raman would hide behind and shoot his arrow at Vaali unawares).

ILaiya PerumaaL, younger Lord, also raised a query: "How could this Sugreevan, who had come to kill his brother, be dependent upon by strangers (like them) for support in their affairs?" Raamapiraan assured him: "Human conduct can be subjected to scrutiny (It is possible to assess human conduct) as to whether a particular act is based on justice or not. But can the conduct of these animals, who are bereft of reason, who look like as if they are mad, be subjected to such scrutiny?

Fierce with remembered wrongs and keyed up about himself by the certainty of Raaman's help, Sugreevan maintained for long an equal combat, but presently Vaali's greater might begin to prevail and Sugreevan was in such obvious distress that Raaman who was watching with ready bow knew he could not hold out much longer.

It was now or never, and placing a deadly arrow on the string and pulling it to his ear, Raaman sped it at Vaali's mighty chest, and this arrow, Kamban says, pricked vaali's mighty and hard chest in the manner of a needle penetrating a well-riped tasty banana. Pierced by that irresistible shaft, Vaali crashed down as falls a great forest tree cut asunder by the woodman's axe and lay stretched on the ground empurpled with blood as lies the mammoth festival flag-staff pulled down when the festival is ended. Nevertheless, Vaali did not let Raamapiraan's arrow penetrate and pass through his chest to return to Raamapiraan's hood! Such was his strength still remaining (and of course the act serves yet another symbolic function).

Even so, he was radiantly handsome, his noble figure shining like a cloud lit up by the setting sun. The divine necklace given to him by Indiran shone on his breast, which guarded his life and fortune. This jewel, Raaman's dart, the bleeding wound, all added luster to his mighty body.

Astounded at being hit and laid low, when he least expected it from an unknown quarter, Vaali looked around in perplexed surprise, pulled out the arrow, and saw that it was Raaman's. Also he saw Raaman and Ilakkuvan approaching him bow in hand. With tears of indignant wrath, and in a voice faint with approaching dissolution, he accused them of ignoble perfidy in dealing causeless death to a person engaged in combat with another.

Raamaa," he said, "you are the son of Emperor Dasarathan. Born of a noble race and famous by your own exploits, how did you bring yourself to do this deed? The world is full of praises for your valour and virtue. And yet, while I was absorbed in a battle with another, you came unseen and, from behind, shot a fatal arrow at me.
In your incarnation, you want to guide people and make them refrain from doing evil things. But, alas, if you yourself do the evil deeds, will it not be a mistake on your part? Has it been said in Manu sastra that because of a Rakshasan committed a wrong against you, should kill a person from another species (monkey race)? You are the leader, Nayakan, hero, of all the sastras, meting out justice. But you have done this to me.
Hence why should you consider that Raavanan has done a wrong to you and feel angry about him?
Your act is not valour; it has no basis in sastras. It is not derived from Truth also. How false and undeserved is your reputation for manly virtues, for truth and forbearance! What will the world think of you now? What harm have I ever done to you?
Did I come out to fight with you? You have killed me like an assassin concealing yourself behind the streets. For a royal prince to kill an innocent person in this way is grievous sin. You are unworthy for kingship. The goddess Earth will never consent to take you for a bridegroom.
My greatest sorrow is that I am killed by a base and sinful wretch. If it was battle with me you wanted, I would have given it to you, and slain by me in fair combat you might have been lying in the dust as I do now.
Or if it was help to recover your Seetai I would have won her back for you in a day. I would have killed Raavanan and dragged his body with a rope around the neck and placed it at your feet. No matter where he has hidden Seetai, I would have discovered her and restored her to you.

Raamapiraan replied,

Vaali! Even though you knew that Sugreevan was not at fault in accepting the Kingship after your disappearance, you started killing him. He had much lesser strength than you and he was your own brother. Yet you chased him and tried to kill him.
Over and above all these you committed the greatest sin of coveting another man's wife leading her to lose her valued chastity. Protecting the chastity of a woman is the greatest act of love, the function of being born in a superior caste, mark of valour, and of belonging to the way of life based on enlightened true wisdom. There is no better pride than this for a person to acquire.
You have negated all these; also Sugreevan is a rare friend of mine, dear to me just as my own soul. Hence I shot the arrow at you to kill you. It is not my intention to kill individuals/strangers; also it is my intention to rid the poor and the inferior of their agony.

