Plato on Social Influence

September 5, 2024 by Donald Gorassini, howinfluenceworks.com

Plato (427-348 BCE), a student of Socrates, believed that social influence should aim to improve the listener. He advocated for the use of the Socratic method, known as the dialectic, which involves questioning and engaging in dialogue to uncover truth. Plato’s famous dialogue “The Republic” exemplifies this approach as Socrates questions others to explore the nature of justice and the ideal society.¹

Plato disagreed with the view of Socrates that dialectic was the only permissible means of social influence. Dialectic would not be effective if listeners were unable or unwilling to engage in critical dialogue. The necessary alternative approach in these cases was rhetoric, the use of techniques to instil a desired answer. In this, the view of Plato was no different than that of the Sophists (see previous blog on Socrates).²

Of course, Plato differed fundamentally from the Sophists about the purpose of influence. Plato insisted that influence be used to instil virtue whereas the Sophists used influence to change minds whether this improved, had no effect on, or worsened the listener’s state.

For someone like Plato, who believed that virtue could be discovered through philosophical inquiry, rhetoric comprised moral education. A person who had gained understanding could use rhetoric to teach the uninitiated. The more individuals that adopted the acquired practices, the more that society would improve. For instance, if more people recycle, there will be less waste. If more people practice kindness, there will be less conflict. This would not prevent able listeners from verifying for themselves, later, using dialectic, what was learned in the first instance through rhetoric.

If we return to the example introduced in the previous blog, Plato might employ dialectic to enhance comprehension of organ donation. He would engage in dialogue, the questioning of assumptions, and the exploration of different perspectives to help listeners grasp the complexities and ethical considerations involved.

Plato would suggest using rhetoric to persuade listeners who are unable or unwilling to engage in dialogue. This could involve creating a video ad featuring a respected transplant surgeon advocating for preventive medicine over transplantation. The ad would use rhetorical techniques such as selective information, alignment with the listener’s beliefs, high credibility, and arguing against self-interest to convince the audience to adopt the viewpoint.

What do you think? Is rhetoric dishonest? Should it ever be used? How would you feel on learning you had been fooled by rhetoric? Should rhetoric be used even when dialectic is possible? Would using a subliminal message to change minds ever be acceptable?

1. See, for example, Plato, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ↩︎
2. Plato discussed rhetoric in several of his works, including “Gorgias,” “Phaedrus,” and “Protagoras.” In these dialogues, Plato explores the nature of rhetoric, its ethical implications, and its role in philosophical discourse. ↩︎