In the interest of saving paper (and money on my PSU account), I'm enclosing links to the articles we will be reading as part of tonight's discussion on Ethical Proofs. Please DO NOT read them before we convene tonight, as I'd like to keep the discussion as fresh and off-the-cuff as possible. Thanks and looking forward to tonight!
Albom 1
Whitlock
Albom 2
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Ethos - A Personal Perspective
Every week I make the mistake of reading through the entire assigned chapter before sitting down to write. I do this because I like to develop the “big picture” being discussed in the chapter before committing words to print. Although I annotate and highlight along the way, I inevitably get to the end of the chapter and think, now what? This week is no exception, as this was again a chapter rich in ideas and terminology. However, I really find myself drawn to the sections of the chapter dealing with voice and rhetorical distance, particularly as a teacher. After all, my purpose for taking this class is credit toward a Writing Specialist Certification, so my first priority is how the information will help me to not only be a better writer, but a better teacher of writing. To that end, this chapter is loaded!
When I sit down to write a piece, I believe the consideration of distance between rhetor and audience develops automatically. I consider the audience, decide how I will approach my topic, and the thoughts just seem to roll. The voice, attitude, “grammatical person,” and punctuation just happen without much forethought. Despite my seemingly scattered nature when creating these blogs, my colleagues view me as an effective writer and often come to me for advice when composing pieces to administrators and parents. But being a proficient writer doesn’t necessarily make me an effective teacher of writing. Reading this chapter has forced me to more closely analyze the importance of these various components when teaching writing to students. Of course, these points are part of teaching my students to write, but I believe that in the elementary classroom, the points in this chapter come more into play during reading instruction, applying various strategies when reading, etc. But how great would it be if the students, even at nine years old, could apply these same strategies to their writing? Of course, we talk about the five domains of focus, content, organization, style, and conventions according to Pennsylvania’s Writing Rubric. But just thinking about getting the kids to connect reading and writing on a deeper level – my head is spinning with ideas just from reading this chapter. (I realize that Crowley and Hawhee probably didn’t have nine year olds in mind when they published this book, but as I said earlier, each of us is in this class for a different reason, so I’ll take from it what directly applies to my situation!) Did I offend anyone with my use of bold and an exclamation mark?
The other part of this chapter that I really took to heart was the connection between a speaker and his audience. We spent a great deal of time during our last class discussing audience and the rhetor’s approach from a logical (logos) standpoint. But now that I’ve read about ethos, I’m really thinking about how people present themselves, whether they be politicians, celebrities, teachers… What makes them credible, or not credible? First impressions, appropriate distance between speaker and audience, voice – all affect what people think. How much of what people put forth is truly them? How much is invented? That’s a separate blog altogether – probably more of a psychology course. Definitely much to think about…
Looking forward to further discussion tonight…
The role of ethos in Colombia's last presidential campaign
I don’t know if anyone of you heard about the last presidential elections in Colombia. However, I believe what happened last June in Colombia was a clear example of how ethos play an important role in the invention and consequently the achievement of the goal of a speech or in this case a whole presidential campaign.
This year the two strongest opponents running for president in Colombia came from very different backgrounds. The first one, Antanas Mockus, was an academic. Mockus was born in a middle class Lithuanian immigrant family. He has a BA in Mathematics and a PhD in Philosophy. He was president of the National University of Colombia, mayor of Bogota, the capital and part of the committee of wise men chosen to dialogue with the guerrillas. Mockus arrived into the politics through his interest in education and, in my opinion, his sincere intention to make changes that benefit the most disadvantaged sectors of society. The second one, Juan Manuel Santos, was born into one of the most powerful families in Colombia, the owners of the most important and almost only newspaper of the nation, El Tiempo. He also has a strong academic training and as many would say has an impeccable CV. How I see it, he has invested his whole life preparing to be president and his academic training is another example of it. Additionally, he has been part of the Cabinet of the last three presidents as Minister of Foreign Trade, of Finance and National Defense. This is an example of how he plays his cards in perfect kayros to be able to be in the government of three presidents that came from different political wings.
