Introduction
The use of persuasion in people’s speech mostly takes place in political speeches, where candidates want to provide the audience with the relevant information and to make them believe and perceive given information. Political life is the most persuasive in its nature as all political powers, especially in the time of high political activity, want to have people’s voices and try to make their speeches full of sense, persuasion and trusted. Researching the persuasion of speeches, theorists define two types of it, classical and Rogerian, which are used by the speakers equally, in spite of the fact that have some significant differences.
Main body
Starting with classical type of persuasion, the significant feature of it is that three parties are involved in the discourse, and one part wants to prove the third one that the truth is on its side, not on the side of the second part. In fact two parties try to introduce their opinions and thoughts, usually contradicting, to convince the third party in their credibility. All the political debates and jurisdictional systems of the country are based on the classical persuasion theory (Wilbers par. 2). Rogerian persuasion is something different from classical, first of all by the number of participants, only two parties are involved without the third, judging one. These two sides do not search for opposing arguments, they just try to convince the other party to take up their position. The theme of the conversation is the same, the ideas are also alike, but some controversy sides are not confirmed. The main aim of Rogerian persuasion is to find common ground, but not to search for oppositions (Wilbers par. 3).
From the point of view of these two different persuasion types, all the political debates and speeches may be analyzed and conclusion provided about the type of persuasion used in this or that case. Taking the example of Nelson Mandela’s speech and Frederik Willem de Klerk’s speech the conclusion may be made which type of persuasion was used. Frederik Willem de Klerk’s persuasion was of Rogerian type as he wanted to make people understand the importance of the end of apartheid. The arguments, which he introduced, were rather strong and he managed to end the apartheid, dwelling upon free Africa. The aim of his speeches was to convince people, but not to provide people with the opposing arguments, so the conclusion is that the Rogerian persuasion type was used (Klerk 590).
Analyzing Nelson Mandela’s essay, the following features of his methods may be derived, he used the opposing, sometimes even violent methods in introducing his point of view about free South. Mandela acted revolutionary, with the signs of violation on the streets and direct conviction to the side of that government, which provided the politics of apartheid (Mandela 587). So, Mandela’s actions may be considered as the classical persuasion, as all he did was directed on persuasion of others by means of opposite ideas.
In conclusion, theorists identify two types of persuasion, classical and Rogerian, which differ by the number of participants and methods of persuasion used. Classical persuasion is based on the opposing ideas, while Rogerian is just the argumentative persuasion, the aim of which is to incline the person to the offered opinion. Political sphere is the sphere, where both these types of persuasion are used in order to make people believe the politicians and take up their side.
Works Cited
Wilbers, Stephen. “Use Rogerian persuasion with a hostile audience.” Star Tribune, 2000. Web.
Mandela, Nelson. “The end of apartheid” in Essay Connection: Readings for Writers by Lynn Z. Bloom. Houghton Mifflin Co., 2004, pp. 586-589.
Klerk, de Frederic William. “Reformation and reconciliation in South Africa” in Essay Connection: Readings for Writers by Lynn Z. Bloom. Houghton Mifflin Co., 2004, p. 590.