Stories can be used to influence an audience. In this blog, I discuss the recommendations of Aristotle in his work, Poetics, for composing a story capable of changing feelings, thoughts, and actions. His insights remain relevant.
Aristotle saw the telling of stories as a way to educate. Although not the only way to do so, the method was considered a particularly effective way of getting useful knowledge across to recipients.
The lessons conveyed by story-telling were thought capable of making viewers better people. This was expected to compound over individuals, resulting in a better society.
Although the title of his work is Poetics, Aristotle meant his analysis to apply to various story media, including poems, songs, stage plays, speeches, and legal arguments. It would not be a stretch to add modern modes such as TV programs, novels, editorials, advertisements, video games, soundbites, slogans, and movies to the list.
Consider the following example of an attempt to change minds by using a story. A hospital’s fundraising ad highlights the tragic consequences of organ shortages by depicting a young person’s death and family’s grief, emphasizing that an organ transplant could have saved the life. The ad uses actors and a compelling screenplay. It encourages viewers to support organ donation by pledging “yes” when renewing their driver’s license.
Aristotle reminds us what everyday experience demonstrates, namely that people love a good story. This makes the story an excellent way of drawing and holding audience interest, a major feat in the realm of social influence.
If the story is a good one, it immerses viewers within its own reality. It is this state of immersion in the story world that is the key here. It can be used to create targeted changes in the recipient.
Aristotle’s Poetics emphasizes that stories represent individuals in action over multiple events. The simulation could reflect something possible (a cow drinking at a trough) or fanciful (a cow jumping over the moon).
Aristotle, in poetics, proposes that only a story depicting possible events could persuade. A simulation of this sort has the power to engage our emotions, get us thinking about what we would do if faced with similar situations, and modify the action plans we would implement.
The dramatization illustrating the death of a loved one due to a shortage of organs for transplant is something that could happen to the viewer or viewer’s loved ones. This genuine prospect could arouse emotions, instigate thoughts, and bring about contingency planning that would make pledging to donate one’s organs more likely than previously.
Aristotle, in Poetics, proposed tragedy as the most effective story form for changing the viewer.
He went on to describe the features of tragedy:
The plot is the most important feature of a story. A plot is the theme. For example, in “Romeo and Juliet,” the plot can be summarized as “two young lovers from feuding families face tragic consequences.”
The plot is conveyed over a series of events.
The story should form a unified whole. Each event should relate to the plot, no event should should be irrelevant, and no event should be out of order.
A story should occur over one sitting. A TV episode and feature-length movie are examples.1A TV show could be part of a series of shows, each telling its own story. Although combining episodes into a longer narrative violates magnitude rule, Aristotle acknowledged that the addition of an overarching plot can be interesting if presented well to an audience that can appreciate it. The same could be said for a novel or epic poem.
A story should have a good rhythm. There are multiple events in a story. The timing of scenes and elements within scenes can vary in endless ways. Some versions make for a more compelling story than others.
Spectacular sequences could be included in the story. This refers to visually striking or sensational elements, such as explosions or sex scenes, designed to captivate the audience. Aristotle argued that these ingredients would be useless without a good plot.
The tragedy focuses on an everyday person, neither heroic nor villainous.
The character experiences a significant loss, from happiness to misery.
The unfortunate result imposes itself on the person.
The tragedy would not be abrupt but build over several events.
The plot of a tragedy should contain surprising events, including revelations and reversals. Both of these are embodied when, in the TV series, Dexter, Deborah, a police officer, learns her once beloved brother is a serial killer.
Of great importance and as emphasized above, the depicted events are possible in the real world.
The foregoing elements of Aristotelian tragedy are meant to produce the immersion necessary for altering the emotions, thinking, and behavioural plans that flow naturally from the story plot. This ultimately makes particular behaviour more likely than before. For example, a viewer of a compelling story depicting a tragic death due to a lack of available organs might decide to become a donor.
The deep involvement that characterizes exposure to Aristotelian tragedy is temporary. Once reflection has been prompted and any resulting changes in belief and commitment made, the viewer is able to disengage from the world of the story and get back to everyday life. For example, the topic of death is quite stressful while we contemplate it. When we wish, we tend to have no difficulty purging the thoughts from our minds and going back to our daily lives.
As a method for spurring moral reflection and altering life plans, the tragedy is versitile. Rather than having to wait for events to occur naturally, the story-teller can offer a compelling faxcimile at any time.
Conclusions
The tragic story serves as a powerful social influence tool by engaging people’s love for storytelling and their ability to connect emotionally. It becomes more compelling when it relates to events that could realistically affect the viewer, eliciting emotions and prompting reflection and strategic changes. The depicted events are distant enough to provoke thought without overwhelming the audience, making storytelling a versatile method of influence that doesn’t require the actual occurrence of the events.
Some Questions to Ponder
Find videos of a few speeches. Do the speakers tell any stories?
Aristotle emphasized the use of stories for the dissemination of truth, good of the person, and cohesion of society. Could stories be used differently, as tools of manipulation and ruin?
Can the use of stories in rhetoric help explain how people are gotten to think and do stupid things?
Can you tell a story in order to change yourself?
Can rhetoric be captivating without a story? Consider the talented professor who makes a mathematics lecture enthralling.
Leave a Reply