All in all, both of them were very well prepared. Santos proposal was the continuity with the previous president Uribe and Mockus represented the change. Although, only this big difference could have accounted for the results at the polls, I think that the presidential debates had a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, Mockus’ ethos was not in his favor. On the one hand, he had proved to many colombians, through his term as mayor of Bogota, that he was honest and far from corruption. On the other, his private and public life was tinted with eccentricities that I think hurt his ethos and thus his campaign. Among Mockus’ eccentricities we can mention that in a university meeting with undisciplined and noisy students at the National University of Colombia what he did to calm them down was to pull down his pants and show them his bare buttocks. Some of his ideas as Bogota’s mayor also were criticized. His main purpose was to build citizenship in a city characterized by civic chaos. He hired mimes to mock citizens that were breaking civic rules such as jaywalking or driving recklessly. He also wore a Superman costume and called himself Supercitizen. Many people said that he was just a clown and couldn’t be ever president of Colombia.
Santos had his weaknesses as well. And Santos in contrast with Mockus had a history of dishonesty and corruption. Under his command as National Defense Minister in Uribe’s government, one of the most shameless scandals in Colombia took place. In the government’s war against the guerrillas, the lower ranks of the army were instructed to kidnap young men, kill them and make them appear as members of the guerrillas killed by the army. Santos always sustained he didn’t know about it and never assume any responsibility.
Santos unlike Mockus has a lot of experience being a politician and is well trained in using the political machinery needed to win a campaign election. Mockus, on the other is a good man with good intentions.
Although, one could have thought that Mockus’ ethos, his academic training, his previous experience as Bogota’s mayor, his proposal to change, his innovative and effective ideas would have helped him, they did not. Colombian citizens were scared about the big change. They didn’t want to take the risk to have a groundbreaking president with “crazy” ideas. They chose in stead a corrupt president part of the traditional political machinery that has lead Colombia for the past 100 years.
This year the two strongest opponents running for president in Colombia came from very different backgrounds. The first one, Antanas Mockus, was an academic. Mockus was born in a middle class Lithuanian immigrant family. He has a BA in Mathematics and a PhD in Philosophy. He was president of the National University of Colombia, mayor of Bogota, the capital and part of the committee of wise men chosen to dialogue with the guerrillas. Mockus arrived into the politics through his interest in education and, in my opinion, his sincere intention to make changes that benefit the most disadvantaged sectors of society. The second one, Juan Manuel Santos, was born into one of the most powerful families in Colombia, the owners of the most important and almost only newspaper of the nation, El Tiempo. He also has a strong academic training and as many would say has an impeccable CV. How I see it, he has invested his whole life preparing to be president and his academic training is another example of it. Additionally, he has been part of the Cabinet of the last three presidents as Minister of Foreign Trade, of Finance and National Defense. This is an example of how he plays his cards in perfect kayros to be able to be in the government of three presidents that came from different political wings.
All in all, both of them were very well prepared. Santos proposal was the continuity with the previous president Uribe and Mockus represented the change. Although, only this big difference could have accounted for the results at the polls, I think that the presidential debates had a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, Mockus’ ethos was not in his favor. On the one hand, he had proved to many colombians, through his term as mayor of Bogota, that he was honest and far from corruption. On the other, his private and public life was tinted with eccentricities that I think hurt his ethos and thus his campaign. Among Mockus’ eccentricities we can mention that in a university meeting with undisciplined and noisy students at the National University of Colombia what he did to calm them down was to pull down his pants and show them his bare buttocks. Some of his ideas as Bogota’s mayor also were criticized. His main purpose was to build citizenship in a city characterized by civic chaos. He hired mimes to mock citizens that were breaking civic rules such as jaywalking or driving recklessly. He also wore a Superman costume and called himself Supercitizen. Many people said that he was just a clown and couldn’t be ever president of Colombia.
Santos had his weaknesses as well. And Santos in contrast with Mockus had a history of dishonesty and corruption. Under his command as National Defense Minister in Uribe’s government, one of the most shameless scandals in Colombia took place. In the government’s war against the guerrillas, the lower ranks of the army were instructed to kidnap young men, kill them and make them appear as members of the guerrillas killed by the army. Santos always sustained he didn’t know about it and never assume any responsibility.
