I really enjoyed this week’s discussion on ethos, yet I found my thoughts rather scattered as I read the chapter, perhaps because it addressed such a multitude of factors that influence one’s ethos—it was a busy chapter. At the risk of sounding completely incoherent, I will deal with each train of thought independently since they may not demonstrate any real connection.
1. This week’s chapter on ethos demonstrates the recurring theme of audience that we spent a fair amount of time discussing last class. Crowley and Hawhee suggest in various places within the chapter that knowing your audience is critical to the development and presentation of one’s argument. “Rhetors project good will toward an audience by presenting the information and arguments that audiences require in order to understand the rhetorical situation” (202). With the phrasing “audiences require” there is the implication that only when we understand the audience and their needs can we make the necessary arguments and provide the types of evidence or proofs that will compel them to respond in the manner which we desire. Knowing the audience also allows the rhetor to determine the appropriate distance to place between himself and his audience.
Later the authors offer this piece of wisdom, “People do not respond to a proposition out of context; their responses are determined by their ideology “ (230). Being aware of an audience’s ideology allows the rhetor to best tailor his argument to his audience, to determine what line of argument is most likely to succeed.
Finally, the authors note, “A rhetor who wants to seem well-informed should always consider how much her audience knows about the issue she is discussing. Audiences who are not themselves well-informed about an issue may allow errors to go unremarked. But rhetors risk losing all credibility with better-informed audiences when they fail to do their homework” (205). Thus, a quick way to lose an audience’s attention is to have inaccurate information or faulty reasoning. Crowley and Hawhee further contend that when the rhetor tells the audience things they already know, they run the risk of ruining any good will that has already been established (210). It seems then that there is an incredible burden placed on the rhetor; indeed, there appear to be so many ways to affront the audience.
2. Reading this chapter, I also was reminded of the significance of the rhetor’s motives in argument and how self-serving motives can derail an argument. I have always loved the way Jonathan Swift addresses this issue of motive in his essay “A Modest Proposal,” in which he proposes that the impoverished of Ireland sell their infant children to the wealthy as food, a delicacy, in an effort to ease their economic woes. Swift confirms that this proposition will not serve him in the least since his children are beyond infancy and his wife can no longer bear children. He says, “I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public 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 child-bearing.”
However, he may lose face with his audience if they are appalled at such a suggestion since he will not have to suffer over the decision to sell a child since his are beyond the appropriate age. He can put forth such a proposal since he bears no ill consequences. As well, he may offend if his audience does not recognize the satirical nature of his proposal.
3. I am not sure where I saw it, but I once read that Aristotle considered ethos to be the most important of the appeals. I believe that the reason for concluding this was that even if you have a solid argument, if you do not express good character, good will, or good intellect, thus losing credibility with the audience early, the argument is lost.
4. I found myself struck by the section of the chapter that talked about use of language, specifically word size, which reminded me of a student I had many years ago who seemed to equate word size with effective writing. It was a challenge impressing upon him that using big words did not guarantee success; they did not always reflect intellect, credibility, or correctness, especially when the “fifty-dollar” words were used incorrectly or out of context, as they sometimes were. In fact, they negated the good will he had previously established. As the semester went on, I found that I could almost anticipate which word or words he would use in an essay, as he tended to return to a select few. As a frequent audience to his writing, it became more and more obvious that his attempts at written expression were contrived. There was a lack of sincerity in his writing and this lack of sincerity translated to a lack of credibility.
5. Throughout the chapter recollections of scenes from the movie Thank You for Smoking kept recurring to me, especially during the discussion on situated ethos and with the concept of power. In the film, the main character, Nick Naylor, serves as spokesman for the Academy of Tobacco Studies, essentially a front for Big Tobacco. As a spokesperson for an organization which promotes the dangerous habit of cigarette smoking, one would expect that he would be disliked, and, indeed, he is by some. However, in the public eye, Nick presents a situated ethos that allows him to win over his audiences rather adeptly. He is a doctor of spin. And make no mistake, Nick is in control. He is likable, he is confident, he has charisma, he knows when to be honest and when to close the distance between himself and his audience, he holds a position of recognized power, he has influence on sources of information. As Crowley and Hawhee tell us, “A differential power relation inheres within any rhetorical situation simply because rhetors have the floor so to speak. As long as they are being read or listened to they have control of the situation” (228). Nick Naylor seems to understand this implicitly.
The clips below give a brief glance at his method (start each at about the 2 minute mark).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PE0FDhm0-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KHD9vEV-b4
1 comment:
Jeanne:
I really enjoyed reading your post. First, I will say that the example that really "hit home" with me was the example of the student who used, as you term "50 dollar words" in his papers. You brought up 2 good points: 1) his use of these words, which made his essays sound "contrived," and 2) the repetition of these words is noted because of the repeat audience. These are 2 important factors to consider. On a side note, I recall having a professor who ALWAYS (you could count on it once per class) the word "impetus." Luckily, I now know that word, but I recall feeling as though his lectures were not necessarily geared towards a learning process where students could feel empowered; I felt like his word-choice was meant to make us feel impressed by his position as a professor, as a guardian of knowledge. In fact, I recall my overall impression of the course was disappointment because, while I noted this professor was quite well-learned in his craft, the manner in which he shared this knowledge was undermined by a condescending attitude. I'd say his personal "ethos" ruined my student experience. Like you write about the credibility of one's papers being affected by his or her word choice, so was my impression of this professor despite his apparent expertise.
Post a Comment