Pathos and "Emotional Ties"

I am never quite certain where I'm going to go with my blog; my thoughts about the text usually become more clear as we discuss it in class. However, there were a few points brought up in the text that I can relate to personal experience which will help guide my blog. Also, I always enjoy responding to my peer's responses as well. Meghan's comment about language being stripped of its figurative appeal in order for an argument to appeal to a modern culture more inclined to side with “logic,” was quite profound. In reference to her experience with debating in school, she asserts that “we live in a world that loves and craves colors and yet, scholastic institutions are trying to keep everyone in neutral hues. I felt that this chapter was a rally cry, declaring that it’s time to paint the town red, purple, lime green and neon orange through the frequent use of descriptive language."

I couldn’t help but to consider this point as well, that language—more specifically, language which may inspire an emotional reaction—is a valuable instrument which may shape not only images and ideas, but also arouse emotions. I suspect that some frustration regarding the dearth of “colorful” (and I don’t mean “dirty” when I say “colorful”) language in classrooms is partially due to the fact that our educational system is all about sticking to the facts and simply articulating one’s argument without fanciful words. And Meghan gets to another point, but I’ll hit on the fact that it’s possible to say that this attitude of sticking to basics almost develops a population of individuals who are not given the authority to express individuality. If schools mandate that teachers are to simply work on putting words in the right order, punctuation, and spelling, are we also stifling creativity?

Back to the idea of “pathos.” I am reminded of my experience in the Air Force. I recall numerous experiences either listening to generals speak about their experiences or getting yelled at in OTS. Crowley and Hawhee tell us that “rhetors need to assess the emotional states of their audiences as well as the intensity with which they cling to those states” (255). As for the first example, I recall my experiences as a cadet (I was in ROTC) when we would invite a general to come speak with us about his (I can’t say “her” because I never met a female general!) experiences in the military. More often than not, his speech would always be geared towards inspiring us to continue with our training, and to talk about how great the military is as an organization, etc. etc. Most of this, of course, is true for this person, but I always felt like I was being sold something—that I should either feel inspired by this person of great authority, and if I didn’t, that there was something inherently wrong with me. Not only do words from a person of power or authority sometimes strike us deeper than those coming from your average Joe, when this person of authority speaks with such deep reverence about something like the military, you can’t help but to feel emotionally tied to whatever it is he or she is saying. In the case of General X, I can tell you that the room stirred with excitement as his words seemed to mold the young hearts of the future Air Force Officers, as he told the story of a successful (yet stressful) recon mission in the desert. His imagery was powerful, and the use of his words like “teamwork,” “leadership,” and “followership,” suggested that he wanted us to relate to the mission—to feel moved in both a personal/human connection, but also to inspire a patriotic bond. I just remember that while I felt inspired by this “great man,” I also felt speculative; was he telling us these wonderful things because they were true or because he wanted to retain us as cadet trainees? Probably both. This situation is a perfect example to when “a rhetor [can] really alter an audience’s emotional state of mind and thus change their assessment of reality” (250). To be clear, it is possible to say that this General may have altered the way we, as cadets just learning to be leaders, could visualize our responsibility in a greater picture—that someday our lives may be in danger, but that we must risk our safety in mind of the mission. Now…to be honest, in what reality does that sound like a logical claim?