Vaali retorted,

The acts of mine you have listed as inappropriate and not falling within the sanctioned code of life in your race are not inappropriate in my race. We are led to live a life as our mind and body dictate. This is how Braham has created us and prescribed our way of life. Whatever I have done was perfectly within our swadharma.

Vaali makes a particular reference as to how in his race the notion of chastity has no place at all. Raamapiraan then started explaining:

You all are born children of the gods; you have mastered the dharma maarga. And hence it is clear that you all do not belong to the animal race. Since you do not belong to the animal race, your act of coveting another man's wife is not an act of valour, only a sin.
The dharma marga is not based on body (form of the body). It is based on analytical knowledge. You have already mastered the sanmaaarga; it is not right on your part to argue that whatever you have done is appropriate within your swadharma. Your swadharma is not what you claim it to be.
Was Gajendran a mere animal, a mere elephant that appealed to Tirumaal, based on his analytical knowledge, and was saved by Him? Was Jataayu a mere eagle? The words you have uttered are proof of your conscious knowledge of various types of sanmaarga. If this were so, how could you claim yourself to be a mere animal and take refuge under this claim to justify your acts?
You have done great penances and obtained boons that could not be obtained even by sages. It is not the question of man and animals, it is only the question of whether one follows manudharma sastra or not. Since you have mastered dharma maaroa, you should have followed manu sastra and refrained from coveting another man's wife and ridding her of her valued chastity.

Vaali heard this, "recording every word of Raama piraan consciously in his mind" and said,

If this were so, Oh! Lord, who has the immaculate character of ruling all the species, then I may have indeed committed these as sins. Even then, why did you hide yourself, like the cruel hunters who hunted animals from hiding places, and shoot the arrow at me?

Raamapiraan did not answer, but ILaiya PerumaaL, the younger Lord, answered:

Your younger brother Sugreevan surrendered himself first to Raamapiraan and He has given His word to him that He would kill you who had committed unjust deeds. Moreover He already knew that you also would seek His refuge while at war. That is why Raamapiraan hid himself from you and shoot the arrow at you.

Upon hearing these words, Vaali realized that Raaman, who is the pride of all the prides of this world, would not do anything to destroy dharma maarga (that is, what Raman did shooting arrow to kill Vaali was within dharma maarga and not against it), even in his personal grief and in his broken-hearted condition. Realizing this, Vaali subdued himself and bowed before Raamapiraan, begged Him to pardon all his sins, and declared that the dharma and Raamapiraan's arrow became one and the same, and that there was no better dharma than Raamapiraan's arrow. That which was despised earlier became the most sacred, and rightful object of worship. (Adopted from the translation of Kamban's Ramayanam by Rajaji)

9. PERSUASION AS A SIGN

Rational Man Model

One model of persuasion is a Rational Man model. The assumption of this model is that the communicator has to create a message to show the listener or reader that the behavior change desired by the communicator is logical. This model implies that man operates logically and is able to make decisions based on the validity of the arguments. This is true in many cases. In most communications, reasons are adduced and the listener or reader is convinced.

However, in several others, this does not take place. For instance, this model of Rational Man is specifically rejected in Lazarus the Beggar episode. This model fails in the episode of slaying of Vaali, although the overall frame of the episode is still based on this model in the sense that Vaali is convinced by the arguments of Raamapiraan and justification offered by ILaya PerumaaL, at a superficial level.

This model is put to test through an exercise of explicitly stated propositions in the episode of Manimekalai. This episode, in my view, leads us nowhere, or rather leads us only to the conclusions of the episodes of Lazarus the Beggar, Slaying of Vaali and even of Paul and King Agrippa. This model, however, operates well in the episode of Poetess Avvaiyaar. Note that while the other four episodes focus more on something not here and now, the Poetess Avvaiyar episode focuses on something here and now, something rather concrete.

Changes in Attitude

Persuasion involves changes in attitude and belief based on the creation of new reference frames, as well as the addition of new material to old structures and the subsequent adjustment of the structure to take account of the new material.

