Introduction
Introduction is the most important part of a propaganda speech, since it is at the beginning of your speech that you can win over the audience, feel their reaction, and develop a further line of behavior. The introduction should define the purpose as well as provide an explanation of your chosen topic. In the initial stage of a speech, it is important to set the stage for the audience to facilitate further communication and elicit a positive reaction. This can be done in several ways. First, in order to attract the audience's attention, you need to include humor in your speech. At the same time, the quality of humor must correspond to the selected audience. If you are not gifted with a sense of humor, then it is better not to take risks, but to quote a famous person whose opinion the audience will definitely listen to.
Secondly, try to create an atmosphere of reconciliation, that is, develop a common basis for agreement. In this case, it is important to explain to the listeners that you and them are united by a common goal and task, that you have no desire to impose anything. The main thing is to create a long-term contact with the audience and maintain it until the end of your speech. Smile more, use gestures of kindness. Frequently ask challenging questions that require a mandatory response. Your goal in an introduction is to interest the listener.
Psychological communication in tourism
Depending on the specific characteristics of the relationship, in a situation where a manager has to encourage employees to perform some action, different genres are possible. So, if employees are required to perform this action within the framework of their position, the manager can issue an order. If it is assumed that employees have the right not to do what is required, but the action is necessary for the organization (or the manager himself), he can appeal to their loyalty and make a request. However, there may also be cases when the manager assumes that the action will ultimately be in the interests of the listeners themselves - then a genre will be required propaganda speech.So, the speaker cannot order his subordinates to perform some action and must make sure that they voluntarily agree to do what is required (for example, take part in a competition, sign up for a foreign language course, use a new technique in their work, etc.). In general, such speeches are structured according to the scheme of a calling speech. This means that the audience is assessed as critical, so the speaker must use argumentation based on the values of the listeners, talk about what is useful, beneficial, and interesting for them. The speech consists of three parts: 1) the problem of the listeners; 2) proposed action; 3) the benefits that people will receive if they agree with the speaker. However, when delivering such speeches, speakers often fail because they neglect the procedure for creating a campaign speech. Therefore, we will dwell here in more detail on this aspect.
If it turns out that the audience is sharply critical of the thesis being discussed and has a clearly expressed different opinion, then it is clear that the usual methods of argumentation will be ineffective and may even lead to a result directly opposite to that expected by the speaker. What should we do here? In this situation, the speaker must first of all analyze the reason for such a critical attitude of the listeners. If the reason is a bad attitude towards the speaker himself, it is better to refrain from speaking and consider other methods of influence. If the reason is rejection of the idea, it is necessary to find out as accurately as possible the essence of the disagreement. For example: a teacher offers students to buy a new textbook, but they are in no hurry. What is the reason? 1) They have no money; 2) there are other textbooks in the library that seem to students no worse than the new ones; 3) the subject does not seem too difficult to them, and they hope to pass it without any extra hassle. The next step is to determine the degree of opposition. Here you should ask yourself the question: to what extent is this reason strong, can it be overcome with the help of speech? So, if students are hoping for a different textbook, an experienced teacher can easily argue the advantages of the new edition and its indispensability when passing the exam. But if the reason is lack of money, no arguments will change the situation. Similarly: a speaker encourages listeners to get a flu shot, but they are allergic to the vaccine; calls on the team members to switch to two-shift work, but the team includes young women who have no one to pick up their children from kindergarten - these reasons cannot be overcome with the help of speech.
After the cause of resistance has been established and assessed as surmountable with the help of speech, the task of speech is formulated, aimed at overcoming this cause, and the thesis associated with it. For example, a manager has developed a plan for reorganizing a department and insists on its adoption, but department employees are actively resisting. What is the reason? If the reason is inertia of thinking, the main emphasis should be on the benefits and advantages that they will receive as a result of the reorganization - the thesis: “reorganization of the department is necessary in order to free employees from unnecessary functions and duplication of operations, to make their work easier.” If the reason is that they are afraid of being laid off as a result of the reorganization, it is important to assure them that this will not happen - the thesis: “the reorganization of the department will lead to the optimization of our work, which will finally allow us to allocate some of the employees to work with correspondence and compile archive." If the reason is that they do not want to retrain, which will inevitably be required during the reorganization, you should pay special attention to the usefulness of the training for them - thesis: “the advanced training courses that you will take during the reorganization of the department will allow you to become more qualified an employee who is more valued and respected by management, which in the future will allow you not to be afraid of any reductions and layoffs,” etc. During this stage, special attention is paid to explaining the importance of the event specifically for listeners. Managers often make the mistake of justifying mainly the necessity of an event for the enterprise, which is completely ineffective, especially since employees are not the owners of the enterprise and always put personal interests above production ones. That is why, if the manager is going to justify the need for the team to switch to two-shift work, then this cannot be explained by the fact that the company has to pay a lot for equipment downtime. It is much more effective to talk about how employees’ salaries will increase due to cost savings, or, in extreme cases, how much free time they will have, how much more spacious the work space will become and how much more convenient it will be for them to work.
