Arguers as Lovers and My Own Rhetorical

¶ … Arguers as Lovers" and My Own Rhetorical Stance Toward Customers While Building a Small Business

In his article "Arguers as Lovers," Wayne Brockeriede suggests that the argumentative stances of rapists, seducers, and lovers are different from one another. As Brockeriede states, in relationship to these examples:

Some communicators are not primarily interested in gaining assent to warrantable claims. Instead, they function through power, through an ability to apply psychic and physical sanctions, through rewards and especially punishments, through commands and threats.

In terms of a personal example I can give, of rhetorical speech, in which I was the rhetorician, using Brockriede's "Arguers as Lovers" as a point of departure in order to state which stance (rape, seduction, or love) I used in my own rhetoric, and how I may justify its ethic, I can relate the following. In 2001, I began my own business. This was a corporate and personal luxury gift service. Ninety percent of my sales took place during the holiday season, since I specialized in difficult-to-find items in Los Angeles, thereby cultivating a niche market. In terms of Brockeriede's three rhetorical categories of "rape," "seduction," and "love," I believe my own rhetoric with clients and would-be clients, was bi-lateral (i.e., one of "love," as opposed to Brockeriede's categories of either "rape" or "seduction," which are unilateral). The ethics of my bi-lateral "love" category of rhetoric, during the start-up of my business, were, I believe, sound.

Starting in my second year of business, my client base expanded, even to the point where I needed to hire an assistant. Around then, repeat clients of mine began requesting discounts and other deals, based not only on their own repeat business, but also on referrals I had received from them. I also felt, at this point, that my clients were becoming more demanding (i.e. "unilateral," under Brockeriede's theory), since they now realized, I believe, that I was competing with other, similar, services, and needed to maintain my profit margin. At the same time, however, I, having now survived an entire fiscal cycle in my start-up year, was learning about all the hidden costs of running my own business, and needed to increase my profit margin even more, in order to keep my business afloat. I then began using "seductive" rhetoric, through "charm," i.e., the second of Brockereide's three rhetorical categories. This was because (in addition to my own new, aforementioned financial pressures) I also perceived a distinct air of insecurity and competition (within their own professional arenas, that is) among the general population of my clients, who were mostly industry executives, and/or wives of successful businessmen. Since I had also observed (as mentioned briefly in a previous lecture) that "unhappy people spend money'" (Marston) I exploited my clients' obvious anxiety and unhappiness (admittedly not the most ethical approach to business, rhetorically or otherwise), in order to continue to maximize my sales potential and keep my own business afloat. For instance, I observed (which was not difficult to do) my typical clients' obvious excitement upon making a purchase from me, soon also realizing, that, the more they spent, the more excited they became about their purchases. Often, I wondered if their excitement was actually just a mask for their anxiety (even they themselves were likely unaware if in fact it was). Despite the questionable ethics underlying my own (nearly effortless) manipulation of them), I did not resist doing so, since they were easy targets for my seductive and charming rhetoric.