The fact that people do not discard their earlier frames of reference but adapt these frames to suit the new information, persuasive changes difficult to obtain. However we find that in the case of Vaali a sweeping change takes place; in the case of the rich man in Lazarus the Beggar episode a sweeping change is demanded within what obtains on the earth with what one is instructed on the earth, (which is) an instruction for which supporting proof cannot be provided upon earth through a concretization of impending future. No shuttle between concrete present and future.

Also in the case of King Agrippa, no change takes place; it is only a case of "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." At least King Agrippa's case is persuasion half the way, whereas, in the case of Bhutavaati, it is a case of zero persuasion, a thorough stalemate, each clinging on to his/her own position.

Under what circumstances sweeping changes are caused by the persuasive effort?

My submission is that such sweeping changes are caused by the persuasive effort when persuasion becomes a purely arbitrary sign, when persuasion is not based on matter that constitutes it but on a matter that lies beyond it, which uses it as an arbitrary sign to bring forth the desired change.

Raaman's arguments are full of holes. His own previous assessment of the distinction between humans and animals and consequential difference in behaviour between the two is thoroughly contradicted in his later elucidation of the same distinction, rather zero distinction in his own words. Vaali had to agree not because of the contents of the persuasive act but because of the act of persuasion itself. That Raamapiraan has persuaded is adequate enough to be persuaded.

Relationship between a Source and a Receiver:
the Impeccability or the Divine Status of the Source

Which messages are listened to, how they are acted upon, and what the consequences are of such decisions, are not seen as simple relationships between a source and a receiver, but as complex sets of factors depending on the types of attitudinal relationships existing between the elements in the situation.

Fortunately for us, contrasting situations are provided by our choice of episodes. Whereas the rich man in Lazarus the Beggar episode takes the relationship between the source and the receiver as simple (for, he just wants an easy solution of sending the beggar back to earth in all his glory to prove what obtains beyond one's life based on what one does in this life), Vaali views this relationship to be a complex one indeed.

In all his answers and arguments, Vaali clearly betrays his lurking suspicion that the cowardly act was committed by Raaman or Raamapiraan, because of his (Raaman's/Raamapiraan's) present tragic circumstances of Seethai being carried away and kept in custody by a demoniac character. How could Raamapiraan, known as protector of Dharma, otherwise do an act opposed to Dharma? His derisive query as to whether it has been prescribed in sastras that Raaman should kill a being of another species because his wife has been carried away by a rakshasan is a case in point.

Still more revealing is Vaali's statement to himself. Vaali convinces himself that what Raaman did was right by saying that Raamapiraan is one who would not do an act of injustice even in His dejected state or under pressure from personal tragic circumstances. Here the complexity of relationships between the source and the reviver is recognized and a solution is offered based on faith that the source of persuasion is impeccable.

Aristole said,

Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible ... his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses.

This may be true of the humans who labour so much in this world to prove what they are, to set an example for others. It is not necessarily so, for the divine incarnate, according to the portrayal of the Vaali episode by Kamban, at least in the present case of Raamapiraan. All his words and act in this episode are not impeccable from a human or a monkey viewpoint. His impeccability is always taken for granted, well asserted much before an episode begins, repeated time and again in phrases of address and reference, and incorporated in the suggestive parts of the story. It is not as if there is only a mention of impeccability, and infrequent demonstration or illustration of it through concrete acts.

In the case of the Vaali episode, there is a clear reference made to Raaman's abdicating his crown in favour of his younger brother. This very act of sacrifice referred to in the episode to highlight Raamapiraan's qualities and other references and assertions elsewhere, declare the impeccability of Raamapiraan in almost every poem.

The Power of the Contents of Persuasion

There is a clear contrast between the episode narrated in Poetess Avvaiyar's poem and the Vaali episode. The strength of persuasion depends, in the former, not on the impeccability of the source but on the contents of the persuasive act. In Raamapiraan's case, the content of the persuasive act is questioned and is not an effective tool for persuasion. That it was not an effective tool is heightened by the fact of Vaali asking Raaman for clarification, seeking and questioning the justification put forth by Raaman, as to why Raaman chose to hide himself and shoot the arrow. The query was replied by Ilakkuvan (Lakshman).

Charismatic Leadership and Persuasion

Charismatic leadership has been a subject matter of investigation and discussion all through the ages - Aristotle, Augustine, scholars of the disciplines of individual and social psychology, and so on. The charismatic leader is taken to be one whose ability at persuasion and leadership seems to transcend any of the usual abilities that individuals seem to possess.

