How our society has evolved to define fair, accurate and principled rhetoric has made it more than acceptable to employ extensive emotional appeals. Despite whether we agree or disagree to the extent our society is addicted to emotions, as a collective we continue to accept our current rhetorical climate. To answer whether we are pushing the boundary I would have to respond that I know less what would constitute unacceptable pathos than do I know there exist limitations.
Drama is the fuel life runs on, filling us with stimulation and entertainment. We are overwhelmed by intense emotional messages because regardless of our intentions we respond to it. The important question to ask is not “are we exceeding some limit?” but “is it in our best interests to be easily influenced by emotion?” I think there are two really important truths to keep in mind when answering this question. The first is not forgetting that emotions are woven into our DNA. We have evolved to be emotionally responsive creatures most likely because it has been to our advantage throughout thousands of years of evolution. The other is the implicit nature of emotion. Unlike logos or ethos, pathos doesn’t require metacognitive thought processing.
Every day it seems I am surprised by some sort of emotional ploy whether it be on television in the media, or from peers because it makes us think, feel and act irrespective to logic or ethics. In addition to not being a balanced rhetorical situation our excessive reliance on pathos further subtracts from our ethical and logical capacity. I would agree that we are currently in a period of heightened emotion and I believe this can be to our advantage. If it requires an unprecedented emotional climate to make people be less dependent and responsive to pathos then so be it. I also believe it’s this kind of rhetorical climate that could be used to usher in one of the most progressive times of our society’s history. With heightened emotion comes increased interest, outraged debate, and motivation which are all necessary to make change. It is also the key to shifting the rhetorical balance should it be considered in our best interests.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Pathetic Discourse In Media
An argument should be fair, accurate, and principled in order to keep the balance between logos, pathos, and ethos. This is especially important when it comes to public discourse. However, in our current form of public discourse, pathos is being used unfairly and excessively. It seems that pathos currently outweighs logos and ethos in all form of the media. From the Tiger Woods scandal to health care reform, pathetic appeals are being overused to grab the audience’s attention.
Although as a whole there is an unbalance between logos, ethos, and pathos in public discourse I do not always find this wrong, it depends upon the situation. Sometimes it is necessary to make strong emotional appeals in order to capture your audience. In society today people are constantly surrounded by media and persuasive arguments. One main problem for a writer is how to break through the “noise” that surrounds everyone and grab people’s attention. I find that it is acceptable to rely upon strong emotional appeals in order to get your point across when it comes to television shows and news broadcasts because they have to find a way to differentiate themselves from other forms of media. For instance, during the Olympics there always seems to be an athlete that overcomes great odds such as a rough childhood, a death of a family member, a spouse or child with cancer, and he or she goes on to win the gold or come close. This person would otherwise just be another athlete competing for the gold but the broadcasting company decides to focus on their story and tell it to America in order to appeal to our common attitudes and emotions. I find myself rooting for this person because I can identify with them. If it wasn’t for the strong emotional appeals of the network I would simply look at this athlete as just another athlete in another Olympic competition. In addition, I would be more likely to change the channel because I am not emotionally invested in the outcome of the event. However, this is not the case by drawing me in with a strong emotional appeal.
At some point though, strong emotional appeals that are unbalanced with logos and ethos can cross the line. One area in which I believe it is especially important to keep the balance of logos, pathos, and ethos is politics. Politicians often exploit people by making emotional appeals to their audience with a lack of logos and ethos. When politicians over rely one pathetic appeals the audience misses out on important information that is necessary in understanding the facts of the issue. For instance during the debate about health care, Rush Limbaugh stated that he’s moving to Costa Rica if we get health care passed. This is an irrational argument that makes a strong emotional appeal to his audience. It makes the idea of health care reform sound so disturbing to him that it would destroy America and its values, so he would rather move and live in Costa Rica. During this statement, he makes no logical facts for what he finds wrong with health care reform and relies entirely on emotional appeal. Politicians often commit this when they uses bumper stickers saying, “A vote for Joe is a vote for children.” This fallacy relies entirely on emotion and suggest that if you don’t vote for Joe then you are hurting or against children.
