Understanding your audience

Retailers know audiences. In fact, they go to great lengths to pinpoint the groups most likely to buy their fried chicken or hybrid cars. They then tailor their brand images and Web advertising to precisely those customers. You’ll play to audiences the same way when you write arguments — if maybe a little less cynically.

Understand that you won’t ever please everyone in a general audience, even if you write bland, colorless mush — because some readers will then regard you as craven and spineless. In fact, how readers imagine you, as the person presenting an argument, may determine their willingness to consider your claims at all.

Consider and control your ethos. People who study persuasion describe the identity that writers create for themselves within an argument as their ethos — the voice and attitude they fashion to enhance their appeal. It is a powerful concept, worth remembering. Surely you notice when writers are coming across as, let’s say, ingratiatingly confident or stupidly obnoxious. And don’t you respond in kind, giving ear to the likable voice and dismissing the malicious one? A few audiences — like those for political blogs — may actually prefer a writer with a snarky ethos. But most readers respond better when writers seem reasonable, knowledgeable, and fair — neither insulting those who disagree with them nor making those who share their views embarrassed to have them on their side.

You can shape your ethos by adjusting the style, tone, and vocabulary of your argument: For instance, contractions can make you seem friendly (or too casual); an impressive vocabulary suggests that you are smart (or maybe just pompous); lots of name-dropping makes you seem hip (or perhaps pretentious). You may have to write several drafts to find a suitable ethos for a particular argument. (revise and edit) And, yes, your ethos may change from paper to paper, audience to audience.

Consider self-imposed limits. If you read newspapers and magazines that mostly confirm your own political views, you might be in for a wake-up call when you venture an opinion beyond your small circle of friends. Tread softly. There are good reasons why people don’t talk politics at parties. When you do argue about social, political, or religious issues, be respectful of those who work from premises different from your own.

Consider the worlds of your readers. When arguing about topics such as education, politics, art, economics, ethics, or even athletics, you’ll quickly realize that people bring their entire lives into the discussion of such issues. Their views are shaped, in part, by their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, income, age, and upbringing — and more, and in ever-varying combinations. Dealing with such considerations, you should be sensitive but not gutless. (respect your readers)

Men and women, for instance, whether straight or gay, may not inhabit quite the same worlds. But, even so, you shouldn’t argue, either, as if all men and all women think the same way — or should.

People’s lives are similarly defined by their economic situations — and the assumptions that follow from privilege, poverty, or something in between. Think it would be cool to have an outdoor pool on campus or a convenient new parking garage? You may find other students less willing than you to absorb the impact such proposals might have on their tuition. And if you intend to complain about fat cats, ridicule soccer moms, or poke fun at rednecks, is it because you can’t imagine people different from you among your readers?

Obviously, age matters too: You’d write differently for children than for their parents on almost any subject, changing your style, vocabulary, and allusions. But consider that people of different ages really have lived different lives. Each generation grows up with shared attitudes, values, heroes, and villains. As a writer, you have to factor such considerations into the arguments you write.