Santos unlike Mockus has a lot of experience being a politician and is well trained in using the political machinery needed to win a campaign election. Mockus, on the other is a good man with good intentions.
Although, one could have thought that Mockus’ ethos, his academic training, his previous experience as Bogota’s mayor, his proposal to change, his innovative and effective ideas would have helped him, they did not. Colombian citizens were scared about the big change. They didn’t want to take the risk to have a groundbreaking president with “crazy” ideas. They chose in stead a corrupt president part of the traditional political machinery that has lead Colombia for the past 100 years.
Performativity & Ethos
Is “invented ethos” similar to performativity—how one performs one’s role specific to environment and ideology that encompasses principles of behavior (in the private vs. domestic sphere), which then connotes a specific (and constructed) meaning? Judith Butler describes the idea of performativity as a “social reality” that is composed "through language, gesture, and all manner of symbolic social sign" (from Performative 270). In other words, we “perform” our duties (I could say roles) as, say the husband/wife binary based upon our cultural, historical, and social values—“the moral practices in which [we are] habitually engaged” (Crowley & Hawhee 198). Our character is “invented” not only by what we say, but also by what we do. As one who is interested in investigating the idea of social performance, I am fascinated by how we are able to switch gears, to be able to “perform” in a professional work environment versus our private, domestic sphere where we may act differently. I would liken a “situated ethos,” to the pattern of the “public” performance—who we “appear” to be on a regular basis. Like Dr. Kearney mentioned at the beginning of the class, “everything is rhetoric.” The way we dress, the way we speak to each other in written form (the blog), in class (more formally), in work (formal) and to friends (less formal). A situated ethos, I think, is what we represent to others and it is an intentional process. Everything we do, then, becomes synonymous with who we are as individuals. I’ll not get into identity construction, but Butler also argues that identity is constructed upon the ideology of power—that in fact the idea of the “private” and “public” sphere is even mitigated by social conventions which uphold an oppressive system of norms—“juridicial systems of power [which] produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent” (or misrepresent) (from Gender Trouble 2). So on the subject of “ethos,” I guess what I’m saying is that I think one’s ethos has everything to do with how one performs—what one does (in words, in body language, dress, etc.).
(Side note: I’m studying Judith Butler’s theoretical arguments for gender performance for my thesis research, and let me tell you—her research is beyond difficult to comprehend!)
I wanted to quickly address Erin’s questions in her blog (I feel like I’m always commenting on her blog! )
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.
I would say that the success of shows that include sarcasm and satire probably has something to do with the way the information is presented. The pretense of satire is already available to any viewer; Jon Stewart, while he is known to be quite an intelligent political satirist, is also known for his comedic appearances. He has established an identity first as a “funny man,” and second as a man who talks politics. Thus, Stewart’s character is only partially reliable as a political analyst and more “credible” as one who plays the role of a political satirist. Secondly, both Colbert and Stewart “influence distance” between themselves and their audiences (C & H 214). They want their audiences to connect with them, therefore, they do not “remain as neutral as possible”; they express their approval and/or disapproval of certain issues or individuals so that they may close the distance between themselves and their audiences (214). I would hope that the invented ethos of these men would be able to lead an audience member to not take either of them too seriously. It can be said that either of their shows point to blatant flaws within either the Democratic or Republican parties, yet the sensationalized manner in which these “flaws” are brought to light produces the effect of humor and sarcasm. I think that their “momentum,” as Erin suggests, is carried by the audience’s desire to depart from a traditional news format. This implies the possibility of a population of viewers who like to take their coffee (politics) with a little sugar (humor). I guess the question of rhetor credibility can be woven into this analysis of their shows in that either TV host will be more/less credible based upon the audience member viewing the show. The funny thing is about both shows is that, I think, they are both liberal yet one poses as a having a Conservative platform (which, to me, makes Colbert’s show infinitely ridiculous/funny). However, if you do not understand this premise, you may take Colbert’s show more seriously than even he intends. Yes—catering to a particular audience, then, makes either of them more or less successful.
