Opt to Be an Outstanding Orator

Article from the Toastmasters magazine
http://www.toastmasters.org/ToastmastersMagazine/ToastmasterArchive/2008/September2008/Articles/OutstandingOrator.aspx

Opt to Be an Outstanding Orator

Is your focus on not looking really bad or on looking really good?

By Richard R. Bonner, CC


Many of us joined Toastmasters with the expectation, or at least the hope, that it would better our job and career prospects.

We probably thought in terms of improving our communication skills in staff meetings, thinking more quickly on our feet when questioned by the boss or customers, making creditable presentations both to staff and clients, and, if called upon – God forbid – giving bona fide speeches before live audiences.

In all those endeavors, we likely cared more about being competent for our job performance than about being excellent for its own sake. We had neither the time nor the inclination to try to be outstanding speakers and communicators; we simply wanted to be good enough to get what we needed. We didn’t care so much about looking really good as not looking really bad. In essence, it came down to wanting a quick fix for promotions and raises. Show us the money!

But if truth be told, that kind of thinking grievously shortchanges us, denying us the brawny passion and satisfaction that comes from becoming a standout speaker.


Woodrow Wilson’s Inspiration
Consider the case of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, as related by his official biographer, Ray Stannard Baker. While a student at Princeton University, Wilson read a magazine article about great orators, which included his hero, British Prime Minister William Gladstone. The article so excited and inspired him that he vowed he, too, would become a great speaker and statesman. He practiced aloud in the woods near campus and, when on vacation, in his father’s church on weekdays. The young Wilson soon gained a reputation as a fine speaker and debater, which eventually brought him back to the school as a professor, despite an indifferent academic record.

In no time Professor Wilson’s lectures drew some of the most enthusiastic audiences on campus. By continuing to feed his fire and passion for public speaking, he began to draw even more notice, and it wasn’t long before he became the highest-paid member of the faculty; from there he became president of the school. Next, he drew upon his speaking skills to help himself win the governorship of New Jersey and finally the presidency of the United States.

All the while he felt buoyed by the sheer exhilaration of public speaking, “because it sets my mind – all my faculties – aglow...I feel a sort of transformation – and it’s hard to go to sleep afterwards” (from Baker’s Woodrow Wilson: Life and Letters, published in 1927).


Making the Commitment
Let’s say that some of us wanted to become outstanding speakers. What might be our first step? Simply deciding to make the commitment, as Wilson did.

We could make the commitment privately to ourselves or, if we need to feel the spur and the lash to keep from backsliding, we could announce our decision at a Toastmasters meeting. Making the commitment sets the fire, and to keep it stoked and fueled, to keep the interest and passion up, we could immerse ourselves in the study of public speaking through books, CDs, DVDs, lectures, seminars, the Internet and classroom courses. Such sources could include rhetoric, great speeches of history, grammar and usage, diction, voice improvement, gesturing and body language, the lives of history’s famous orators, and other topics.

Perhaps we, too, could feel inspired – transformed – by the words of, say, Queen Elizabeth I addressing her troops at the approach of the Spanish Armada: “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England too.”

Or a poignantly anguished Nehru eulogizing the assassinated Mahatma Gandhi: “All we know is that there was a glory and that it is no more; all we know is that for the moment there is darkness, not so dark certainly, because when we look into our hearts we still find the living flame which he lighted there.”

Or the thrilling hope of playwright Vaclav Havel upon assuming the presidency of the newly liberated Czechoslovakia after decades of communist rule: “Let us teach ourselves and others that politics can be not only the art of the possible – especially if this means the art of speculation, calculation, intrigue, secret deals and pragmatic maneuvering – but that it can even be the art of the impossible, namely, the art of improving ourselves and the world.”


From the Page to the Podium
Of course, “doing” is usually the most effective way of learning, but don’t scant the study and book learning here. It’s invaluable. It gives us the substance and direction needed. It provides the theory for the practice – the theory we take from the page to the podium.

Besides, we’re already doing “the doing” in Toastmasters! And that doing should include entering speech contests. (Granted, somebody’s got to lose in a contest, but everyone who learns something – who improves from the experience – wins.)

