Using Pathos to Present an Issue.

                Emotional appeals based on the concept of the pathetic proof are again a recurring theme in our society today. There are many instances today of emotional appeals in the media, advertisements, political commentary, and other forms of communication. It has been long established that emotional appeals work well to convince people of a point; according to the authors of our textbook, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, the ancients were able to capture the concept and describe it as “pathos”.

                Emotional appeals appear in everyday life. Take the new Budweiser anti-drunk driving campaign for example. In the ad, there is a man that is portrayed with his dog, what appears to be a yellow lab. The man is shown getting the dog as a puppy and building a relationship with the dog over time. The man goes out with his friends for what the audience can assume is a night of drinking and he does not come home. A voice in the background reminds us that people are waiting for us and we have a responsibility not to drink and drive. The next morning the man comes home and is reunited with the dog.

This, in my opinion, was a calculated choice of dog to portray, because of the popularity of the Labrador retriever breed. According to the American Kennel Club’s website, the Labrador retriever was the most popular choice of dog breed in 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2013. The popularity of this breed means that Budweiser’s commercial can make an appeal to the majority of dog owners in America. Even if dog owners own a Labrador retriever dog with a color other than yellow, the dog will look similar enough that it will evoke emotion in the audience. Even if there are dog owners that do not own a Labrador, the commercial goes on to portray a man playing and bonding with the dog, and experience that the majority of dog owners can identify with.

                Even for members of Budweiser’s audience that are not dog owners, the opening sequence of the commercial builds a scene where the relationship between the man and his dog borders with a relationship with a person. The commercial portrays the dog and the owner as “best friends”, a relationship that people other than dog owners can understand.

                In my opinion, this is a very powerful message that plays right into the idea of pathos, an emotional appeal that attempts to convince an audience that a behavior (such as drunk driving) has radical consequences (such as abandoning an extremely strong emotionally connected relationship) and that you should not engage in the behavior because you will hurt others (lonely dog wondering “where is the alpha?”). These messages are very convincing, and in this circumstance, the message is one that society will accept as a common truth; the idea that drunken driving is a bad thing and that it hurts others. I also believe that this kind of message is more accepted coming from a source such as Budweiser, because of the company’s history of producing heartfelt commercials. I believe that if this commercial were to have been produced by the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission, then the message would have seemed incongruent and out of character with previous messages, which are mostly what can be seen as scare tactics. An example of this would be the “Drive High, Get a DUI” campaign which remind drivers that extra patrols will be on Washington roadways to enforce drunken driving laws.

                While both entities profess the same goals in the advertisements (don’t drive drunk), both have different ways to appeal. Budweiser, in this ad chooses to use pathos, and the WSTC chooses logos. Both arguments are valid, however, the argument that uses pathos (such as the Budweiser advertisement) seems to be much more viral and memorable because of the content of the message.

Overview of Boethius's Overview

                Boethius’s overview of rhetoric seemed to be a summary of the concepts that we have learned up to this point in the course. His outlook on the subject seems to be comprehensive, and his theories of rhetoric reflect the depth of his study into rhetoric; even though he seemed, according to our text, to identify himself more as a philosopher rather than a rhetor. Fortunately, for our modern culture, he devoted himself to the preservation of the texts of the ancients, translating the works of Plato and Aristotle into Latin for preservation.

                Boethius Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric states that he believes that there are three main types of rhetoric: judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative. Boethius goes on to state that the purpose of judicial rhetoric is to deal with topics that have to do with rendering honor, demanding satisfaction, or dealing with individual cases. Furthermore, Boethius states that judicial rhetoric also deals with anything seeking justice, or when it comes to seeking justice in a court of law.

                Boethius describes demonstrative rhetoric as the debate as to if something is socially useful or proper in the public arena. Boethius further states that demonstrative rhetoric involves cases that have to deal with general topics such as war and peace. Boethius then describes demonstrative rhetoric as something that deals with “what deserves praise or blame”, and “anything treating of the property, justice, or goodness or an act already preformed in a matter of public interest”.

                Boethius then states that there are 5 parts to rhetoric: invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery. In this instance, Boethius insists on the use of the word “parts”, since in his opinion, if an speaker lacks any of what he considers to be essential parts, his use of rhetoric will be incomplete. Boethius states that no matter what type of rhetoric that a speaker may choose to use, he must have all of the parts required to use rhetoric.