(Side note: I’m studying Judith Butler’s theoretical arguments for gender performance for my thesis research, and let me tell you—her research is beyond difficult to comprehend!)
I wanted to quickly address Erin’s questions in her blog (I feel like I’m always commenting on her blog! )
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.
I would say that the success of shows that include sarcasm and satire probably has something to do with the way the information is presented. The pretense of satire is already available to any viewer; Jon Stewart, while he is known to be quite an intelligent political satirist, is also known for his comedic appearances. He has established an identity first as a “funny man,” and second as a man who talks politics. Thus, Stewart’s character is only partially reliable as a political analyst and more “credible” as one who plays the role of a political satirist. Secondly, both Colbert and Stewart “influence distance” between themselves and their audiences (C & H 214). They want their audiences to connect with them, therefore, they do not “remain as neutral as possible”; they express their approval and/or disapproval of certain issues or individuals so that they may close the distance between themselves and their audiences (214). I would hope that the invented ethos of these men would be able to lead an audience member to not take either of them too seriously. It can be said that either of their shows point to blatant flaws within either the Democratic or Republican parties, yet the sensationalized manner in which these “flaws” are brought to light produces the effect of humor and sarcasm. I think that their “momentum,” as Erin suggests, is carried by the audience’s desire to depart from a traditional news format. This implies the possibility of a population of viewers who like to take their coffee (politics) with a little sugar (humor). I guess the question of rhetor credibility can be woven into this analysis of their shows in that either TV host will be more/less credible based upon the audience member viewing the show. The funny thing is about both shows is that, I think, they are both liberal yet one poses as a having a Conservative platform (which, to me, makes Colbert’s show infinitely ridiculous/funny). However, if you do not understand this premise, you may take Colbert’s show more seriously than even he intends. Yes—catering to a particular audience, then, makes either of them more or less successful.
When establishing ethos, the brief discussion on the use of colloquialisms creates interesting points. Colloquialisms can make a positive or negative impact depending on the particular audience. My group of friends from high school are notorious for discussing inside information that makes outsiders to the group feel uncomfortable because they do not “get” the conversation. I also feel this way when my husband comes to our “teacher gatherings.” When people get together with colleagues, you can’t help but discuss work. This is often boring to those who do not work in the school setting because they cannot relate to the conversation. On a different note, I watched a competition unfold among two groups trying to appeal to a group of young Harry Potter enthusiasts at a sneak peek of a newly opened Harry Potter ride at Universal Studios. Neither group of presenters were avid followers of the Harry Potter mania, establishing a definite disconnect when attempting to persuade the children into choosing their display. However, one of the groups did their research and used colloquialisms associated with Harry Potter that were quite familiar, amusing, and appealing to the enthusiasts. This set them apart from the other group, ensuring a victory.
As a teacher who stresses not to use I or you in formal writing situation, I do not necessarily agree 100 percent with the authors in the Grammatical Person section of the reading. I do agree that the “I-you” relation indicates to the audience that the rhetor is including them in the conversation. I also agree that the “we-thy” relationship can establish an ally between the audience and rhetor. However, I feel that sometimes when these distinct pronouns are used, it can create a distance between the audience and rhetor. For example, if the audience does not agree or see eye to eye with the rhetor’s comments or with that particular rhetor, this may cause even more distance than if the first and second person pronouns were not used. At times, l believe that authors write somewhat vague in order to allow the audience to relate to different aspects of the writing. However, the authors do somewhat address this on page 220 by stating that sometimes first person can create an “ego centered voice that excludes the audience.”
Overall, this chapter creates awareness on how I handle communication is different situations. The way that I speak and write alters depending on the situation, audience, and message. Unfortunately at times, many of the inventions created to improve technology (telephone, email) can hinder the message that I am trying to convey.
As a teacher who stresses not to use I or you in formal writing situation, I do not necessarily agree 100 percent with the authors in the Grammatical Person section of the reading. I do agree that the “I-you” relation indicates to the audience that the rhetor is including them in the conversation. I also agree that the “we-thy” relationship can establish an ally between the audience and rhetor. However, I feel that sometimes when these distinct pronouns are used, it can create a distance between the audience and rhetor. For example, if the audience does not agree or see eye to eye with the rhetor’s comments or with that particular rhetor, this may cause even more distance than if the first and second person pronouns were not used. At times, l believe that authors write somewhat vague in order to allow the audience to relate to different aspects of the writing. However, the authors do somewhat address this on page 220 by stating that sometimes first person can create an “ego centered voice that excludes the audience.”