Aside from the book learning, we have ourselves as resources to draw upon.

In 1830 U.S. Senator Daniel Webster responded to a speech from a political opponent by quickly preparing and delivering one of the great orations of history. When asked how long it had taken him to prepare, he replied: “20 years.”

For 20 years Webster had thought hard about, and agonized, over the sentiments that had led to his opponent’s position, drawing heavily upon the resources of his own life, according to the book Discussion and Debate: Tools of Democracy by Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer.

Virtually all of us in Toastmasters have at least 20 years of life to draw upon: our education (formal and informal), our hopes and fears, our triumphs and tears. In looking over our life journeys, many of us might see only vast unremarkable stretches, but they’re not wastelands. They’re fallow fields whose rich potential awaits the skilled orator to unearth.


The Incremental Approach
“Enough,” says a show-me-the-money type. “Spare me the poetry. Who needs, and who can take, all the effort required to become an outstanding speaker? Being a decent speaker is all you need to be.”

That’s possible, but first let’s realize that the commitment and effort needed to excel in speaking seem far less unnerving if we demand only small but continuous steps of improvement from ourselves. This incremental approach takes major pressure off us yet puts improvement on a comfortable auto-pilot. Then one day, without our feeling the pain of the process, it just dawns on us that we’ve become darned good speakers.

Second, if competent speaking ability will likely help us on the job, what might outstanding speaking ability do?

Certainly we can at least consider making the extra effort, feeling a soul’s awakening as we uncage the oratory beast within ourselves. Maybe we’ll lie awake some nights, not in dread of a speech to be given but from a lingering high we’ve gotten from a speech just given, and given well. Put a dollar figure on that!


Richard R. Bonner, CC, a former writer for several daily newspapers, is a member of the Jewel City Toastmasters club in Glendale, California. You can reach him at Bonner1301@yahoo.com.

Know Thy Culture

Article from the Toastmaster magazine
http://www.toastmasters.org/ToastmastersMagazine/ToastmasterArchive/2009/October/KnowThyCulture.aspx

In our era of globalization, few professionals still make the mistake of speaking abroad without researching the basic protocols and no-nos of their host culture – handing an object to someone with the left hand in a Muslim country, practicing intense eye contact with Easterners or using the thumbs-up “Okay” gesture in most parts of the world. But stories abound of accomplished speakers who, even after performing this pre-departure homework, have encountered unexpected resistance when addressing a foreign or multicultural audience, ultimately failing at their intended mission. Skills, experience and success with home nationals often fail to reach their new audience, achieve persuasion and meet the objectives. Even worse, presenters often suffer a loss of confidence that took years to develop.

All intercultural experts agree that the observable and explicit cultural differences are just the tip of the iceberg. What contribute to most fruitless international/intercultural presentations are subtle clashes that take their roots in the deepest layers of culture and are often imperceptible to either side. As anthropologist Edward T. Hall states, “Culture hides much more than it reveals and, strangely enough, what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants.”

To become successful global speakers, we need to acquire sensitivity toward these hidden dimensions of culture – values, beliefs and assumptions – starting with our own. And we must design and perform our deliveries accordingly. The only way to be aware of our own cultural patterns is to gain perspective, to see them from an outsider’s eyes. In Riding the Waves of Culture, Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner write, “Culture is like gravity: you do not experience it until you jump six feet into the air.”

Six feet into the air is the lowest I jumped, 13 years ago, when I attended my first professional presentation in the United States. Everything was so uniquely American that it made an indelible impression in my newcomer’s mind. Originally from France and raised in France, Peru and Venezuela, I had not been in the country six months when I found myself sitting in this large and crowded hotel auditorium at a business convention in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The keynote address was going to be a motivational speech, I was told, which already was an intriguing concept to me.


Building Credibility with Foreign Audiences
The speaker’s entrance would not have been different if he had just won the lottery. I was captivated by his boisterous appearance on the stage, his excitement and his self-confidence. And without warning, he shouted in my ears, “So, are you having fun?”

