The defense of the emotional

After delving into the ARCS chapter on pathetic proofs, I feel compelled to address the stance Crowley & Hawhee take on emotions in relation to rhetoric. One of the first points they take a strong position on is the perception that emotional responses are often illogical ones. “In our culture,” the authors state “if you’re emotional, you’re irrational. Reason is associated with mind, and connotes a calm, studied approach to issues. Emotions are associated with the body and are thought to be superficial and dangerous. People tend to think of emotions as belonging to individuals, like opinions. These prejudices are inaccurate and unfair.” (247)
Now, the chapter goes on to discuss the merits of an emotional appeal and how it can benefit rhetors in both constructing an argument and swaying an audience to agree with the stance of the rhetor. I dispute none of this, as emotional values can absolutely resonate with an audience just as well as ethical or logical proofs can. My issue with this work is the final sentence in the above quote.
For emphasis, I’ll re-post it “These prejudices are inaccurate and unfair.” (247) The first thing worth noting about this statement is the term prejudice. Using this word innately associates it with much more hate-fueled prejudices such as racism. This to me is a clear misconception of the alleged bias against emotional reactions in contemporary society.
I will happily agree with Crowley & Hawhee that we are a culture that celebrates logical reasoning and rational thinking above all else. But is that such a bad thing? Emotional responses, while they can easily be the correct ones, can just as easily lead to decisions based on clouded judgment. Would we want the President of the United States to fire a nuclear weapon at an enemy simply because they made him angry on a personal level? No, we would not, as it would almost certainly not be in the best interest of our nation and way of life. We put people in a position of power and ask them to be coldly rational not because it is what our society celebrates, but because such thought processes allow them to make the best decision possible based on hard, tangible evidence.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with that. Crowley & Hawhee seem to, however, as they even categorize pathetic proofs as “…the appeal to the emotions {that} seems strangest to contemporary rhetors…” (247). The way they word that sentence makes them come off as very sympathetic towards pathetic proofs and that is today’s world of contemporary rhetoric that is just a bit off. Perhaps it doesn’t seem strange so much as it is eschewed, as people don’t want those in power or authority who will make snap decisions based on emotion.
The last point I’d make on this subject is one that Dr. Kearney brought to our attention in class last week. Before she mentioned it, I had no idea the authors of ARCS were both women. The gender of the authors simply hadn’t occurred to me. However, after reading this section, I feel I would have had a much more difficult time remaining ignorant to that fact. They way Crowley & Hawhee defend emotional response right from the outset of the chapter shows that they are more sympathetic to emotions themselves, a trait more prominent in females than males. What that means I’m not entirely sure, but I certainly thought that slight bias might be worth noting as we examine the concept of pathetic proofs further as a group.

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?

Emotional Roller Coaster

This chapter brought the triad of logos, ethos, and pathos into balance. I now have a much clearer understanding of the roles played by Aristotle’s three distinct modes of argument. I was, however, somewhat taken back by the Crowley and Hawhee’s reference that, “Of all the ancient kinds of rhetorical proofs, the appeal to the emotions seems strangest to contemporary rhetors, and perhaps a little bit shoddy as well. …In our culture, if you’re emotional, you’re irrational. Reason is associated with mind, and connotes a calm, studied approach to issues. Emotions are associated with the body and are thought to be superficial and dangerous.” (p.247) I was relieved when they stated, “these prejudices are inaccurate and unfair.” (p. 247) While I vehemently agree with the latter statement, I can’t help but feel that much of our society agrees with the former. In most cases, women are typically viewed as more emotional than men. Let’s say this is true. Does that then render women less able to make rational decisions? And what about equal opportunity for women? Should women not be hired or earn less money because of their “disability?”

In continuing with the chapter, I couldn’t help but think about the case heard yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court, Albert Snyder v. Westboro Baptist Church. The issue boils down to First Amendment Rights versus a family’s right to privacy, harassment, etc. In March, 2006, Albert Snyder’s son, a soldier, was killed in the war in Afghanistan and was buried in Maryland. WBC showed up at the funeral and protested because against gays in the military. Snyder sued WBC for disrupting the funeral with their protests, and the case has worked its way through the court system to the U.S. Supreme Court. I realize that we have dealt with other First Amendment examples in previous chapters, but this one is so embroiled with emotion that I felt I had to address it under pathos. I can’t imagine the horror of having to bury a child, but to have people protest and disrupt a funeral service for any reason, let alone a lifestyle conflict, is more than any family should have to bear. While the Court’s decision probably won’t be rendered until June, 2011, I’ll be anxious to see what transpires in the meantime. It seems that kairos is part of this issue as well, as this case follows many examples of disputes surrounding homosexual marriage, serving in the military, etc. I wonder if this issue will still be as “emotionally charged” in five or ten years.

