Off balance

Finally, emotion can be used to simply throw an audience off balance.

If we think of emotion as movement—pushing towards, driving away, cultivating stillness—then this final type of movement is like being shoved off the axis entirely.

This kind of sideswipe often comes from comedy, since a lot of comedy is about sudden shifts in perspective—so sudden that the audience is left disoriented until they get their bearings again.

For example, how does this ad destabilise the audience?

How does this ad destabilise the audience? Why would it do that?

So what are the emotions here? Shock, surprise, confusion, maybe even horror—until you realise the entire thing is an absurd joke.

In some ways it's similar to the texting-while-driving ad we saw earlier; both rely on shock value.

But the texting ad was about scaring the audience away from texting, while this ad isn't scaring the audience away from Sun Fizz, because Sun Fizz doesn't exist!

And it's not exactly drawing them towards Sprite either.

This ad tries to make the audience feel confused in an edgy but fun way (nobody expects a soft drink mascot to go psycho) and then put Sprite in front of them as the stabiliser, so they'll think Sprite is fun.

Compare the Sprite ad to this ad, also featuring a kid but with a very different style of humour:

How does this ad destabilise the audience? Why would it do that?

Where the Sprite ad made the audience think, "What is going on?", this ad for VW makes the audience think, "Where is this going?"

We're trying to put a puzzle together because we know this is an ad and it has to be selling something, but we have no idea what it's selling until the VW shows up.

The humour keeps us engaged, it rewards us with a laugh when the dad beeps the car, and most importantly, it gives us the sense that this is a happy family (so that if we want a happy family, we'll think of VW).

This is an ad for the Sierra Club, an environmental nonprofit, protesting against a plan to dam the Colorado River and fill parts of Grand Canyon.

How does it destabilise the audience? (You can open the image in a new tab if you want to read it more closely, but we've snipped the opening below.)

Sierra Club Grand Canyon Sistine Chapel

SHOULD WE ALSO FLOOD THE SISTINE CHAPEL SO TOURISTS CAN GET NEARER THE CEILING?

EARTH began four billion years ago and Man two million. The Age of Technology, on the other hand, is hardly a hundred years old, and on our time chart we have been generous to give it even the little line we have.

It seems to us hasty, therefore, during this blip of time, for Man to think of directing his fascinating new tools toward altering irrevocably the forces which made him. Nonetheless, in these few brief years among four billion, wilderness has all but disappeared. And now these:

1) There are proposals still before Congress to “improve” Grand Canyon. If they succeed, two damns could back up artificial lakes into 9 miles of canyon gorge. This would benefit tourists in power boats, it is argued, who would enjoy viewing the canyon wall more closely. (See headline.) Submerged underneath the tourists would be part of the most revealing single page of Earth’s history.

"Should we also flood the Sistine Chapel so tourists can get nearer the ceiling?"(1966)

How does this ad destabilise the audience? Why would it do that?

The headline is the part that throws you off balance (because it's such an absurd question).

The rest of the ad is a straightforward argument with evidence and reasoning. (Even the headline is a kind of resemblance argument.)

Why would the speaker do this?

To grab the audience's attention and to show how absurd the idea of filling the Grand Canyon like a bathtub is.

With the audience thrown off balance, the speaker can use the rest of the argument to push them towards support for the Sierra Club.

Satire is a style of writing used to destabilise audiences in politics and social affairs.

One of the most famous pieces of satire in British history is Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal".

In this snippet, Swift introduces the genuinely serious issue of growing child poverty in Ireland, in 1799:

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms.

These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in stroling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants.

A Modest Proposal(1729)

So far, so normal. Swift's primary audience of wealthy politicians and landowners would have been nodding along.

But, having described a genuine problem, Swift then describes an absurd solution: that the rich should eat the children of the poor.

What is the effect on the audience of this proposal? And why would the speaker do this?

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.

I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that a hundred thousand children may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table.

A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

A Modest Proposal(1729)

What is the effect on the audience of this proposal? And why would the speaker do this?

Swift destabilises the audience by acting as if his proposal is completely serious.

By leading with a serious opening and then switching to something absurd, he is almost testing the audience to see who can be convinced to go along with his argument, and suddenly, the audience has to think about their own attitudes towards the issue as well.

Why would a speaker do this?

Satire is often fuelled by genuine anger at injustices in society, especially those that are large-scale, systemic, and hard to change.

It works by taking the tragic absurdity of a real situation and then expressing it in an even more ridiculously absurd way.

But what's crucial about satire is it takes its own absurdity completely seriously. It "commits to the bit".

In the ad about flooding the Grand Canyon, the "should we flood the Sistine Chapel" headline is not satire; it's sarcasm. The speaker doesn't take it seriously for a moment.

In contrast, Swift spends hundreds of words detailing exactly how his children-eating concept would work, and why it would be a capital idea.

To make sure that his proposal isn't taken at face value (and the landlords of Dublin don't start scooping up street urchins for snacks and nibbles), Swift proposes some alternatives, such as taxing landlords and relying on locally manufactured goods.

But why does he present these good ideas as bad ideas?

Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither clothes, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury...

Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants.

Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shopkeepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to myself, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real.

A Modest Proposal(1729)

He's still committed to the bit.

And in the logic of his satire, these good ideas are actually bad ideas because none of the powerful people in his audience are capable of implementing them.

He's basically saying, "Since you won't make any of the logical, sensible ideas work, I guess the only option left is to eat the kids."

While we're here, we might as well point out that, at the end of his proposal, Swift uses the character lever, pointing out how virtuous he is because there's nothing in this for him personally:

I profess in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the publick good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich.

I have no children, by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past childbearing.

A Modest Proposal(1729)

Okay, let's try it!

Creating this kind of off-balance confusion is challenging because it requires multiple layers of context. You need:

A normal thing
A disorienting inversion
A new (serious) point to push people towards
And then you have to combine them in a way that is played completely straight.

But let's have a go using this image for inspiration. (You could outline an idea for an ad, make a satirical proposal, or something else.)

the e-sport arena, 3d scene rendering

Using the image for inspiration, sketch an ad, speech, or proposal that could destabilise your audience and maybe tilt them towards a goal.

Before we go, here's another classic destabilising ad, just for fun:

Confusing the audience can backfire in all sorts of ways, especially if you're using comedy or satire.

For example:

The audience might take the speaker seriously. If they don't have any context, the audience might assume the speaker means everything they say, and react accordingly. (E.g. call the cops on the Sun Fizz mascot and flood the Sistine Chapel and the Grand Canyon to the brim.)
The audience might not understand the point. If the speaker destabilises the audience but doesn't give them somewhere to land, they might simply be left baffled, confused, and possibly angry at the speaker.

Persuasive levers 2: Emotion