Pathos, Rationality, and Response

Perhaps because of its heavy use today, particularly in the marketing/advertising realm, the pathetic proof seems to be more readily recognized, understood and used, especially by those whose goal it is to sell us something, whether a product or perhaps simply an idea. Images and words working together create a sort of double whammy sucker punch to the deep recesses of our emotional center. One in particular that comes to mind when I think about this emotional sabotage is the Sarah McLachlan ad for the SPCA, which combines heartrending images of abused animals, statistical snippets of information and a background of cheerless music, all woven together to persuade the viewer to contribute money to stop animal cruelty and abuse.………. Sorry, I had to go hug my cat—see, it works! And I like to think of myself as a discriminating consumer who is able to see these emotional ploys for what they are.

My response to this, however, I believe, has much to do with what Crowley and Hawhee refer to as emotional intensity, which they indicate is directly proportional to the persuasiveness of the appeal (247). Because I am an animal lover and pet owner, my proximity to the subject leaves me vulnerable. It will take little to persuade me since I am already accepting of the message–protect these helpless animals.

Proof of the impact of this emotional intensity can be found in some other hot button topics of today, abortion, capital punishment, and so on, where emotions run high and tempers flare when beliefs are threatened and values called into question.

Such emotional approaches are also seen heavily in the political realm, where one is likely to see the use of pejorative language and derogatory images. Below are two examples of magazine covers from the 2008 election year, which I first saw juxtaposed in the Andrea Lundsford et al. text Everything’s an Argument, 5e. One is pro Obama, using the honorific message of “hope” to promote his candidacy. The other is a cartoon that plays on the question of Obama’s religious leanings and is meant to provoke fear.

http://www.obamawalldecor.com/showprint.aspx?pid=595105 - Rolling Stone cover, March 20, 2008

http://www.newyorker.com/online/covers/slideshow_blittcovers#slide=1 – “The Politics of Fear” – The New Yorker cover, July 21, 2008.


The pathetic appeals of both are strong but the messages entirely different. Indeed, these images mark a striking contrast, and their effect is dependent upon the target audience. Yes, like a number of our recent chapters, this chapter, too, spends time focusing on how knowledge of the audience influences the choices a rhetor makes in the emotional appeals he employs. With The New Yorker magazine cover example, the rhetors seemed to recognize the criteria, attributed to Aristotle, for understanding audience emotions (251).

Understand their state of mind - The rhetors understood that there is still an underlying
sense of fear regarding Muslims, despite the fact that we are many years removed from
the events of 9/11.

Understand who can excite these emotions – The rhetors recognized that Obama’s ties to
the Muslim faith, however limited, was apt to incite these emotions.

Understand why people become emotional – The rhetors realized that people would
respond emotionally because of their fears about what would happen to our country under
Obama’s leadership if these leanings were confirmed (we would be handing our country
over to those who terrorized our nation).


I found the Rush Limbaugh example by James Wolcott that Crowley and Hawhee use to illustrate the power of pejorative language particularly effective as well. Yet, the invective spewed out in this first example (261), which lambasts Limbaugh, while powerful in one sense, makes the reader somewhat curious about the cause for such derision on the part of the writer and calls into question his motives. I believe this point about the effect of such pejorative language on the ethos of the rhetor was pointed out, too, in last week’s class examples using the Mitch Albom and Jason Whitlock pieces. Whitlock's aggressive attack colors his message and affects the way a reader may view him as well as his message, yet it does stir a much stronger reaction than a less heated diatribe might have. This might lead us to ask then, is one appeal more important than another? Hmm!

I was also struck by the discussion on the use of description as a means of creating pathos. I think sometimes we reserve description for the narrative, not recognizing its potential within argumentative discourse. While many of the examples I have considered here as part of the discussion of pathos have been highly visual in nature, isn't written description doing the same thing--painting a picture that the reader or listener can imagine, and, in doing so, allowing for a similar type of emotional response.

I will leave this discussion with a final image, one that, at first glance, inspires patriotism—at least until our eyes adjust and take in the full impact of the picture, creating, perhaps, a sense of conflicting emotions about who we are as Americans and what we value.

http://nocureforthat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/corporate-logo-us-flag.gif

Boy, there were so many points to talk about this week, and I know I have only addressed a few of them, but I am sure we will have quite a go of this issue of pathos on Thursday night!