At the time of this writing, I’m still trying to find copies of the Court transcripts online – they were supposedly posted for review, and I can only imagine the examples of honorific and pejorative language exhibited by both sides of this issue. If I find them, I’ll bring some examples to class tonight. Looking forward to a lively discussion!

Snyder v. Westboro Church

As many of you may know, there is currently a case being heard by the Supreme Court involving the father of a fallen Marine and a Kansas church. The details in a nutshell are that the father, Albert Snyder, is suing the church for protesting before his son's funeral. Their signs included such messages as "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

The father is claiming infliction of emotional distress because of the fact that he was not able to peacefully bury his only son. The church is arguing that this speech is protected by the first amendment and that they did not break any laws.

In this whole case, there are many examples of pathetic appeals. I feel there is so much attention being given to this Supreme Court case because of the definite emotions being evoked and expressed, those cited by Aristotle and Cicero: anger, love/hate. There is no wishy-washy emotion in this entire situation.

Obviously the father is appealing to the public and definitely the judicial system by pointing out the fact that he was not able to give his only son a peaceful, quiet and generally uneventful burial. It is common in American culture for funerals to be times for quiet grief and sadness - not a time for boisterous protest. So in appearing in the media crying and bringing up these facts, most Americans will relate with Mr. Snyder. Most individuals have either attended a funeral personally or have been affected by the passing of a friend or relative. So they will know the emotions that are experienced in attending a funeral and grieving a loved one. Also, the sadness is especially heightened because this was Mr. Snyder's only son and most individuals with children (or most children themselves) will relate to the extreme sadness felt by Mr. Snyder. Another portion of the American population will definitely relate to and be affected by this case because of personal ties to the military. In our culture, generally, giving one's life is known as the ultimate sacrifice for one's country. So there is an emotional appeal that this young man did not just die of a drug overdose, car accident, street corner murder, etc. This young man died fighting for his country.

All of these factors in emotions will appeal to a great number of Americans who are completely supporting Mr. Snyder's cause/case.

On the other hand, the Westboro Church is using this case and other protests to stir up extreme anger, whether it is the same anger felt by the church or anger directed against them. They are inciting anger and hate in their signs and the messages contained in them but especially the forums/venues they are using to convey their messages.

This case is a perfect example of appealing to various emotions on either side of the issue. In the end, if the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the Westboro Church, the Supreme Court will be viewed by the thousands (if not millions) of individuals who are in complete support of Mr. Snyder as cold, heartless and completely unemotional. I have a feeling that whatever the Supreme Court's decision is, this will definitely not be the last we hear of this case.

On a side note: A very interesting book I had to read in Undergraduate studies is called, "The Cultural Politics of Emotion" by Sara Ahmed. If I remember it, I'll bring it in to class tonight.

Both pictures used in this blog are from this NY Times article.

Cry Me a River: The Pathetic Appeal

Is pathos less important than the other two categories of appeals in Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle, or it is an appeal that is easier to achieve?

I ask this partly based on that fact that this was a fairly easy chapter to get through. The chapter itself consisted primarily of examples of many speeches, monologues, and scenes that all seemed to demonstrate the same overall point, that it is important to be able to instill in your audience a certain feeling or response as a means to get your message accepted.

Comparatively to the other two chapters, logos and ethos, this chapter contained limited terminology to master; and in my opinion, this concept was generally easier to understand.

But then why? Why devote more defining and clarifying to logos and ethos? Does this make the rhetorical triangle more misshapen? Even Crowley and Hawhee comment on the role of pathos compared to the other, “ancient kinds of rhetorical proofs, [that] appeal to the emotions seems strangest to contemporary rhetors” (247). It then strikes me, reiterated in this passage, that emotions are difficult to deal with; that emotions “are associated with the body and are thought to be superficial and dangerous” (247).