Having fun?! Where are we, at Disney World?, I wondered, feeling infantilized by his question and tone. But as if my fellow audience members also had won the lottery, they all rejoined with a roaring “Yes!” It was not loud enough, to all appearances, so the speaker uttered the question again with reinforced decibels. I just hoped the second time would do it, because this annoying hullabaloo made me want to leave the room.

Thirteen years later, I continue to marvel at the distinctively American contagious stage enthusiasm and poise, but I still feel bullied and irritated when a presenter tries to establish a connection by acting like a puppeteer in an auditorium of third-graders. I also have come to understand that this perception is profoundly influenced by the deep layers of my French culture.

The French tend to be a very independent-minded people and have an aversion to being patronized, especially by a stranger whose authority is not evident in their eyes. Authority, they believe, is first set by the speaker’s credits, and then develops gradually and primarily by intellectual rather than emotional means – from possessing knowledge and skill in the subject matter, essentially.

The French also make a clear distinction between work and “fun” – attending a presentation being considered work – and are used to being a rather passive audience, not expected to participate, even if by an approving smile. On the other hand, American speakers seek to establish rapport with audience members immediately and actively, much like members of an orchestra harmonizing their instruments with a tuning fork before the concert; let’s laugh together, weep about this touching story and feel inspired by those words of wisdom.

It is a powerful technique, but only if used with intercultural sensitivity when addressing a foreign audience. Keep in mind that American culture is a distinctively time- and action-oriented one. It’s also informal. Speakers need to inquire about the usual rapport-building techniques of the host culture, which, like those of the French, may be more gradual, more on the intellectual or status level and less interactive with the audience.

As a general rule, it is wise to initially tune one’s energy level to that of the audience members rather than pushing them to abruptly switch to ours, and then to build momentum as one’s credibility develops.


The Dangers of Self-Disclosure in International Settings
That morning in Fort Lauderdale, after the initial culture shock, I soon was beguiled again by the speaker’s ease, by his polished movements and by his simplicity of expression. As a former educator, I appreciated how he appealed to all our senses and learning styles, and I rejoiced at his humor and vivid illustrations. I felt I was in just the right country to learn skills from the masters, and one day, I dreamed, I would be the speaker on that stage.

But as I was building castles in my head, a new wave of discomfort knocked me over. To illustrate his self-made manhood, the motivational speaker engaged in generously detailed stories about his alcoholic mother, his violent father and his own inglorious beginnings. My French acute sense of privacy and my Latino-borrowed reverence of family fused with his depictions like a Molotov cocktail in my stomach. I glanced around to check if my fellow listeners were as embarrassed for him as I was, but all I could see in people’s faces were admiration, sympathy and even teary eyes. Culture shock was striking again. (After hearing many other motivational speeches in the years to follow, I actually began to believe that I could never succeed as a speaker in the United States unless I could dig out some sordid personal or family story.)

In their book, American Cultural Patterns, authors Edward Stewart and Milton Bennett explain that the American emphasis on the individual self, in combination with direct and explicit styles of communication, “leads Americans to be extremely free in revealing much about themselves in virtually any situation... The American ease of self-revelation is shared by people of few, if any, other cultures.” I could not help but imagine the stupefaction, the loss of face and the speaker discredit that these accounts would have engendered in Asia or Latin America, for example, where family honor is so protected and respectability so intertwined with a person’s background. It is advisable to stay away from such personal disclosure when performing abroad. If the stories are too meaningful to be removed, the alternative is to credit them to a fictitious subject other than the speaker.


Cultural Meaning of Words
By the end of the Fort Lauderdale session, the presenter caught me off guard for the last time when he said, “Let me ask you a question. If I told you that I developed this fantastic program that will transform your life, that will change you! It’s completely free; all I ask is a daily 15-minute commitment... how many of you are willing to sign up and start changing now?” And while I still tried to figure out what he meant by “change,” I was taken aback by the large and vigorous show of hands. Did I miss something? Why would I want to change? Change into what? (A pumpkin?) I held my breath for further clues, but he proceeded by promoting additional materials – books, tapes, etc. – that guaranteed redoubled success in the promised change as it added significant costs to the initially free program. Those costs, however, did nothing to dissuade the increasing number of enthusiasts who rushed to the counters, credit cards in hand.