Even if the manager cannot offer employees anything as compensation, the argument should still be built from the position of the listeners: You all know that our enterprise is not very efficient, its profitability is low. If we don't do anything, then in a couple of years we'll all end up on the street. However, given our specialty, finding a new place is not so easy. If we are interested in keeping our jobs, we all need to make some sacrifices. So, the management developed a plan to increase the profitability of the company: if we rent out half of the premises and switch to working in two shifts, then with the rental proceeds we can buy a new machine, which will dramatically increase labor productivity and help us increase the competitiveness of our enterprise. This will give us the opportunity to maintain our company, and therefore not be unemployed. So, 1) proof that this is a very important problem that needs to be solved immediately (if we do not immediately change the structure of our institution, then perhaps tomorrow we will all join the ranks of the unemployed); 2) emphasizing the fact that this problem is important specifically for this audience (two apartments have already been robbed in your building, if you don’t immediately get a dog, you will end up third); 3) demonstration of the benefits and advantages that the audience will receive from solving this problem (if you complete a foreign language course, you will be able to get a more prestigious job related to business trips to other countries). The next step is to develop the argumentation of the speech. Needless to say, it should be as saturated as possible with value arguments of all kinds. Concern for the interests of the audience comes to the fore here. For example, if a speaker wants to encourage students to go out on a cleanup day and clean up the area around the university, then the argument is completely ineffective: the janitor has quit, there is no one to clean, the environment is so dirty that it is embarrassing in front of strangers. The following arguments will produce a completely different impression: 1) many students complain that it is impossible to approach the university without getting their shoes dirty; they have to walk in dirty shoes. In order not to spoil your shoes, I suggest everyone go out and fill up the puddles; 2) yesterday a first-year student slipped on ice near the university and broke her leg. I urge all the boys to go out and cover the ice with sand, without waiting until all the girls become cripples. At the same time, the speech should contain many formulas of agreement with the problems and difficulties of the audience: these problems cannot be dismissed as insignificant, unimportant, they must be treated with respect, cf.: I understand that you are the busiest..., Of course, it will not be easy for you to change your mind... , Of course, it will be difficult, but... etc.
The more critical the audience, the less categorical the argument should be. A variation of the tactics of constructing speech in this case is indirect argumentation, which addresses one addressee, but intends to influence a completely different one, who is passively present during the conversation. An example of such argumentation is all kinds of television debates in which the participants address each other, but have in mind the impact on television viewers. This technique can also be very effective. The speaker first creates the impression that it will take a lot of effort to change the situation dramatically, but in the end it turns out that the problem is not as serious as it seemed, it will require much less effort - this makes it easier to come to terms with the proposed measures (for example, at first we create the impression that The cleanup involves a complete cleaning of the area, but then it turns out that you only need to fill up a couple of puddles). Any violation of expectations about the direction of attack greatly reduces audience resistance. Let's look at an example of constructing such a speech. The city's public catering system is clearly not coping with its responsibilities: lunches are expensive for the average consumer. A representative of the city administration intends to convince managers of public catering enterprises to switch to the new system. - Colleagues! The current public catering sector in Russia needs fundamental changes. Currently, restaurants and cafes survive only due to sharp increases in product prices, which makes them inaccessible to the majority of the population. Therefore, the task of creating and developing a system of fast and cheap mass food seems extremely relevant and urgent. Currently, such a system is in its infancy in our country, while it is leading throughout the world. This system is very promising due to the widespread use of local agricultural raw materials, equipment, and materials. This organization system contributes to a sharp increase in the productivity of service personnel and the throughput of fast food enterprises, since the turnover of one seat, as a rule, reaches 20-30 times per work shift and, with a time expenditure of 15-20 minutes per person, allows serving the maximum number consumers. The services of such a specialized network can be used by workers, students, and schoolchildren, receiving a full meal. For each fast food chain enterprise, uniform parameters must be unshakable: speed of service, high taste and aesthetic qualities of dishes, high level of service, affordable prices, disposable tableware, packaging and other elements of corporate identity. We hope that you will get involved in this work and provide the residents of our city with cheap, tasty meals. This speech, of course, did not lead to success. Its main drawback is that it does not talk about the problems and