Overall, this chapter creates awareness on how I handle communication is different situations. The way that I speak and write alters depending on the situation, audience, and message. Unfortunately at times, many of the inventions created to improve technology (telephone, email) can hinder the message that I am trying to convey.
Ethos
I’m drawn to the section entitled Demonstrating Intelligence by Doing the Homework. On page 113, there’s a note of caution to avoid making a “rhetorical disaster.” This perfectly describes what I see and hear on a regular basis. As the authors suggest, “Rhetors who wish to appear intelligent and well informed must demonstrate that they have done whatever research and contemplation that is necessary to understand an issue.” First, I respect their recognition of actual intelligence versus staged intelligence. Rhetors must establish themselves as well informed about the issues they discuss. Some people, however, are motivated by appearing to be well informed. We don’t always have enough time/occasion to learn if the intelligence is authentic, and therefore we might be misled. On the other hand, there are those instances when (because we have enough time to learn the “truth”) and witness failed ethos. Shamefully, I must admit that I find these moments entertaining. If ever I hear someone making claims/generalizations that are uninformed, I can’t help but observe. Here’s an example from my classroom that happened in 2008, in the weeks leading up to the Presidential election:
Student A: “Hey man, what’s that pin on your bag?”
Student B: “Are you kidding me! You mean you really don’t know? It’s an Obama pin. He’s running for president. He’s way better than Bush, and he’s definitely going to win the election.”
Student A: “Oh yeah, that’s right….but who’s Biden?”
Student B: “ Ah, that’s Obama’s last name”
I know it’s basic, but it’s a perfect example and so embarrassing. The saddest part is that neither student knew that he was so misinformed. Student B thought he was informed and sophisticated. His pin was the extent of his knowledge. Most likely he never had to prove his intelligence because most people who saw the pin would understand. It wasn’t until he was asked to delineate on his understanding that a person could see his ignorance. One minute I assumed he was aware of the political campaign, and the next I realized he KNEW nothing. We must be careful about first impressions and appearances.
The section on Grammatical Person will be helpful in my classroom. I find myself changing my explanation for why it’s recommended that writers use third-person discourse in the writing assignments. The description provided on page 126 sums it up in way that students could understand. Additionally, it is helpful to see the example of how first person can be more effective, depending on the topic(s) being discussed (see Mary Douglas’ excerpt on page 127).
It was interesting to look at the ethos of an email. I’ve never thought about how “exotic punctuation marks work to close distance between writers and readers” (132). It amazing that we have developed a new language and coincidentally a code for this language. Many people understand when this new language and communication is appropriate. We’ve developed systems to establish intimacy and emotional interaction to a form of communication that lacks personality.
Finally, on a completely unrelated note, I was happy to see John Irving used in our text. He is probably my favorite novelists, and I don’t typically thinking of him as a rhetor. It reinforces the claim that “everything is rhetoric” for me.
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.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The arduous task of creating ethos
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. 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
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Creating the Hook that Captures and Captivates the Audience
Hook. When you hear this word what is the first term that comes to mind? Do you see some guy sitting in a boat with a fishing pole who is trying to put some kind of bait on his pole’s hook? Or do you think about the 1991 Steven Spielberg movie “Hook” in which the grown up Peter Pan must fight his nemesis (Captain Hook) to save his children and the civilization of Neverland. Either way, you are on the right track since both cases aim to hook something, whether it is a big bass or Peter Pan. When I hear the word hook, I think of burning the midnight oils because I am so engrossed with a book that I am unable to stop reading. Sometimes, I even think about school and being instructed how to write a sentence or statement that will hook my readers. After all, we have a New York Times Best Sellers list, book reviews, and book groups for a reason, they dictate to us, the readers, who is great, knowledgeable and worthy of our time. After reading this week’s chapter, I felt that the major point of ethical proof (ethos) is getting your readers or listeners hooked. Otherwise, if the audience is not captured and captivated, your character (reputation) as an author or orator is at risk of being tarnished.