As soon as I got home, I looked up the word “change” in the dictionary, assuming it carried a second, unfamiliar meaning. But I found no other than the one I knew, mainly “to make different,” a neutral concept such as “changing channels.” It took me a few years of living in the country, of actively immersing myself in the culture and in my intercultural studies, to be able to grasp the hidden connotation of the word.

There is, indeed, in the American culture, a second meaning to the word “change,” or I should say, a generalized cultural assumption. In this achievement – risk –and future-oriented culture, “change,” I discovered, is automatically associated with “positive move” and “successful outcome,” which explains its choice as a powerful campaign slogan in the 2008 race for the U.S. presidency. If we add to the mix the value of individualism and the belief that our environment is under our control – in opposition to tenets of fate in other cultures – we find that the stumbling block to success is rooted in our own selves. The solution, then, is to change our selves. Elementary, my dear Watson!

As with “change,” other common terms may lose their intended meaning when the receiver is from a different culture. The word “respect” is one of those. In the United States, addressing everyone in the same way, for example on a first-name basis, is in most situations a mark of “respect,” an expression of the American values of informality, spontaneity and equality in social relations. The problem is that these values are not shared by every culture, and if they are, they are not manifested in the same way. What is intended to be respectful here might be perceived as extremely disrespectful elsewhere. The same goes for “common sense”– which should be reframed as “cultural sense”– or “responsibility.”

In the pragmatic American culture, where self-pride is largely connected with personal achievements, “responsibility” is more often associated with work than with family and friends. Finishing a project on time or honoring an appointment against all odds is regarded as being “responsible.” In the Latino culture, where people take pride mostly in the quality of their relationships, if one’s childhood friend’s grandmother died, the “responsibility” to attend the funeral and be there for the family may take priority over a previous commitment, even work related.

These words are what Edward Hall, the anthropologist, defined as “high context.” The cultural content is taken for granted by the members of the shared culture, and strangers must be “filled-in” to properly understand the intended meaning. Global presenters need to screen their words, and practice paraphrasing to ensure clarity. Otherwise, they’ll fall into author Robert McCloskey’s predicament: “I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

Since our cultural assumptions are embedded in us – like a fish who doesn’t realize it lives in water until it is removed from it – it is only when we gain awareness of our own deep cultural patterns that we can succeed as international/intercultural presenters. Only by realizing what our deepest cultural motivations are in contrast with others’ will we be able to adjust our communication to build more persuasive and impactful presentations.

Thirteen years after my Fort Lauderdale experience, I decided to share one of my latest speeches – a motivational one – with my brother in Paris. His first remark was: “I’m not surprised it was successful. It is so American!”

Those French!


Florence Ferreira, ACB, CL, is a member of Boca Raton Toastmasters in Boca Raton, Florida. She is a trilingual (English/Spanish/French) intercultural-communication consultant, the founder of SpeakGlobal.net, and an inspirational speaker and writer. Reach her at f.ferreira@speakglobal.net.

Toastmasters...Then and Now

Article from the Toastmaster magazine
http://www.toastmasters.org/ToastmastersMagazine/ToastmasterArchive/2009/October/ThenandNow.aspx

Then…
When people hear the word “basement,” they’re not likely to picture the home of a global communication and leadership development organization. But a basement in the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in Santa Ana, California, is exactly where Ralph C. Smedley held the first meeting of what would eventually become Toastmasters International. The date was October 22, 1924.

Smedley began working as director of education for the YMCA after he graduated from college. He observed that many of the young patrons needed “training in the art of public speaking and in presiding over meetings,” and decided to help them with a training format that was similar to a social club. During the early 1900s, the word “toastmaster” referred to a person who proposed the toasts and introduced the speakers at a banquet. Smedley named his group “The Toastmasters Club” because he thought it suggested a pleasant, social atmosphere that would appeal to young men.