However, I wonder if a play on the word dangerous here could be taken to mean that emotional appeals are dangerous because they are most effective. Simply thinking of my own responses to emotional appeals: the more I feel pity for one side to an argument, the more I will tend to assent to that particular argument. Taking this reaction into effect, the appeal to emotions also is dangerous if the audience adamantly disagrees with the speaker, “it is easier to bring about a change of mind in those who are accepting or hostile than in those who are indifferent” (254). The more emotional response rhetors are able to play on or thrive off of, essentially the easier it will be to engage that audience in an argument or instill them to action.

I feel that the same could not be said for the other two areas of appeals, the more logical an argument presents itself to be would encourage someone to acknowledge the valid points in this argument; it would not, however, encourage them to fully accept the argument and believe in it. Similarly, as demonstrated in last weeks discussion, often times it is essential to separate a speaker’s character from their skill as a rhetor. This is not to say that these two appeals are irrelevant, but simply to illustrate that emotional responses have more power in persuading than often is thought.

Thinking of the abortion debate, there are logical points to each side that can be accurately and intensely portrayed (Crowley/Hawhee, Chapter 3); however, the rhetor would have a tremendous struggle to sway someone who is emotionally invested the values of a particular position. Crowley and Hawhee confirm that “researchers have also discovered that a person’s willingness to changer her mind depends on two things: the emotional intensity with which she clings to an opinion and the degree to which her identity is wrapped up in that opinion” (254), and subsequently, “intense emotional attachment to claims can present serious barriers to rhetors who disagree with such claims” (257).

So, do rhetors even stand a fighting chance then at swaying an audience whose values are so engrained in their character? I never knew how much psychology came into play with the idea of rhetoric. This chapter illuminated how much analysis of an audience and of the emotional responses you wish to elicit from this audience impact your message in terms of content and delivery. I can really see how concepts like enargeia and honorific and pejorative language can serve to aid your purpose. I can also see where the old clichéd advice of never discussing religion or politics at the dinner table gains momentum.

As an emotional and sympathetic person, I definitely can see how pathetic proof can be quite effective. Many nonprofit groups are excellent at appealing to human emotions. An example of this would be the various commercials wanting money for needy children in poor countries. According to the authors, “Emotions can also move people to action; if someone feels compassion for someone else, he helps the suffering person” (250). As the viewer, I hate seeing poor and filthy children walking around half clothed in a dirty village because I it is obviously beyond sad. The worst part is when the cameras zoom in on an incredibly sad face with a fly buzzing on the nose of this hungry child. The abused animal commercials are right up there as well. I cannot stand to see the innocent, injured animals. To top it off, there is always a sad song playing in the background as images of mutilated and neglected animals appear on the screen. In fact, I hate watching these commercials so much because I find them so depressing that I immediately change the channel, so I am not sure how effective that advertising gimmick (if you can call it that) really is?

Another part of the chapter that struck a chord was the section on Characters of Audiences. The authors discuss the importance of reaching the audience and in order to do this “a rhetor must also feel the emotions that he wants to arouse in his audience” (258). Al Gore’s speech addressing the challenges posed by hurricanes and global warming was effective because he knew the audience was interested and well informed on the subject. He quotes a well respected president and uses emotional appeal to reach those listening. These same ideas are expressed in the famous acceptance speech given by Jimmy Valano when he was presented with the Author Ashe Courage and Humanitarian Award at the ESPY Awards Show in 1993. Jimmy V was a basketball coach and was dying of cancer when he was awarded this honor. His speech was inspiring and effective for various reasons. He already had a sympathetic audience of sports enthusiasts. Those in the live audience and those watching knew who Jimmy V was and what kind of man he represented. This speech allowed the audience to view him on a personal level as a husband and father in addition to the inspiring coach that the listeners already knew he was. Those in the audience and those watching were interested and understood the sports references. Jimmy V also made it very clear that he was there to talk to the people; he wasn’t concerned with the general rules and regulations that coincide with television award show acceptance speeches. Overall, he touched those watching by using pathetic proof. Jimmy V unfortunately passed away less than two months after giving this speech, but his words still resonate with those who carry on his legend.
http://www.jimmyv.org/remembering-jim/espy-awards-speech.html

Chapter 7

I think I’ll try something a little different with this post. While reading, I highlighted a number of thoughts and phrases that stick out/ interest me.