While reading this chapter and formulating this blog, my mind kept going back to two key quotes in this text. The first quote that inspired my thought process was “If readers are intrigued or charmed by Cloud’s ethos in this opening paragraph, they will surely continue reading” (196). Crowley and Hawhee are stating is that if the reader gets hooked, he or she will maintain his or her trust of the writer and will allow the author to lead him or her along a path. In other words, first impressions still matter. This quote also states that if I like and can somehow relate to your point (hook line), I will continue to favorably read your book, tell my friends about it (promote it) and positively aid (influence) the selling rates of your book (and income). Thus, this positive intimacy with an author is why some authors are able to write sequels and have long literary careers, while others never even get past the first book. I realized early on in the chapter that the author-reader relationship is solely based on emotional connection between the writer (speaker, actor, etc.) and the reader (audience members).
This realization that the author-reader (even the orator-listener, actor-audience, etc.) relationship is heavily based on an emotional (intimacy) level really was best summarized in the Securing Goodwill portion of the chapter. It is from this part of the chapter that another quote struck my fancy. Crowley and Hawhee write that “Modern rhetors can demonstrate their goodwill toward an audience by carefully considering what readers need to know about the issue at hand in order to follow the argument” (210). Basically, the author is writing enough to get and keep us hooked into the book (the review, the movie, the speech, the debate, the play, etc.). Crowley and Hawhee agree and state that “They (in this case, movie reviewers) demonstrate this goodwill by telling audiences just enough about the plot or characters or direction to allow them to decide whether to see a film, but they don’t give away the ending” (210). Thus, the reviewers give us the general picture so that we can either agree with it or not. Some reviewers tend to use more of a logical proof (proving to us their superiority through examples) when describing a movie, while others tend to use ethical (emotional) proofs. For example, Crowley and Hawhee discuss at length Peter Travers’ review. They write that “But he does not seem to care about establishing goodwill toward all of his readers, because some will warm to his ethos here only if they agree with his negative assessment… anyone who liked the movie will no doubt be out off by his snarky remarks” (211). What they fail to realize is that Peter Travers is securing goodwill with his readers, those that do agree with him and are “intrigued or charmed” by his ill review of the movie (196). Yet, sometimes, the hook is not in relating to the author but in not relating to the author. After all, his hook may be to get people to disagree with his article so that they will continue to read it and try and prove him wrong (or is this idea more related to logical proof). Otherwise, he would not be employed if he did not have a fan base.
What intrigued me about this idea of the emotional connection between a reader and writer is how much power the audience (reader) has in determining an author’s reputation. At the end of the chapter, I thought about the Book Club sandal that occurred four years. Oprah is a great promoter of various authors and many writers have attributed their booming careers to her positive promotion of their works. She is able to promote so many books because she has a large fan base and a good reputation among them. Four years ago, she aided in the promotion of James Frey’s text, A Million Little Pieces and not only was Frey’s reputation as an author affected but so were (for a short time) the reputation of the publishing house and Oprah. Indeed, after it was revealed that Frey had lied in his memoir, Oprah stated on her show that “I made a mistake and I left the impression that the truth does not matter, and I am deeply sorry about that. That is not what I believe. To everyone who challenged me on this issue of truth, you are absolutely right” (USA TODAY 1/25/2006). This modern day example shows how a good hook line, good emotional connection and a believed (trusted) goodwill can occasionally cause a problem.
Here are a couple of articles that I quickly glanced over that discussed at large (and from different perspectives) the Million Pieces scandal
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/million-little-lies
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/01/11/frey.lkl/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-01-25-frey-oprah_x.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/business/media/30carr.html?ex=1296277200&en=1c0e8843da5b43d6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2006/01/26/oprah_clarifies_her_position_t/
Looking forward to Thursday night’s discussion!