At that first Toastmasters meeting, members practiced speaking skills in a supportive, informal atmosphere. The seedling club blossomed. Then another sprung up in nearby Anaheim. Word spread about Smedley’s experiment and soon people in other communities, and even other states, began to request permission and help to start their own Toastmasters meetings.

As more clubs emerged, it was a time of firsts: Smedley created the first Toastmasters manual, and publication of The Gavel – the first Toastmasters newsletter – began in 1930. (The Toastmaster magazine made its debut three years later.)

In the 1930s, the organization grew to an international level by incorporating and chartering its first club outside the United States, in British Columbia, Canada.

Over the ensuing years, Toastmasters International laid the foundation for many of the activities and philosophies we know today: The first Inter-Club Speech Contest was held in 1938; District 18 of Scotland became the first district outside the United States in 1946; and in 1968, the first Competent Toastmaster (CTM) awards were issued for completing the manual, Basic Training for Toastmasters. Two years later, the first Distinguished Toastmaster (DTM) awards were handed out.

Until 1962, a series of rented office spaces in Southern California served as Toastmasters International’s “home office.” That year, the staff moved into its first World Headquarters building. The Santa Ana facility wasn’t far from the YMCA where the first Toastmasters club met.

In 1973, Toastmasters met an important milestone by opening membership to women. Twelve years later, Helen Blanchard became the organization’s first female president.

By 1982, membership reached 100,000. To better serve its growing worldwide membership, World Headquarters relocated in 1990 to its current building in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, 20 miles south of Santa Ana.

In July 1997, a bold new offering was developed for the educational program: An improved two-track educational recognition system that allowed members to pursue awards in both leadership and communication. In 1999, the 10-goal Distinguished Club Program was introduced.



… And Now
As Toastmasters International celebrates its 85th anniversary, the organization stands at a historic high point. Program offerings have never been more expansive. Toastmasters leaders have developed innovative strategies to keep up with advances and shifting cultural dynamics of the global age. Indeed, while many organizations around the world are downsizing because of the economic climate, Toastmasters International is growing with thousands of people taking advantage of the organization’s programs to enhance their communication skills. Membership is at an all-time high, with more than 250,000 members in 12,000 clubs in 106 countries. As of June 30, a record 1,073 new clubs were chartered, and 56 districts were recognized as Distinguished or better, a number surpassing all previous years.

“Toastmasters grew by nearly five percent in 2009,” says Toastmasters Executive Director Daniel Rex. “Tens of thousands of people have seen the value of the Toastmasters training in their personal lives and careers. They know the program can see them through a lot of challenges.”

As Rex sees it, there is no limit to the growth potential of Toastmasters International, and he is making sure the World Headquarters staff is well positioned to serve its members as their needs change and the organization grows in existing and emerging markets.

“Our renewed emphasis is to provide optimal service and resources at each member development stage, beginning with the prospective member who is looking for a club on the Web site, applying for membership in the club, receiving a New Member Kit, and talking with a staff member on the phone,” Rex explains.

One way to meet members’ needs is through the Toastmasters Web site which is continually expanded through new product and service offerings. An exciting and recent addition to the Web site is the organization’s first e-learning tool, Toastmasters Learning Connection (TLC) for district officers. Blending education with the power of the Internet, TLC provides access to Toastmasters’ officer training in a virtual learning environment. The distance-learning program is designed to complement face-to-face training and is not intended to replace it. This program still is in its infancy, but is expected to encompass training for a variety of officers.

Another recent change voted in by members at the annual International Convention on Aug. 14, 2009, is Global Representation and Support. It improves the organization’s structure by enhancing global representation with 14 regions and directors, and replaces The Nominating Committee with the International Leadership Committee (ILC). More information on the implementation of this proposal will be shared on the Toastmasters Web site and in the November issue of this magazine.

The organization’s profile is about to grow even higher: A new film about Toastmasters is scheduled for release this fall. SpeakEasy, a feature-length documentary produced by Tumbleweed Entertainment, explores the 2008 World Championship of Public Speaking and the larger Toastmasters world.