In conclusion, sometimes it is necessary to break the balance between ethos, pathos, and logos in order to capture your audience’s attention. However, this practice should never be used for matters that greatly affect the general public such as politics. A strong emotional appeal to an audience to get them to watch a television show doesn’t really hurt anyone. On the contrary, when politicians make overly pathetic arguments they confuse the public and possibly harm future and current public policy.
Although as a whole there is an unbalance between logos, ethos, and pathos in public discourse I do not always find this wrong, it depends upon the situation. Sometimes it is necessary to make strong emotional appeals in order to capture your audience. In society today people are constantly surrounded by media and persuasive arguments. One main problem for a writer is how to break through the “noise” that surrounds everyone and grab people’s attention. I find that it is acceptable to rely upon strong emotional appeals in order to get your point across when it comes to television shows and news broadcasts because they have to find a way to differentiate themselves from other forms of media. For instance, during the Olympics there always seems to be an athlete that overcomes great odds such as a rough childhood, a death of a family member, a spouse or child with cancer, and he or she goes on to win the gold or come close. This person would otherwise just be another athlete competing for the gold but the broadcasting company decides to focus on their story and tell it to America in order to appeal to our common attitudes and emotions. I find myself rooting for this person because I can identify with them. If it wasn’t for the strong emotional appeals of the network I would simply look at this athlete as just another athlete in another Olympic competition. In addition, I would be more likely to change the channel because I am not emotionally invested in the outcome of the event. However, this is not the case by drawing me in with a strong emotional appeal.
At some point though, strong emotional appeals that are unbalanced with logos and ethos can cross the line. One area in which I believe it is especially important to keep the balance of logos, pathos, and ethos is politics. Politicians often exploit people by making emotional appeals to their audience with a lack of logos and ethos. When politicians over rely one pathetic appeals the audience misses out on important information that is necessary in understanding the facts of the issue. For instance during the debate about health care, Rush Limbaugh stated that he’s moving to Costa Rica if we get health care passed. This is an irrational argument that makes a strong emotional appeal to his audience. It makes the idea of health care reform sound so disturbing to him that it would destroy America and its values, so he would rather move and live in Costa Rica. During this statement, he makes no logical facts for what he finds wrong with health care reform and relies entirely on emotional appeal. Politicians often commit this when they uses bumper stickers saying, “A vote for Joe is a vote for children.” This fallacy relies entirely on emotion and suggest that if you don’t vote for Joe then you are hurting or against children.
In conclusion, sometimes it is necessary to break the balance between ethos, pathos, and logos in order to capture your audience’s attention. However, this practice should never be used for matters that greatly affect the general public such as politics. A strong emotional appeal to an audience to get them to watch a television show doesn’t really hurt anyone. On the contrary, when politicians make overly pathetic arguments they confuse the public and possibly harm future and current public policy.
Pathetic Discourse
The key to any argument being fair, accurate, and principled is to keep the balance of logos, pathos, and ethos. I think most people would agree that we would want an argument presented to us to be all of these things. However, pathetic language is everywhere in today’s society, sometimes seeming like it outweighs logos and ethos. But is it used too much? Does it overstep and cross the line? In certain aspects, such as politics, I think definitely. In others however, such as TV shows, I think it is just fine.
Most politicians for example, exploit pathos to grab their audience. Instead of presenting their information with a balance of logic, ethics, and emotion, they focus heavily on the anticipating the emotional reactions of their audience. For example, they may show pictures of a baby girl and tell you a personal story and then ask you, “How could you kill her?” to advance their views on abortion. This goes straight to the emotions of the audience and completely forgets about logos and ethos. People may jump on board with the politician, without giving it much additional thought. To me, this seems like a cheap way out for the politician if they are getting the response they want. They are using pathos too outweigh ethos completely. There are no ethics behind an argument like this.