                Boethius goes on to state that the tool of rhetoric is oration, and that the rhetorical oration has 6 parts: introduction, partition, proof, refutation, and peroration. Boethius states that all of these parts of the rhetorical oration must exist in all parts of rhetoric, and unless all parts of the rhetorical oration are present, then the rhetorical oration is useless. Boethius then states that the rhetor must have a goal, both in himself and his audience.

The reading at this point becomes muddled, because of the multiple words used for what the translator assumes should be a similar meaning or idea. Boethius goes over the idea of issues and parts of cases, where he uses the word “status” and the words “constitutiones/constitutio”. Due to the confusion in the text, the author/translator uses the words in the instances that he uses them. From what I am able to discern from the reading is that Boethius the aforementioned types of rhetoric: judicial, demonstrative, and deliberative, are closely related. Boethius then states that many issues can compound each other and work to enhance each other to put forth an argument.

Ethos and Character Development

                I have always thought of the concept of “character development” to mean something quite differently from what I read about this week in our textbook. My concept that I have always thought to be true was that a character was a set of traits that established overarching theme that someone possessed that overall shaped the dialog of a particular piece of writing. I have always thought of ethos as being set by the character and reflected in the writing. What I took away from the reading in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, was that a rhetor will establish his or her character, or ethos through the writing.

                Based on this concept, I also believe that it is possible, albeit within boundaries of what is socially tolerable, to be able to possess, or take on a different character for each particular situation. The authors of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students refer to Aristotle’s concept of “invented ethos”. I draw the conclusion that a rhetor will be, depending on how well known he or she is, tied to invent an “invented ethos” to operate within the boundaries of “situated ethos”; which is what I understand to be what is generally known about a rhetor’s character by the audience.

                These two concepts can ebb and flow throughout a rhetor’s career, depending on the audience and how well known he or she is. It is possible for a lesser-known rhetor to have a more flexible character then a more well-known rhetor, due to the fact that the general audience may have less general information about the rhetor. However, a up and coming rhetor must be careful due to the fact that an audience may draw conclusions about the rhetor’s character through examination of his or her “invented ethos”. Inconsistent details in the “invented ethos”, or details that are inconsistent with “situated ethos” will draw attention to those details and detract from the credibility of the rhetor.

Symbols and Logical Proof

                Without being formally trained in it, rhetorical reasoning is something that we do quite a bit in normal, everyday life. According to the authors in our text, Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, the classical rhetors taught a number method of reasoning and deduction to his students to facilitate reasoning process in rhetorical settings. Of all of the methods that were introduced, I find the concept of signs to be the most interesting.

                In our culture today, there are signs that appear in everyday life that are used for points of argument. We are surrounded by these arguments and signs, oftentimes not aware that we are being exposed to the argument. For example, take an advertisement for a car. In American culture, we hold the symbol of a car to establish the persona or to be a representation of the owner of the vehicle. We often expect for someone who makes a lot of money to drive a luxury car, a mother to drive a minivan or a large SUV, or a man (oftentimes a “working class” man) to drive a truck. Sometimes we hold these unconscious preconceptions, and we are unaware as to the reason why we hold these preconceptions. I believe a large part of why we hold these preconceptions are due to advertising by the automakers that shape popular culture. If you were to watch advertisements for trucks such as the Ford F-150, or the Ram 1500, you will see commercials geared toward working men doing work with the aforementioned trucks. The only exception to the rule in recent history is General Motors, with its Chevrolet Silverado campaign that has one commercial entitled “A woman and her truck” which displays a woman who is apparently a rodeo performer with a Chevrolet Silverado with a horse trailer, that contains a horse who the woman shows affection for at the end of the commercial.

                There are other examples of signs that surround us that people use to argue a point that surround us on a daily basis. Take, for example, the symbol of a Seattle Seahawks “12^th man” flag. Before the Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl win, one would argue that the Seattle Seahawks were not a popular team. However, one could argue the counterpoint, by stating the number of households in a particular town that proudly displays the “12” flag on game day, or any other Seattle Seahawks support memorabilia

                More often than not, the arguments that surround signs are tied to advertising, but there are some that are not tied to advertising. Our textbook gives the examples of the rising premise that athletes have long hair, the notion that one who collects unemployment is lazy, or that tattoos are a form of rebelliousness. All of these are examples of symbols that are not being used specifically for advertising, although they very well may be used for advertising.  

Common Topics of Argument and Commonplaces

                The existence and availability of common place issues in our society demonstrates that there are a wide variety of items that are in the consciousness of the public today. The issues vary across a multitude of subjects, ranging from heath care issues, the economy, illegal immigration, national security, veterans issues, foreign policy, and the conduct of the Obama administration, just to name a few. These issues are many and varied, and it would behoove a skillful rhetor to be knowledgeable enough to speak on these topics. While many of these common themes come forward in the national consciousness quite often, the context of the arguments change as time progresses.

