Have you noticed
that many of the women rhetoricians we’ve read highly stress reason and logic in writing and barely even touch upon pathos? I’m guessing that they do so to build their own ethos; as
women, they would be accused of being too “emotional,” unfit to compete in the “rational
man’s” world. Mary Astell writes, “For the design of Rhetoric is…to Reduce the
Passions to the Government of Reasons” (852 2nd column). In fact,
her entire piece is pretty much dedicated to the betterment of ladies’ minds. Astell is definitely pulling the
logos card here.
And yet, she
seems to also suggest the importance of pathos in a very subtle way. When she
advises to “Reduce the Passions to the Government of Reasons,” she could mean
one of two things:
1. passions
(emotions) should be reduced to such an extent that reason and logic replaces them (so that “government”
means “government of self”; a person is governed by logic rather than emotion)
or
2. passions
should be controlled by reason (so that “government” means “government of the
passions”).
We could argue
for either of these interpretations, but I think the second interpretation is probably
more accurate; Astell goes on to say that the purpose of rhetoric is “to place
our Subject in a Right Light, and excite our Hearers to a due consideration of
it” (852 2nd column). If I’m not mistaken, to “excite” someone
involves provoking his or her passion and emotion. In other words, we should
stir the passion/emotion of the audience (“excite our Hearers”) before they may
logically consider the topic (“a due consideration of [our Subject]”). However,
Astell also seems to support a reason-controlled
passion. We cannot logically accept something without the support of emotion,
and yet our passions also cannot approve something our minds have rejected.
Upon closer inspection, Astell doesn’t seem to so much discount pathos as to disguise
it within the complexities of logos.
Sadie, you bring up a good point about our female rhetors avoiding pathos. Astell’s fixation on logic and the mind, as you said, reminds me of Aristotle’s rhetorical theory. As we can recall, he, too, “pulls the logos card” and only grudgingly accepts ethos and pathos due to the “defects of our hearers” (237, left column). I like your thought that Astell “disguises pathos” rather than discounts it. Any intelligent rhetor/rhetorician would probably agree that good persuasion must include some emotional connection with the audience. However, for those logic-minded writers, like Astell and Ramus, it makes sense to bind pathos to reason.
ReplyDelete