From a gathering in a YMCA basement in 1924 to the 12,000-plus clubs that meet in 106 countries today, the Toastmasters story is one of dramatic growth and success. And with accomplishments come opportunities. “As we meet our members’ needs and greet thousands of club visitors, we offer the most valuable service imaginable: We help people improve their lives,” says Rex. “That’s what the Toastmasters mission is all about.”


Editor’s Note: For detailed information about Toastmasters’ history, visit toastmasters.org and type “timeline” into the search box.

Story Telling

Article from the Toastmaster magazine
http://www.toastmasters.org

One of the late President Ronald Reagan’s favorite stories concerned the meeting of two men, one from the USA, the other a Soviet citizen.

“In my country,” said the American, “I can walk right into the Oval Office and say that I don’t like the way Ronald Reagan is running the United States.”

“I can do that with Gorbachev, too,” replied the Soviet.

Having heard about Soviet repression, the American was incredulous. “You’ve got to be kidding!” he said.

“Not at all,” replied the Soviet. “I can walk right into Gorbachev’s office and say, ‘I don’t like the way Ronald Reagan is running the United States!’”

In our cynical age, you might readily agree that politicians make great storytellers. After all, a common definition of “storyteller” is liar. But even the most jaded observers of politicians know that storytelling has long been a powerful tool for persuasion.

The classical rhetoricians of ancient Greece used both the introduction narrative and the parable to pump up their speeches in the first democracy. You saw the introduction narrative – an anecdotal lead-in at the beginning of a speech to rouse interest – in the example above. In contrast, parables are anecdotal narratives that appear anywhere within a speech in order to teach a moral lesson.

In both cases, stories are used to connect with the audience, engage the emotions, and provide a concrete example of the abstract ideas the speaker wishes to put forth. What’s more, studies show that people remember, and may therefore share, information more effectively when it is presented through story. Compare the impersonal use of numbers and statistics with the specificity of people and experiences, and you can see why stories are so effective.


The Great Communicator
Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, in large part because of his stories. Reagan’s storytelling talent is legendary, writes former U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz in the foreword to Stories in His Own Hand: The Everyday Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

“He peppered his conversations with stories,” Shultz writes. “Stories lent a certain informality and ease to his speeches. He used stories to increase his rapport with the people in front of him or on the other end of the television camera…. The stories always made a point and gave drama and emphasis to the content of his speeches. He reached for stories that people could comprehend because they could imagine themselves being in the same position.”

The book’s editors go on to note that when Reagan would say, “Well, that reminds me of…,” listeners were wise to pay close attention rather than to dismiss the story as a way of avoiding or changing the subject. Reagan referred to actual occurrences, folklore and jokes to make serious points. By causing us to laugh at the very serious limitations on free speech in the former Soviet Union, for example, Reagan sought to underscore the differences between the U.S. system and theirs in a memorable way.


Storylines
Along with sharing brief anecdotes, there is another, more indirect way in which politicians use stories. In Tales of a New America, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert B. Reich identified four main storylines reflected in political discourse. Unlike distinct stories, you can’t necessarily identify one of these intact in the middle of a speech. Rather, they are the underlying, implied stories by which politicians operate. Writing in the mid-1980s, Reich identified the basic American storylines as:

1. The Benevolent Community: We take care of our own.
2. Mob at the Gates: We must protect ourselves against outside enemies.
3. Rot at the Top: We can’t trust the political and business elite.
4. Triumph of the Individual: Each of us can do anything we put our minds to.

We can still see the outlines of these stories in the rhetoric of American politicians as they discuss such issues as education, immigration, big government and affirmative action.

Why is it so important to recognize storytelling in politics? Once we understand how political storytelling works, we can be on the lookout for it – both in the words of others and in our own. We can ask ourselves, How does the story affect the message of the speech, as well as the credibility of the speaker? Does the listener feel manipulated or enlightened?

Following are a few classic examples of political storytelling, in speeches given by politicians the world over during the last century:


Winston Churchill, Great Britain
On May 13, 1901, Winston Churchill, who went on to become Prime Minister, gave a speech to the British House of Commons in which he argued against increased government funding for the British Army. To reinforce his point, he told a story about the time when his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, then Secretary of the Treasury, was locked in political battle with the government – also over an issue of funding.