                These common place issues allow rhetors to use many of the common topics to argue these points, such as the the topic of greater/lesser, past and future fact, and possible/impossible. For the topic of past and future fact, which can also be called “conjecture”, the argument lies in and educated guess in how can have an effect in the future, or how something has had an effect in the current time, or past. For the topic of greater/lesser, which can also be described as “degree”, it is a topic to allow rhetors to discuss how something is relative to something else. For example, a thing is more relevant to a current topic than another thing. Another common place topic is the topic of possible/impossible. This explores the possibility of if a thing is possible, could be possible, or was possible.

                These topics can be used to discuss any of the topics that I listed in the first paragraph. I must admit, reading this chapter was difficult due to what I perceived as bias that stemmed from the authors of the textbook, although I do credit the authors with the attempt to remain neutral. I believe that the authors of the book, based on the style of writing and their analysis of some of the issues, possess a left-of-center bias, and it shows in the textbook. I would contend that this bias, however slight, does present an issue that a segment of the American public take issue with: the perceived indoctrination of youth in liberal thought.

                As with the previous chapter, some of my disagreements with the text stem from an inability to argue about the same issue, which is the source of much contention in our society. I would argue that the bias in the textbook is to a lesser degree than it could be, it is not openly bias; rather I perceive that the bias “leaks through” what the authors have published. Although I am aware that my writing may show bias, when speaking to a mixed audience, I try to mitigate as much bias as possible in my writing. While the authors of the book are free to choose how they feel about a situation personally, educators have a responsibility to remain as neutral as possible and show every side of an argument so that the ones who are being educated have the ability to determine for themselves how they wish to fall on the political spectrum; or any system of belief for that matter.

                Finally, I believe that it will never be possible to eliminate all bias from authors of textbooks, due to the fact that if a person has a deeply rooted system of beliefs, then I believe that person will attempt to project that system of beliefs, unconsciously, even if the author is making an attempt to stay neutral. While I do believe that this is impossible, it is important for educators to remain as neutral as possible and to present all sides of an argument so that the students may develop their system of beliefs as they learn more about, and are exposed to the world in which they live.

Abortion and Campaign Finance Stasis

                In modern arguments perpetrated by laypersons in the general public, the idea of stasis seems to be all but lost during an active argument. However, it seems that people arrive at stasis in some aspects at different times, wholly without realizing what has happened. The authors of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students used the issue of abortion to illustrate this element of rhetoric.

                In Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, the authors tell us that stasis can only be achieved if the persons on both sides of an argument can agree on the issue that is being debated. This difference in opinion of the issue that is at stake often perpetrates this argument, as each side continues to push talking points that are wholly un-related to each other. While there is much disagreement, I do believe that people in the abortion debate can agree on some issues:

1.       Murder of a vulnerable person, in our modern American culture, is morally wrong.

2.       It is an inalienable human right to be in control of one’s body.

Although many on both sides of the abortion debate will reluctantly admit that they agree with these two issues independent of the current debate, the context of how each issue of the debate applies to the situation. Herein lies the difficulty of achieving stasis in this societal debate; each side of the argument will agree with one issue and not the other:

1.       Murder of a vulnerable person, in our modern American culture, is morally wrong. However, independent of murdering an unborn child that we argue is an independent form of human life, it is an inalienable right to be in control of one’s body.

2.       It is an inalienable human right to be in control of one’s body. However, independent of taking away one’s inalienable human right to control one’s own body and remove a portion of one’s own body not considered to be an independent form of human life; murder of a vulnerable person, in our modern American culture, is morally wrong.

An issue that has seen some form of stasis has taken place in the state of Maine. In Maine, the issue of campaign finance reform was a concern for a majority of the voters. It was argued that private political interest money made the political process inaccessible for many of the people of Maine, who’s constitutional and democratic form of government, as it was established, was supposed to allow for the freedom to run for political office to the citizenry.

In 1996, the voters of Maine, by way of voter initiative, passed that Maine Clean Elections Act (MECA). The MECA establishes a voluntary program by which candidates that run for the office of Governor, State Senate, or State House of Representatives can be certified as “Participating Candidates” and participate in the political process. Candidates that are certified as “Participating Candidates” cannot fundraise and must participate in the process that is enumerated in the MECA. Candidates that participate may obtain seed money to start a campaign, however, that amount is limited. The candidates must then obtain a number of contributions to fund their campaign not to exceed $5 per registered voter.