(247) “In our culture, if you’re emotional, you’re irrational” – Even though the authors call the accusation “inaccurate and unfair” a few lines later, I still think it’s a worthy observation. It’s a stereotype many buy into and one that affects gender roles. Much of our society makes the assumption it’s okay for females to give in to emotions, but it’s not appropriate for me to. Therefore, females, because they are more emotional than men, are likely to be more irrational than men. Please understand that this isn’t my personal opinion, but it is an opinion that many people in our society support.

In the next paragraph, “consumer’s desire for success” and the “fear of losing status in their communities” is mentioned in relation to product marketing. It really is pathetic how easily we can be convinced that having the right “things” will validate success and status. The products we own create our identity. We are able to stop at a mall and purchase identities and create ourselves. Companies are aware of this and take advantage of our vulnerability, sensitivity, and desire to be identified as having (or not having) certain emotional qualities. Maybe we should consider a different philosophy about our emotional attachment to material objects.

Here’s an interest article about a Fight Club (book/film) Philosophy. http://collegetimes.us/a-fight-club-philosophy/?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4cacb9bdb60e1e09,0

(251) According to Aristotle…“Rhetors must understand the state(s) of minds of people. Second, must know who can excite these emotions, Third, they must understand the reasons for which people becomes emotional.” I am constantly trying to do a better job at all of these as a teacher. In order to make particular components of my content area come to live, I must consider emotional appeal. In many cases “because you need to know this” or “it’ll prepare you for the rest of your life” just aren’t a good enough reason for students to take interest in what I teach. I never really think of myself as a rhetor, but I guess creating pathetic proof/appeal is something I regularly do.

(252) “People are less prone to be angry with those above or equal to them on a scale of social authority, while they are more prone to be angry with those below them on the scale.” I don’t think there’s much to elaborate on here. It’s a great piece of social commentary and says so much about the way we function as people and about the way our emotions or conditioned. While many of our emotional behaviors are inherent, there are just as many that are learned.

(254) “A person’s willingness to change her mind depends on two things: the emotional intensity with which she clings to an opinion and the degree to which her identity-her sense of herself as an integrated person-is wrapped up with that opinion.” I love the second half of this statement. The relation between identity and opinion is fascinating, I’m sure we’ve all known someone who defines his or herself by an opinion. A good friend of mine defined himself by an opinion for almost half his life. He’s recently changed his mind about the issue, and he is an entirely different and more “real” person. Let’s call my friend John. In middle school, John decided that eating animals was wrong. Shortly after that, he decided that wearing animals was wrong. For years, everything John did revolved around this belief. He was quick to offend and quick to judge, and it was impossible to convince him of anything that went against his “identity.” John had a tattoo that represents the idea of compassion. He had stickers all over his car and a number of T-shirts promoting his identity. Anytime someone ate meat or wore leather, John would respond emotionally. He took the act as a personal attack, as if a person was judging his character. There was a considerable amount of emotional intensity attached to John’s opinion. His closest friends were animal friendly, and he was completely consumed by that emotion. He would support every and any product, film, art, music, or organization that echoed his emotional identity. Years later, John eats meat and all that he once was (which was tied to an emotional set) no longer exists. It’s amazing that something that once made him so upset, so enraged, no longer illicit an emotion response.

( 257) “If an audience does not care about an issue in which a rhetor is interested she will need to use emotional appeal to get their attention.” I think this connects back to my comment about a teacher’s role a rhetor. I’m not sure all content areas or grade levels share this concept, but I can’t deny my use of the pathetic appeal to “sell literature.” Is that justifiable, or is it wrong?

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!

Pathetic Proof and Descriptions

After reading this week’s chapter, I could not help noticing the strong relationship between Pathos and descriptive (colorful) language. At first, I thought my blog topic would be about understanding the mood (my blog tagline was can you feel the mood today?) but I decided that I spent too much time this weekend babysitting my younger siblings who love the Lion King (especially Elton John’s “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?) . So I looked over my reading notes and tried to forget for a moment the Lion King’s soundtrack and my mind focused on the relationship between pathetic proofs and descriptions. In this blog, I will discuss this point.