benefits of the audience. The first part states the problem, but it concerns not the listeners, but the city residents (visitors): food in a cafe is too expensive for the average consumer. The following describes the new food system, again from the organizational perspective. A cafe employee can only extract one piece of information for himself: if previously he served 10 people per shift, now he will have to serve 100. Why, exactly, should he work so hard? And why does he care that it is convenient for visitors? That is, the meaning of the speech can be schematically represented as follows: we offer you to work three times more for the same salary for the convenience of visitors. It is obvious that the effectiveness of this thesis is practically zero. The speech ends with the presentation of additional requirements for the quality of service, which, of course, only aggravates the rejection of the speech. After processing, the speech took on the following form: - Colleagues! In our difficult times, when the number of unemployed is growing rapidly, difficulties have also affected catering workers. Currently, canteens and cafes survive only due to sharp increases in prices for products, which makes them inaccessible to the majority of the population. This often leads to catering establishments closing and workers ending up on the streets. In the last year alone, 18 cafes have closed in our city, and the employees - qualified chefs - were forced to change their profession and earn a living by doing odd jobs. We believe this is unacceptable. We must fight to preserve our public food system, preserve jobs, and save our personnel. Therefore, the task of creating and developing a system of fast and cheap mass food seems extremely relevant and urgent. The promising nature of this area of work is indicated by the experience of the city of Kursk, where over the past year a wide network of specialized municipal enterprises “Russian Bistro” was created. With a one and a half shift operation, each such enterprise with 30 seats serves 3 thousand people per day. Moreover, the price of three meals a day is equal to the cost of one cheeseburger or the cost of one and a half hot dogs. This made it possible to sharply increase the profitability of enterprises and double the salaries of employees. A government resolution has been adopted on financial support for the development of this system. In addition, the proposal of the Department of Consumer Market and Services to establish for 1997-98 was accepted. enterprises of JSC "Russian Bistro" rent in the amount of the minimum rate. The head of our city administration showed interest in creating such a branded network and promised his support to those enterprises that would switch to this system. In this speech, the problem is the collapse of the cafe and unemployment among the cooks, which is much more effective than in the previous case. The following is the essence of the proposal. The arguments are a reference to the experience of the city of Kursk and a promise of support from the administration. What will enterprise employees get if they agree with the speaker? Saving jobs and doubling wages.
In conclusion, let us draw attention to two more mistakes that are typical for this genre: 1) Unclear formulation of your position and ways to resolve the problem. Usually, most of such a speech is devoted to the formulation of a controversial issue, that is, it describes what is bad, what seems unacceptable to the speaker. However, what way out the speaker sees from this situation and what is required for this, they usually forget to tell the listeners. Instead of analyzing the situation and indicating a specific way to solve the problem, they offer to establish, increase and improve work - something that does not indicate specific forms and methods of work and does not then imply monitoring of implementation (how to determine whether “work has been improved” or not?). Sometimes even experienced rhetoricians offer the following formulation as the goal of a propaganda speech: “to make you think about...”, which actually leads to a losing situation: the listener thinks about it - and what next? 2) In real life, a mistake that is common in other genres is often encountered: instead of a propaganda speech designed for the interests and needs of the audience, the speaker gives an informational speech where he simply talks about the subject.
For example, as part of the television program “National Interest” in 1997, the issue of smoking was discussed. One of the speakers, a young man of 20-25 years old, said that he smokes, he likes it and he sees no reason to quit this activity. Another participant in the program immediately volunteered to object to him, beginning his speech with the words: He says that because he doesn’t understand. I'll explain it to him now. And then he said: Doctors have found that those who smoke are many times more likely to get cancer. In this case, lung cancer comes first, then throat cancer, and then stomach cancer. The disease is directly related to smoking. The lungs, liver and other organs become very weak from smoking, and by the age of 50 a person feels like a very old man. Holding a cigarette in your hands, you destroy skin tissue cells and vasoconstriction occurs, which also does not have a very beneficial effect on health. And finally, when you smoke a cigarette, you harm the people around you: why should they breathe smoke and inhale nicotine from your cigarette? The young man's answer looked like this: I don't smoke in the presence of non-smokers. As for my health, illnesses do not develop overnight. I'm young and healthy. When I feel that smoking is harmful to my health, I will quit smoking, but for now I like it, and I see no reason to deny myself this pleasure.