The MECA does not in any way prohibit candidates from running for political office by way of what can be considered to be “traditional” campaign contributions, however, those candidates cannot qualify for a “Participating Candidate” endorsement under the MECA. It is by this way that the people of Maine can then choose to vote for a “Clean Elections Candidate” or a “Non-Participating Candidate”. I believe, that through this, the voters of Maine have achieved, at least partially, a form a stasis that will allow for the voters to choose.

Kairos and opprotunity in relation to the firearms debate

                I believe that the ancients seized on something that is usually overlooked in modern society. I believe that most persons in modern society are aware of the concept of Kairos, however, they have a hard time articulating the concept because we don’t have a specific term for the concept in our language. The authors of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students do an excellent job teaching the true meaning and examples of the word, and examples of kairotic situations.

                One thing I took away from the reading is that kairos can depend heavily on several factors. The first factor, of course, is timing. However, timing can be highly subjective in nature, depending on the audience. The authors of our textbook use the debate around the “Second Amendment Right / Gun Control” issue to illustrate how modern-day rhetors use a tragedy in order to further the debate because the subject has been brought forward due to current events. It seems to me that the phrase “timing is everything” speaks to the issue, and the different groups around the debate have a different opinion toward what the “perfect timing” would be.

                To illustrate my previous statement, in the past, some people have been critical of the National Rifle Association and associated Second Amendment groups because of the delay in which they mobilize to the national stage with an argument. The mindset of these organizations is that the right to bear arms is a given and any arguments that are to be made are in the defensive toward the goal of protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Most of the time, these organizations release press statements after the tragedies have stabilized and are not actively in progress.  On the contrary, gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign and the politicians that associate themselves with gun control issues feel that the time immediately after, and sometimes during the tragedy is an excellent time to launch anti-Second Amendment arguments, because they wish to polarize the body of the American people to take immediate action in the heat of the moment.

                I, like all other people, have an opinion on this issue. I also have an opinion on why the different groups take the stances that they take.  I believe that the majority of the Second Amendment groups, with the exception of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, take the defensive and reactive stance to the argument, because they believe that the American people, as a whole are already guaranteed the right to bear arms in the United States Constitution and that active arguments to expand the Second Amendment are not possible because it would exceed the framework of the United States Constitution and would not be in the intent of the founding fathers. While groups such as the National Rifle Association do push for reform in cases where they believe that the people’s rights to bear arms have been infringed, these arguments do not spike after, or during a tragedy.

                On the other hand, I believe that gun control groups feel that they must attempt to capitalize on the tragedy at hand because they believe that in order to further their agenda, they must get a majority of American citizens who vote to side with them on the issue. Because no educated and responsible American citizen will willing and voluntarily give up rights that are afforded to them by the United States Constitution, I believe that the gun control movement in America represents a minority voting bloc and that these groups are aware of their political status. Because of this status, I believe that these groups attempt to sensationalize the tragedy as much as possible in whatever way possible so that they can get a majority of American voter’s opinions to become emotionally charged so that they will vote for politicians who are openly pro-gun control so that they are able to emplace new restrictions. I believe that the goal of the information campaign is to get American voters to vote emotionally rather than rationally.

                In response to the gun-control information campaign, I believe that Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association believe the time to start their information campaign is in response to the information campaign that is produced by the gun control groups. In the Second Amendment information campaign, I believe that these groups attempt to illustrate the results of what the future would look like if the populace was unarmed and at the mercy of armed criminals with no way to defend themselves, and how the vast majority of responsible firearm owners use firearms for sport and self-defense purposes. I believe that these arguments serve to begin to sway people back to rational thought which is not radicalized by sensational statements to make “knee jerk” reactions that have unintended consequences.

                With all this being said, I do believe that all of these groups have an ideal that they strive toward, and that is a society with little to no “gun violence”. Everyone has the same goal, however, the problem is that there are different schools of thought that lead to the same goal. I do believe it’s worthy of note that the National Rifle Association, in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, collaborated with security industry experts and offered low-to-no-cost school security consultations in an effort to make schools safer. Part of the security plans included increased police presence, armed school security presence, remotely lockable doors, and hardened “safe zones” to make the schools safer. I mention this, because even in the debate, at least one of the sides involved stepped away from the debate to take action of some sort. I think that these security enhancements are something that both sides in the debate can agree is a good thing and will, at least in the interim, help to make schools safer and save the lives of children.