Monday, September 29, 2014
Different look at pathos
When we talk about pathos it's usually referring to the emotions the writer/speaker is trying to invoke in his or her audience. While it is obvious I rarely think of the emotions of the speaker and the effects they have. Cicero's section The speaker must himself feel the emotions he wishes to excite made me think of the speakers who are masters of manipulating the emotions of their audience. Ones that quickly come to mind are Martin Luther King Jr, John F Kennedy, and Adolf Hitler. Speakers with very different goals all had the emotions they wished to excite, "visibly stamped or rather branded on the advocate himself." (330 left column). I feel this is a very important aspect of pathos which is often overlooked and rarely taught in schools. Even in our class the reading of the Little Mermaid speech was set apart from the others by the speaker's emotions yet we barely touched on its effect. While words have the ability to stir up emotions seeing how much the orator cares about those words could make the difference between going to war or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cody,
ReplyDeleteI wrote about the same section in my blog post so I can relate to everything you have written in yours. Your examples of Martin Luther King Jr, John F Kennedy and Adolf Hitler plus even the reading of the Little Mermaid speech from class the other day are all good examples of different ways to use pathos. I remember sitting in class and being very persuaded by the reading of the Little Mermaid speech because of the speakers use of pathos. In all of these examples the speakers were definitely feeling the "emotions he wishes to excite" which makes them excellent examples. After reading other blog posts about pathos, I think it is important for the speaker to be cautious of the use of pathos as discussed on page 333 because it can become easy to rely on pathos too much. However, that is where ethos and logos are helpful.
Jennie
Cody,
ReplyDeleteI think you pointed out an important section of De Oratore. This particular quality of the speaker himself feeling the emotions he wishes to incite in his audience is certainly a quality of the most effective speakers. A monotonous delivery can ruin any well-written speech. This assertion draws a parallel between rhetors and actors. Surely a good actor expresses the emotions he wishes to evoke. When an actress cries we are inclined to, if she laughs we are inclined to as well. What does this say about rhetoric in general? If a fundamental part of good rhetoric is something a skilled actor can master then what are the moral implications. Earlier rhetors that we have read have expressed that the important aspect of ethos must be earned through virtuous actions. It cannot and should not be faked. But it seems as though a good actor can fake ethos and therefore use his rhetoric without proper moral consideration. For a non-actor, the ethos and pathos necessary to win over and audience must be genuine. It is impossible to convince someone of something you yourself don’t believe in. For an actor, this may not be true. This is a quality that is common among manipulative people and rhetors. For instance, propagandists rarely believe their propaganda, and yet they disseminate it with vigor. Rhetoric is a powerful tool that can be used manipulatively to get others to act in a way a to benefit you, when they think they are really supporting a certain truth. While most rhetors agree that conveying strong emotions for the audience to reflect, it is unfortunate that not all hold the moral stance of the necessity of believing in one’s own argument, rather than just pretending it.
I was recently dragged to a "vision" meeting for a network marketing company held in a couples home. This meeting was all about sucking new people in to sell their products. While everyone else seemed to be drinking the Kool-Aid, I was looking around with fascination at this couples McMansion, decorated in “modern perfect family” i.e. giant family photos - one little blond boy and one little blond girl, over-stuffed leather furniture, and inspirational wall decals. It was obvious that they hold these meetings in their home not because they are too cheap to rent a space for the meetings but rather because building ethos by selling their lifestyle. "Come, sell our products, and you too can have vaulted ceilings, a Mercedes in the driveway, and well-behaved children."
ReplyDeleteBut, when the couple spoke, that was the icing on the cake. Every time the wife spoke about how wrapped up in the rat race of work they were before they started selling these products, her voice would crack. Sniff, sniff, "I got my husband back (crack), all thanks to..."sniff, sniff. The first time I heard it, I actually got sucked in a little bit and believed her emotion. And then I heard it again, and again. She even did it in a video they played with the two of them talking about the life transformation they had gone through when they started schlepping products through a pyramid scheme. Perhaps this woman truly got worked up when she talked about this subject but I think it is more likely that she honed her skill in faking this particular emotional display.
Basically, I do think pathos can be faked and nothing I read in Cicero made me believe that he adamantly believed that the rhetor should be above doing so...