Audience

     This was brought up in class and I was really taken with the idea: audience. It started with the discussion of whether or not Al Gore was an appropriate person to have write a Forward for American Earth. When I sat and thought about both sides, I couldn't come up with a good answer. On one hand, Al Gore knows what he is talking about. He studied the environment in college before he was ever a politician. He is well-informed and trustworthy on this topic. But does that make him a good candidate for the Forward? Technically, he is a perfect man for the job. Those who know about him understand his qualifications and would gladly read what he has to say. At the same time, Al Gore's political background can be an asset as well. People who enjoyed him as a politician, who voted for him, would certainly be more inclined to hear what American Earth has to say because of Gore's endorsement. However, there is also a negative side to this strategy. If someone considers himself an environmentalist and enjoys environmental literature, he may be put off by having a "corrupt" politician endorsing this novel. It is no secret that many Americans see politicians as nothing but corrupt, backstabbing elitists who act with their own singular intentions in mind, rather than for the greater good. So an environmentalist with a distrust and distaste for government officials may be extremely put off by Gore's Forward. Similar for someone who may pick up this book who is not an environmentalist. It could be a case of curiosity: picking up the book in a library and skimming through it. The person may be less inclined to read American Earth solely because of Gore's endorsement. Their political beliefs may lean more toward the conservative or Republican side, making any argument Gore has a moot point to them just because of his political stances in the past. It is disheartening to see politics draw a line in the sand over what should be a human issue. American Earth really needs to know its audience to understand the risk it is taking by employing Al Gore to write the Forward.
     This branches out for everyday rhetorical arguments people make. From a personal standpoint, my friends and I act as therapists and guidance counselors for one another. I will go to, say, my friend Kate and ask for advice on taking one class over another. She knows me well enough (as I will be her audience) to know what tactics to use to help me decide. I am generally a more logical person. So Kate knows to use logic and facts rather then fear or emotion to sway me. If she says a certain class has a lot of reading but it is manageable, I will take that information into weight. If she says the professor is super nice and the class always lets out early, I don't give such information as much power in my decision. Same goes for when my brother and I get into intellectual discussions about religion or politics. Facts and statistics mean more to him then anything. If I argue, "I have no real fact, but I just know something else has to exist," he disregards it. I'm not utilizing the proper rhetoric for my audience.
     When deciding on your audience, I find it a fascinating psychological study of humans. It is amassing all the information you know about a certain group of people and making (hopefully accurate) assumptions about them. Only then can you appropriately decide how to approach a topic to gain the end in which you desire. The most amazing thing about all of this: humans, on a daily basis, are gauging their audience before they speak. Otherwise, their rhetoric will fall on deaf ears and create massive amounts of wasted air.