This dialogue perfectly illustrates the ineffectiveness of replacing propaganda speech with informational speech. The declared task of “explaining the dangers of smoking” sets the speaker up for an informational speech and in practice leads to an abstract listing of the medical aspects of the dangers of smoking. The main disadvantage of this speech is that it lacks the face of the audience; it is not aimed at a specific listener, his personal interests and values, which is especially important in a situation of persuasion. A speech like this, for example, would be much more effective: You think that smoking has not yet caused you any harm. How do you know this? Have you undergone an in-depth medical examination? It is known that diseases do not make themselves felt for the time being, and only when one or another organ is already significantly damaged do obvious symptoms of the disease appear. I am talking about this because I have a sad example before my eyes. Just last year, my nephew believed, like you, that he was absolutely healthy. He went in for sports, was fond of tourism and smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. When he felt unwell, the stomach cancer was already at a stage that could not be cured. It burned down in three months. When he was buried, none of his old acquaintances could recognize in the shriveled corpse the former big man, a man who was proud of his muscles. So don’t rush to say that smoking has not yet ruined your health.
Although, of course, this is a very difficult topic for a speaker, and overcoming the resistance of the audience will not be easy. Not everyone will be affected by the speech we have given in the way the speaker would like. However, in general, there is no doubt that the argument that smoking is harmful to human health looks completely helpless and ineffective compared to the argument (in the mouth of a doctor after an examination): an x-ray showed that you have a spot in your lungs, and if you don’t stop smoking, then within months 8-10 you will die - so your life is in your hands, decide: live or smoke. Observations show that in the latter case, 90-95% of even heavy smokers quit smoking. Wed. Another example: “Imagine a sobering-up station. It’s morning, everyone has already woken up. A doctor comes to give a lecture on the topic: “Alcohol is a poison for the human body.” The lecture is structured as follows: “Consider the human liver. Under the influence of alcohol, it expands, its functions are partially suppressed, which leads to cirrhosis. Now let's look at the human central nervous system. Under the influence of alcohol, she quite often enters a state of excitement, a redistribution of inhibition and excitation occurs, which has a detrimental effect on functioning, and neurosis occurs. Consider human intelligence. Under the constant influence of alcohol, personality degradation begins and signs of dementia appear, etc.” The situation at the sobering station is also very difficult. It is quite possible that the speaker will never be able to convince heavy alcoholics to stop drinking. However, in this case, the doctor does not make even the slightest attempt to break through to the consciousness of the listeners: he is simply serving his duty. There is not a single percent chance that it will achieve the effect that is planned, since simply listing the medical details of the harmful effects of alcohol on the human body does not affect the emotional sphere of a person and, therefore, does not awaken the will to perform an action. Thus, the logician believes that all he has to do is open the eyes of his listeners and explain to them that they are wrong, and they will instantly abandon their error, since they simply will have nowhere to go, and they will accept the truth. However, even Aristotle understood that people may not agree with the most impeccable conclusions if they are not consistent with their current needs.
Oratorical speech
Oratorical speech is a type of public speech, which is functionally and structurally opposed to colloquial speech, private, “everyday” communication. In contrast to colloquial speech - the exchange of more or less simple and short remarks (individual fragmentary statements) of two or more interlocutors - public speech is organized in the form of a monologue, i.e. a complexly constructed, detailed and lengthy statement addressed to many, to society (monologue speech exchange in conditions of mass communication). The monologue form of communication, in which a statement develops into “speech” for the systematic and holistic disclosure of content, is realized either in conditions of direct exchange - as oral speech, or indirectly - as written speech (through a book, newspaper, etc.). Oral public speech presupposes a special organization of communication, namely a “meeting” - the direct presence of a group of listeners-interlocutors. Quantitative and qualitative signs of a present “meeting” play an important role, as well as the conditions of direct interaction between the speaker and the audience in the process of speech learning itself, as well as the collective simultaneous perception of speech against the backdrop of the entire “meeting” environment and, in particular, the perception of the real appearance of the speaker (voice , facial expressions, gestures, etc.)2.