Originally the term "charismatic" or "charisma" was used to refer to the qualities of those who claim or are believed to possess powers of leadership derived from some unusual sanction - divine, magical, diabolic - or merely exceptional individuals. Today, the term is usually removed from the realm of magic, etc., but it is still used to refer to unusual credibility or to the unique personal influence of an individual that is relatively constant over many topics and for many different audiences.

To say that an individual possesses charisma is to say, according to current models of persuasion, that he seems to possess characteristics that cannot be easily defined or explained. The best guess as to the nature of charisma is that it is the possession of many of the dimensions of credibility by a single individual, possession of those factors to a greater extent than is usual for the persuasive communicator, according to generally accepted current expositions of persuasion.

My submission is that a charismatic leader uses persuasion as a purely arbitrary sign. Perhaps it sounds tautological, but I must state here: A person becomes a charismatic leader when in his hands, persuasion becomes a pure arbitrary sign.

Codification of Persuasion Using Language

Receivers of messages, the ones being persuaded, as users of a language, generally develop meanings through learning, through application of the principles of association, response, and reward of response. If persuasion is to be successful, according to the current social psychological models of persuasion, the communicator must utilize the language elements he has available to him in a fashion that will increase the probability of eliciting the responses he intends to obtain from his receivers.

Of all the episodes I have cited here, I find the manipulation of language in full operation in the poetess Avvaiyar episode. In the episode of Vaali, no effort is made at all for the manipulation of language; the language is straightforward to the point of becoming naïve. The manipulation is to be seen in the attributes given to Raamapiraan, whenever he is referred to in these verses. These attributes, however, refer mostly to the qualities and functions of Vishnu. These attributes are not derived from the present concrete situation, and, many a time, are not relevant to the point at issue, if one takes a purely analytic view. In the case of Lazarus the Beggar, language, along with the need for demonstration, is dismissed. In other words, manipulation of language is recognized to be important for convincing the here and now.

Traditional grammars in Tamil have implicitly recognized this need. They prescribe the following language behaviour to shopkeepers. Suppose that a customer, for instance, asked for uLundu, urudh dhal, and suppose that the shopkeeper does not have it in stock, the seller must reply to the query "Do you have urudh dhal"? from the buyer that "arahar dhal is available."

This technique of persuasion, based on the suggestive power of language, is abused these days more by chemists and druggists than by others! This abuse is facilitated in the present society by the growth of science. Originally the technique was used to fulfill a religious, or even secular dicta, calling for acceptable social performance, based on belief that one should never say no.

Consider here the didactic social dicta relating to begging and beggars. Saying no when one asks for a thing was considered a great uncivilized (or even sinful) act. Based on this notion, the shopkeepers were advised to suggest the alternative. That is, this language manipulation was a sign for a specific purpose in those days, at least as far as grammars say, or make it out to be. It continues to be a sign for a different purpose now. (At present it is used to persuade individuals to buy what is available in the store as a better substitute.) In this transformation of purposes for this particular sign, chemists and druggists seek to sell a different brand than the one prescribed by a doctor. Multiplicity of drugs for the same symptom on the one hand and the multiplicity of brands,on the other, are acceptable.

In any case, it is evident that language manipulation is not required at least in some cases of persuasion.

10. VARIOUS FORMS OF PERSUASION

This takes us to the point that there are various forms of persuasion, different goals for persuasion, and different types of persuasion.

11. A TOOL TO ACHIEVE ENDS

Persuasion is a tool to achieve certain ends; persuasion is carried on through various means, including verbal communication, which, in most cases, profess to present reasons for the need to change one's original position; justification, if one is persuaded. In all such cases, thus, there are positions stated, discussed, proved or disproved, benefits listed, and so on. Reasons may be stated straightforward, or indirect, implied and so on, but communication takes place to persuade the individual/individuals concerned. In these cases, the stated reasons for an end, form of persuasion, goals of persuasion, type of persuasion all do not really have any effect on the achievement of the ultimate and aimed at. The act of persuasion itself, converts itself into a pure sign, leads on to the desired goal, the act itself, all alone, and not the state or substance of the act, achieves it.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO HOME PAGE | GO TO THE MAIN PAPER