The arts of persuasion are old indeed. Aristotle defines rhetoric as the "faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." He writes of 3 kinds of persuasion. First and foremost is that which is achieved by the speaker's personal character and credibility. The character he refers to is established by virtue of what the speaker says [and does], not by what people think of his character before he speaks. Secondly, persuasion may "come through the hearers when the speech stirs their emotions." Aristotle gives a lot of attention to the emotions, such as anger, fear, shame, pity, indignation, envy, emulation, calmness, pointing out how they set the stage for how a speaker and his or her message will be received. He explores the pleasure that wrath brings -- the sweetness of anticipated revenge. Only then after an exhaustive study of human nature, does he turn to argument - the laying out of propositions.

Aristotle was a long-time student of Plato's. He lived in the 4th century B.C. and served for a period as tutor to Alexander, later known as Alexander the Great. His life is an example of the truth of the maxim, "when the student is ready, the teacher will come." It is interesting how, more than 2000 years later in the training of lawyers -- classical rhetoricians of the modern age -- we have utterly dropped out any study of human character and emotions. Perhaps it's not too late, however, to bring those considerations back for discussion and examination. For it is in the art of listening that we will find the power of persuasion. In this essay, we examine the art of listening and techniques for communicating that a person has been heard and understood. This is the first step toward being able to communicate effectively. In a second and third essay, we will look at strategies for opening our own and others' thinking, so that new insights and material can be understood.

Why listening? Aristotle was largely concerned with persuasion of groups - of the masses of people and of the triers of fact and law in the law courts. The forum was large, yet not so large as to require amplification -- not so distant, perhaps, from the courts built more than 20 years ago. Yet whatever the forum, the arts of persuasion are eternally relevant, and especially so in intimate processes such as negotiation and mediation. 

When lawyers approach such sessions in full armor with shields up and swords drawn, little can happen. Far more subtle arts are required. The sign of the negotiator is the open hand showing no weapon and the raised hand, showing one comes in peace.

There is a mechanical rule I learned early in my mediation practice: "to open ears, operate mouth." What that says is this: that in order for someone to hear what you've got to say, they need to feel that what they have to say has been heard and understood. From the perspective of the hearer, a "yes, but" cancels out the sense of having been heard and understood -- the very purpose of the argument. Some people thrill at being able to say "yes, but" in many different ways. This can be an amusing diversion, but it misses the point. A salutary rule for true communication might read "Never in words or substance say 'yes, but.'" Phrases like "What you're saying is that . . ." are effective when coupled with a statement that the listener will recognize as at least as favorable to their position as what they said.