In other aspects of the media, such as television shows, I think that the over use of pathos is fine. For me, I am more likely to watch a show that gets me emotionally invested. Even if a show is about a topic I am not particularly interested in, I may watch it because the pathetic appeals grab me. For example, one show, “Extreme Makeover- Home Edition” definitely plays on emotional appeals. The show is about helping a family in need by building them a brand new house. The show really plays up the emotional story behind the family and gets the viewers invested. I think this is necessary. If the show just focused on building a house, it would lose many viewers who are not interested in how to build a house. However, when the emotional stories are played up, you can find yourself invested in them and want to watch the show. I think that there is no harm in this, but it is just using pathos effectively to get a larger audience, without crossing the line.
Overall, I think there is a slight unbalance between logos, ethos, and pathos in public discourse. However, the unbalance in politics is far greater and often crosses the line because it forgets about logos and ethos completely. On the other hand, in most television shows, the balance is slight and it is okay in my opinion.
Most politicians for example, exploit pathos to grab their audience. Instead of presenting their information with a balance of logic, ethics, and emotion, they focus heavily on the anticipating the emotional reactions of their audience. For example, they may show pictures of a baby girl and tell you a personal story and then ask you, “How could you kill her?” to advance their views on abortion. This goes straight to the emotions of the audience and completely forgets about logos and ethos. People may jump on board with the politician, without giving it much additional thought. To me, this seems like a cheap way out for the politician if they are getting the response they want. They are using pathos too outweigh ethos completely. There are no ethics behind an argument like this.
In other aspects of the media, such as television shows, I think that the over use of pathos is fine. For me, I am more likely to watch a show that gets me emotionally invested. Even if a show is about a topic I am not particularly interested in, I may watch it because the pathetic appeals grab me. For example, one show, “Extreme Makeover- Home Edition” definitely plays on emotional appeals. The show is about helping a family in need by building them a brand new house. The show really plays up the emotional story behind the family and gets the viewers invested. I think this is necessary. If the show just focused on building a house, it would lose many viewers who are not interested in how to build a house. However, when the emotional stories are played up, you can find yourself invested in them and want to watch the show. I think that there is no harm in this, but it is just using pathos effectively to get a larger audience, without crossing the line.
Overall, I think there is a slight unbalance between logos, ethos, and pathos in public discourse. However, the unbalance in politics is far greater and often crosses the line because it forgets about logos and ethos completely. On the other hand, in most television shows, the balance is slight and it is okay in my opinion.
Public disclosure
It seems that pathetic appeals are everywhere: commercial advertisement, political campaigns, sports, TV shows, movies, etc. I hardly see any advertisement that delivers a purely rational statement without relying on any pathetic elements, any politicians who have never shown their concerns towards the children or the poor, or any TV shows without emotional plots. Considering the prevalence of the applications of pathetic appeals in many aspects of our society, I think the public disclosure is a bit too dependent on emotional appeals to delivery its argument and ideas. While the pathetic appeals in public disclosure have some advantages, such as satisfying the psychological needs of people and more effective delivery, overflowing of them can put them into an embarrassing situation.
The primary reason for the prevalence of pathetic appeals is that it is more effective than rational and logical argument to convey message. People tend to count on short cut to process information; therefore people are very likely to accept the information intuitively if the information fits into their expectation or attitude. For example, politicians often use this trick: they argue their assertion, not by logically, but by make emotional appeals such as how the poor or the children are in miserable conditions, and being against their policies is equal to being against children. When talking about children and poor people, which are very emotional images, people will naturally show their sympathy without efforts. Politicians catch these psychological laws and often use these emotional figures in their speech to let people accept their argument without “thinking much”. Probably their argument or assertion is problematic, but most people would not care much about the logic of the argument, which requires some effort to think about.