While reading this chapter and formulating this blog, my mind kept going back to two key quotes in this text. The first quote that inspired my thought process was “If readers are intrigued or charmed by Cloud’s ethos in this opening paragraph, they will surely continue reading” (196). Crowley and Hawhee are stating is that if the reader gets hooked, he or she will maintain his or her trust of the writer and will allow the author to lead him or her along a path. In other words, first impressions still matter. This quote also states that if I like and can somehow relate to your point (hook line), I will continue to favorably read your book, tell my friends about it (promote it) and positively aid (influence) the selling rates of your book (and income). Thus, this positive intimacy with an author is why some authors are able to write sequels and have long literary careers, while others never even get past the first book. I realized early on in the chapter that the author-reader relationship is solely based on emotional connection between the writer (speaker, actor, etc.) and the reader (audience members).
This realization that the author-reader (even the orator-listener, actor-audience, etc.) relationship is heavily based on an emotional (intimacy) level really was best summarized in the Securing Goodwill portion of the chapter. It is from this part of the chapter that another quote struck my fancy. Crowley and Hawhee write that “Modern rhetors can demonstrate their goodwill toward an audience by carefully considering what readers need to know about the issue at hand in order to follow the argument” (210). Basically, the author is writing enough to get and keep us hooked into the book (the review, the movie, the speech, the debate, the play, etc.). Crowley and Hawhee agree and state that “They (in this case, movie reviewers) demonstrate this goodwill by telling audiences just enough about the plot or characters or direction to allow them to decide whether to see a film, but they don’t give away the ending” (210). Thus, the reviewers give us the general picture so that we can either agree with it or not. Some reviewers tend to use more of a logical proof (proving to us their superiority through examples) when describing a movie, while others tend to use ethical (emotional) proofs. For example, Crowley and Hawhee discuss at length Peter Travers’ review. They write that “But he does not seem to care about establishing goodwill toward all of his readers, because some will warm to his ethos here only if they agree with his negative assessment… anyone who liked the movie will no doubt be out off by his snarky remarks” (211). What they fail to realize is that Peter Travers is securing goodwill with his readers, those that do agree with him and are “intrigued or charmed” by his ill review of the movie (196). Yet, sometimes, the hook is not in relating to the author but in not relating to the author. After all, his hook may be to get people to disagree with his article so that they will continue to read it and try and prove him wrong (or is this idea more related to logical proof). Otherwise, he would not be employed if he did not have a fan base.
What intrigued me about this idea of the emotional connection between a reader and writer is how much power the audience (reader) has in determining an author’s reputation. At the end of the chapter, I thought about the Book Club sandal that occurred four years. Oprah is a great promoter of various authors and many writers have attributed their booming careers to her positive promotion of their works. She is able to promote so many books because she has a large fan base and a good reputation among them. Four years ago, she aided in the promotion of James Frey’s text, A Million Little Pieces and not only was Frey’s reputation as an author affected but so were (for a short time) the reputation of the publishing house and Oprah. Indeed, after it was revealed that Frey had lied in his memoir, Oprah stated on her show that “I made a mistake and I left the impression that the truth does not matter, and I am deeply sorry about that. That is not what I believe. To everyone who challenged me on this issue of truth, you are absolutely right” (USA TODAY 1/25/2006). This modern day example shows how a good hook line, good emotional connection and a believed (trusted) goodwill can occasionally cause a problem.
Here are a couple of articles that I quickly glanced over that discussed at large (and from different perspectives) the Million Pieces scandal
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/million-little-lies
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/01/11/frey.lkl/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-01-25-frey-oprah_x.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/business/media/30carr.html?ex=1296277200&en=1c0e8843da5b43d6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2006/01/26/oprah_clarifies_her_position_t/
Looking forward to Thursday night’s discussion!
Ethical Proof!