The language is a bit flowery, but the story stands out loud and clear:

The Government of the day threw their weight on the side of the great spending Departments, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Churchill’s father] resigned. The controversy was bitter, the struggle uncertain, but in the end the Government triumphed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer went down for ever, and with him, as it now seems, there fell also the cause of retrenchment and economy, so that the very memory thereof seems to have perished, and the words themselves have a curiously old-fashioned ring about them.

Churchill uses a historical anecdote about his father to contribute to his own credibility and to make a comparison between the situation then and what was happening at the time of his speech.


Mahatma Gandhi, India
Gandhi, a lawyer, became a famous proponent of non-violence as he led the successful Indian protest against the British occupation, or Raj. In a 1916 speech he said:

I was talking the other day to a member of the much-abused Civil Service. I have not very much in common with the members of that Service, but I could not help admiring the manner in which he was speaking to me. He said: “Mr. Gandhi, do you for one moment suppose that all we Civil Servants are a bad lot, that we want to oppress the people whom we have come to govern?” “No,” I said. “Then if you get an opportunity, put in a word for the much-abused Civil Service.”

The recital of a conversation with an anonymous representative – whether real or imagined – of a group is a common technique of politicians. Interestingly, Gandhi followed up this story without fulfilling the request to put in a good word for the Civil Service!


Anwar Sadat, Egypt
On May 16, 1971, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat gave a speech to a delegation of police officers, and he told a story about a time he and his predecessor, the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser, had met at Sadat’s home. Nasser was still the president then:

President Nasser intended to ask the people’s permission to retire, and allow new leaders to take over in his [lifetime]...We all laughed and wondered who that successor would be and how the people would start comparing him to Nasser... I convey to the people the anxious words which Gamal Abdel Nasser said on that day: “I do not want my successor to humiliate the people.” He said this with emotion: “No one will humiliate the people after me.”

Here President Sadat used the popular technique of having a statesman “speak from the grave” on his behalf in order to make the point that Sadat’s first priority was to protect his people, even when he is no longer in power.


Hillary Clinton, United States
On October 11, 2007, during Clinton’s campaign for the presidential nomination, the New York senator told the following story in a speech about the affordability of education:

Back when I went to college, my late father said to me that he’d saved enough money – he was a small-business man – to pay for room, board and tuition, but if I wanted to buy a book or anything else, I had to earn the money. That was our deal. That was fine with me.

Then I graduated from college, and I decided I wanted to go to law school. So I told my father, and he said, “That’s not part of the deal.”

So I had to get a little scholarship, and I had to keep working. But then I borrowed money. And I borrowed money from the federal government. I borrowed it, as I recall, at something like two percent interest. It did not bankrupt me. It did not cause me to have to take a job on Wall Street. Instead, I got to do what I wanted to do.

This is an example, used as well by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, of reaching back to a youthful experience to demonstrate personal knowledge of a given topic.


Storytelling as Political Propaganda
While these techniques of persuasion may seem relatively benign, there are numerous ways in which political storytelling can seriously mislead and manipulate listeners, with often horrific results. Both Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich and its predecessor, the Weimar Republic, reworked old German fairy tales such as “Sleeping Beauty” to reflect their anti-Semitic agenda. In many countries, women’s rights are curtailed due to cultural beliefs and local folklore saying a woman’s place is in the home. And because the prevailing storyline of the American South for 350 years was that Africans were less than human, slavery was considered perfectly moral.

So try to learn from history. Storytelling, like any other powerful tool, can be used both by the power elite and the opposition – for good or evil. It is our obligation, both as speakers and as voters, to recognize when it’s being used, and to use it responsibly in our own speeches.


Caren S. Neile, Ph.D., CL, directs the South Florida Storytelling Project at Florida Atlantic University, where she teaches storytelling. A member of West Boca Toastmasters, she has presented at two Toastmasters International Conventions. She can be reached at cneile@fau.edu.