The Kardashian Proof

“Contemporary discussions of rhetoric often overlook the role played by ethical proofs, despite the fact that Americans are very much interest in the character and personal habits of public figures” (199).

In particular this quotation stood out to me as something that I tended to disagree with at first and then eventually came to reconcile. When reading this, visions of Christine O’Donnell and her appearances on the Bill Maher kept coming to mind. O’Donnell, similar to her main proponent Sarah Palin, is one of the most controversial figures in the political world today. However, she has not attained her notoriety regarding her policies or stances on issues, her logic, but rather through her somewhat asinine comments on an early 90s talk show.

How then does ethos figure into the mindset of the American consumer? Non-celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian, are now more publicized and pervasive in today’s society than those with some substantial talent. She brings in an enormous income for her clothing line and public appearances, and yet has no great form of talent or personal contribution to society. In fact, she first received her celebrity status via being best friends with one time celebrity Paris Hilton and subsequently going on a date with Nick Lachey. Simply the fact that I know this information reiterates my point on the persistent nature of these celebrity types with no real call to fame.

So why is she famous? Is it the same reason that morning news shows focus a significant portion of their political discussions on Christine O’Donnell’s claims of dabbling in witchcraft or analyzing John Baynor’s tan? Why do we care about these people enough to focus even an iota of our culture’s attention span on them?

After thinking about these contemporary examples, I can’t help but wonder if we only care about a person’s ethos when it is convenient for us? We gravitate towards these celebrities, athletes, or politicians often times for no logical reason; but rather in the case of the Kardashian, we as a society are making people infinitely wealthy because we like the look of their hair and hope that buying their $85 faux tanning lotion makes our skin glow as theirs. This then confirms the aforementioned quote, we like to know about the character of the people we are supporting, but this will not distract from the level to which we support them.

In this chapter, I also gravitated to the section on invented ethos, which then led me to think of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” (similarly to Jeanne’s comments on this work). I cannot help but agree with Jeanne that Swift’s satirical nature may prove problematic for his ethos.

How then do we view sarcasm or satire in today’s society? How have shows such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report gained so much momentum if the character of the speaker or rhetor is falsely presented? Essentially, their fame must come down to knowing their audience and to catering to that particular audience. To which our discussion comes full circle to last week.