Thank God for Chapter 6! It was a much easier read for me than the other chapters. I'm sure others probably felt this way too. This discussion of ethos in this chapter resonated with me because I experience this and am aware of it in everyday life. Whether its watching commercials on TV or talking with a used car salesperson, ethos is everywhere. One part of the chapter which jumped out at me was on page 199 where the authors state "...That Americans are very much interested in the character and personal habits of public figures," (Crowley & Hawhee). We are borderline obsessed with the behavior and morals of our entertainers, sports stars, public figures, politicians, etc. Just look at the past (and present) examples of Bill Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson. I could write names of public figures all day. I could also write about the media reactions and the reactions of the everyday citizen, too and be here all day. It is amazing the lengths these public figures will go to in order to restore their image. They will have press conferences where they tearfully apologize to their constituents or fans and it usually takes a very long time for anyone to trust them or to take them seriously. For example, it will be very difficult I suspect for Rod Blagojevich to garner the same respect as he did before his scandals broke out (it also didn't help that he went on Celebrity Apprentice). Just look at the Michael Jackson scandals of the 90s and beyond. These rocked the public so much that his career tanked and he lost the appeal he once had.
The most recent scandal (I don't know that it will become as huge as Clinton or Blago's) is that of Illinois politician Jesse Jackson, Jr. He has a lot of situated ethos baggage (he is the son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson Sr.) and so a scandal like this does tremendous damage. If the allegations explained in this article and the accompanying video are true, it may be a long time (if ever) before he reestablishes his character and morals.
Something else which interested me about the reading was the section regarding "a rhetor's attitude toward the issue also influences distance," (C&H, 214). It made me think of two professors I had in undergrad. One was Dr. G - he was the 'more attitude = intimate distance' professor - and Dr. B - he was the 'less attitude = more formal distance' professor. Dr. G was everyone's favorite professor. He would sit on his desk, he never wore a suit or tie, talked about his love for hip-hop and indie rock, and talked openly about his political views (I had several of his classes during the aftermath of 2004's presidential election, and the years that followed ... you do the math as to his opinions, insert smiley face). Dr. B, well, poor Dr. B. He meant well. Ask anyone who had him, and they would tell you the B in his last name stood for Dr. Boring!! He was very proper, wore a suit every day, never showed any kind of emotion and generally had the appearance of a well-dressed robot. He did not necessarily teach difficult classes, but everyone dreaded his lectures and assignments. It was not easy to approach Dr. B with questions and there was difficulty in establishing a 'vibe' from him. On the contrary, Dr. G taught classes which were considered by many to be difficult, but people loved his lectures!! I don't know what I'm trying to get to, or if I'm trying to make any kind of point. I guess I'm just demonstrating how I understood the section in the middle of page 214.
Again, I enjoyed reading this chapter and I can safely say have a good grasp of Ethical Proof. I look forward to class on Thursday and the discussions we will have about this chapter.
The most recent scandal (I don't know that it will become as huge as Clinton or Blago's) is that of Illinois politician Jesse Jackson, Jr. He has a lot of situated ethos baggage (he is the son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson Sr.) and so a scandal like this does tremendous damage. If the allegations explained in this article and the accompanying video are true, it may be a long time (if ever) before he reestablishes his character and morals.
Something else which interested me about the reading was the section regarding "a rhetor's attitude toward the issue also influences distance," (C&H, 214). It made me think of two professors I had in undergrad. One was Dr. G - he was the 'more attitude = intimate distance' professor - and Dr. B - he was the 'less attitude = more formal distance' professor. Dr. G was everyone's favorite professor. He would sit on his desk, he never wore a suit or tie, talked about his love for hip-hop and indie rock, and talked openly about his political views (I had several of his classes during the aftermath of 2004's presidential election, and the years that followed ... you do the math as to his opinions, insert smiley face). Dr. B, well, poor Dr. B. He meant well. Ask anyone who had him, and they would tell you the B in his last name stood for Dr. Boring!! He was very proper, wore a suit every day, never showed any kind of emotion and generally had the appearance of a well-dressed robot. He did not necessarily teach difficult classes, but everyone dreaded his lectures and assignments. It was not easy to approach Dr. B with questions and there was difficulty in establishing a 'vibe' from him. On the contrary, Dr. G taught classes which were considered by many to be difficult, but people loved his lectures!! I don't know what I'm trying to get to, or if I'm trying to make any kind of point. I guess I'm just demonstrating how I understood the section in the middle of page 214.
Again, I enjoyed reading this chapter and I can safely say have a good grasp of Ethical Proof. I look forward to class on Thursday and the discussions we will have about this chapter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)