Although it may be immoral to take advantage of others’ sympathy, sometimes people do need some kind of pathetic appeals. Days ago, I saw a sentence on a T-Shirt: Miracle is not what we accomplish, but the courage to start. At the first sight, these words are really touching and there are certainly pathetic appeals within. For a person who is feeling hopeless and desperate, these works would probably give him hope again because these words provide comfort and encouragement, which are exactly what he needs at this moment. However, after the impulse, when I reflect on these words, I feel that it is a little inaccurate. Certainly in some occasions it is not correct. A jobseeker may send out thousands of resumes and you may say he starts a thousand times, but he has not found a job yet. In this case, probably you shouldn’t say miracle happened a thousand times. But in some other occasions, a start does take great courage and it is something can be called real miracle, such as the first moon landing in human history, the first one who proposes the idea of “human right”. But the key thing is, for the hopeless person at the moment, he does need these words to warm him and he would rather believe in these words rather than questioning the accuracy of these words. In some cases when people are in a desperate need of psychological comfort, the logic of the pathetic appeals is not so important.
Pathetic appeals work for the appropriate occasion and the frequency to use and overemphasis on them can lead to the publics’ “immunization” to them and the doubt towards the trustfulness of these pathetic appeals, which puts Increasing number of criticism for commercial advertisement shows that people no longer buy their pathetic appeals schemes. Instead, consumers want the concrete description of product rather than the flowery language and the emotional images. Also, previously hugging children promotes the favorable impression of politicians, but when people are too frequently exposed to these scenes, they may be tried of seeing this again and even doubt whether the politician is just doing show trial and thus hugging children can not earn a positive image for the politician. In these cases when people are “immunized” to the pathetic appeals, pathetic appeals are put into an embarrassing situation: no one can totally trust them as they did before.
The primary reason for the prevalence of pathetic appeals is that it is more effective than rational and logical argument to convey message. People tend to count on short cut to process information; therefore people are very likely to accept the information intuitively if the information fits into their expectation or attitude. For example, politicians often use this trick: they argue their assertion, not by logically, but by make emotional appeals such as how the poor or the children are in miserable conditions, and being against their policies is equal to being against children. When talking about children and poor people, which are very emotional images, people will naturally show their sympathy without efforts. Politicians catch these psychological laws and often use these emotional figures in their speech to let people accept their argument without “thinking much”. Probably their argument or assertion is problematic, but most people would not care much about the logic of the argument, which requires some effort to think about.
Although it may be immoral to take advantage of others’ sympathy, sometimes people do need some kind of pathetic appeals. Days ago, I saw a sentence on a T-Shirt: Miracle is not what we accomplish, but the courage to start. At the first sight, these words are really touching and there are certainly pathetic appeals within. For a person who is feeling hopeless and desperate, these works would probably give him hope again because these words provide comfort and encouragement, which are exactly what he needs at this moment. However, after the impulse, when I reflect on these words, I feel that it is a little inaccurate. Certainly in some occasions it is not correct. A jobseeker may send out thousands of resumes and you may say he starts a thousand times, but he has not found a job yet. In this case, probably you shouldn’t say miracle happened a thousand times. But in some other occasions, a start does take great courage and it is something can be called real miracle, such as the first moon landing in human history, the first one who proposes the idea of “human right”. But the key thing is, for the hopeless person at the moment, he does need these words to warm him and he would rather believe in these words rather than questioning the accuracy of these words. In some cases when people are in a desperate need of psychological comfort, the logic of the pathetic appeals is not so important.
Pathetic appeals work for the appropriate occasion and the frequency to use and overemphasis on them can lead to the publics’ “immunization” to them and the doubt towards the trustfulness of these pathetic appeals, which puts Increasing number of criticism for commercial advertisement shows that people no longer buy their pathetic appeals schemes. Instead, consumers want the concrete description of product rather than the flowery language and the emotional images. Also, previously hugging children promotes the favorable impression of politicians, but when people are too frequently exposed to these scenes, they may be tried of seeing this again and even doubt whether the politician is just doing show trial and thus hugging children can not earn a positive image for the politician. In these cases when people are “immunized” to the pathetic appeals, pathetic appeals are put into an embarrassing situation: no one can totally trust them as they did before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)