When I was attending school, I was always told that I needed to scale down my vivid language. My one high school teacher actually told me that I was too emotional whenever I argued on the debate team (yes, the secret is out…) and in my writings. I was instructed to keep with the facts and to use words like “Therefore,” “Thus,” “Hence,” and “According to (still sends shivers up my spine). I craved and longed to utilize rich and colorful words. Thus, I understood the point that Crowley and Hawhee discussed about our modern society’s great disdain for emotional (descriptive) communication. They write that “because of the modern reverence for reason and our habit of making a sharp distinction between reason and the emotions” and “In our culture, if you’re emotional, your irrational” (Crowley and Hawhee 247). Yet, it is this exact attitude that has damaged rhetoric and destroyed writing. Honestly, what speech or book did you last attend or read that did not appeal to your emotions? The first descriptive word that comes to my mind about such meetings or books is dull. Our society wants to appear as “calm, [with a] studied approach to issues” and yet, “Contemporary advertisers and political spin artists (and may I add best-selling authors, and well known orators, actors, etc.) also understand the important role played by emotion in our responses to their messages” (247). Thus, 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.

Crowley and Hawhee discuss the importance of vivid examples to evoke an emotional response from one’s audience. For example, both authors discuss an example of a 9/11 experience. They write that “accounts or images can still evoke emotions we felt then” (247). They then utilize a brief statement from Phil Scraton whose vivid narrative impacts the reader. The one passage that I felt was very descriptive and thus, emotional was the last line. He writes “They reminded me of rescue workers recounting disaster scenes where the only sounds they could hear, as they listened for potential survivors, were those of mobile phones ringing from the debris as desperate relatives tried to make contact” (248). Next to this passage, I wrote chilling. His vivid language invites me into the situation. While reading this line, I am now alongside a rescue worker hearing numerous phones ring in a hazy wasteland and I am immediately impacted. While reading his entire narrative, numerous images infiltrated my brain which produced an emotional response. (A few years ago, I caught a 9/11 documentary on tv and the narrator announced that in the hours after the attack, rescue workers could hear the beeping of firefighter locaters going off as they worked. His voice was silenced and all viewers, alongside the rescue workers, could hear the beeping. That scene immediately entered my mind while reading this text). Thus, Scraton followed the advice of the ancient rhetors, like Quintilian, who “argued” that “Vivid depictions of events… stir the emotions of an audience exactly as if they had been present when it occurred” (258).

Last week, I had blogged about creating a hook that captivates and captures the audience’s attention. This week, the section on enargeia, focuses on how these hook lines are vital to speeches, articles and books. According to Crowley and Hawhee, enargeia, the creation of a vivid scene, was important because “the most effective emotional appeals actually make an issue come alive for audiences, make them see vividly what is at stake…supply audience with a reason for identifying with an issue, thus moving away from indifference toward either acceptance or rejection of a position” (257). Thus, enargeia accounts are meant to emotional draw the reader or listener in so that they can finally respond to an issue. Otherwise, what is the point of speeches, books, newspapers, protests, rallies, etc. if not to illicit a passionate response.

Lastly, Crowley and Hawhee discuss the use of honorific and pejorative language. Both authors declare that “Another way to evoke emotions is to use words that are honorific (positive) or pejorative (negative)” (260). These positive or negative descriptive words aid in describing a situation in order for the reader or listener to form a response. Crowley and Hawhee’s two examples illustrate just how powerful these vivid words are to a statement. They write that “Without the pejorative language [in the James Wolcott article], much of the emotional appeal of the original passage disappear” (261). Thus, the article sample without the descriptive language loses most of its punch and it becomes rather dull and uninteresting. Since the point of almost all discourse is to stir responses and actions, it is important that writers and speakers keep the audience members captivated through the use of descriptive language. Crowley and Hawhee agree, stating that “vivid descriptions can lay the groundwork for-or actually make-an argument” and that “Descriptions can also be persuasive” (265). Thus, one can see that vivid language is vital to rhetors and writers.

I thoroughly enjoyed this chapter! I will greatly miss this Thursday’s class and discussion but I look forward to the next one! If anyone is interested in ever presenting at a conference, I strongly recommend the following two websites:
http://call-for-papers.sas.upenn.edu/
http://www.h-net.org/announce/group.cgi?type=CFPs