In the early part of Hauser's chapter titled “The Passions,” he makes a statement that defines his argument concerning pathos. He exclaims that “all thinking engages emotional response.” It is with this as a basic foundation, that we are able to question the validity of both decision-making based on emotions as well as pathos as a means of successful rhetoric. Hauser makes it apparent that emotions are not “things.” This is to say that emotions themselves are part of a holistic response to an experience. Happiness, sadness, fear, grief, etc are not external to who we are proposes Hauser. He also states that feelings are not universal. Depending on a given situation, we all have different emotional responses. I think most immediately of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which evoked a range of emotions in Americans. While we may have experienced different experiences—sadness, anger, remorse, guilt, etc—it would seem that the attitude preceding the events seemed to be universal or at least that was what had been projected by our media. There was a general feeling of patriotism, and renewed energy. However, does the media play a role in designating a universal emotion? To this extent, is emotional appeal a manipulative tool? Americans saw immediately after the attacks an appeal by former President George W. Bush to Americans emotions. He addressed the anger—we are prepared to fight the (“evil-doers”) as well as the sadness (“we will never forget”). Even before individuals could make their own decisions and create their own emotional responses, there seemed to be rhetoric from a place of authority dictating that which we should feel. While this is an integral part of assessing the rhetorical situation (addressing it and then consequentially defining it for an audience) one has to wonder its level of morality. To what extent does this strategy—the defining of emotions for a particular audience—infringe on individuals rights to free-will and a personal decision-making process? It can be argued that above all else this process is manipulative.
A simple question to ask of this specific chapter—and Hauser seems to propose it in his summary—is whether or not “our feelings are appropriate in making wise decisions.” Especially in a western society that values the logical over emotional, it becomes important to question the perceived norm. To what extent does emotion, over intellect and ration, become the most important factor in making decisions? As Hauser states, all of our intellectual experiences are clouded with emotion. While our intellect and cognitive may come first (experience) what defines the situation is our emotional response. With this said, I would argue that emotional appeal is first and foremost what makes us human and unique. The rational, intellectual contrastingly is inherently exterior to what is uniquely personal. Is the emotional what makes us personal and unique and therefore provides even more validity to our arguments? Hauser says that if emotional appeals are coupled with logical arguments then “our emotions are likely to be appropriate responses, essential for considered action.” Does emotion by itself ever justify the decision making process? In what situation?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Response to Lamiah's Questions of 2/2/09. Responded to on 2/9/09.
Lamiah states: 2.Creativity is within us all but is difficult to articulate at times for a range of reasons. In speech writing, it is generally limited by our knowledge, our audience and what we are not allowed to say. In Chapter 6 of Hauser’s textbook, as well as in the majority of rhetorical reasoning texts, we are advised to judge the appropriate setting and to always consider the audience. But, in doing so, how much information can you leave out or skew – what do you leave in the commonplaces? Will being politically correct limit the content or general message of your speech? What if you want to attract “passersby,” as talked about in class? Furthermore, Hauser also places much emphasis on the role of the audience and on their creativity. Subjectivity and personal interpretations are expected after viewing an abstract painting or reading a certain poem, but are they after hearing a speech? Hauser claims it is “what we do with what he [speaker – Chris Rock] invents – in our heads and hearts and actions – that is at the core of rhetorical argument.” How much creativity do you think is expected of the receiver and how much room for interpretation should there be?
Lamiah poses some interesting questions, many of which are unanswerable without knowing the specifics of any given situation. However, generally speaking, I think many would argue that the speaker is only a foundation for creativity. This is to say that much of the responsibility is endowed on the receiver who interprets a message based on his/her own individual creativity. A speaker cannot force interpretation. When it comes down to it, individuals will consume any given message however they are structured to do so. For example, a gay man takes a message very differently from a heterosexual man when it comes to Barack Obama discussing something such as marriage rights. While Obama wants to appeal to both audiences, he must leave room for interpretation as he does not want any one group to become alienated. It is a balancing act to which audience demographics takes huge importance. As to whether or not being politically correct will limit a message, I would disagree. Perhaps I have faith in the collective human race that searches for answers outside of speeches, but I would argue that an act of rhetoric is merely one outlet to gain information on a specific message. There are other avenues to which we can research and understand an issue. Those who remain stagnant with a singular definition of a situation are neglecting discourse. The cyclical relationship between situation and discourse needs to be in constant motion.
Burke's/Philpott's notion of “persuasion by perspective” is somewhat negligent of the fact that individuals have the ability to think and define a situation for themselves. The persuasion by perspective approach insists that a speaker shapes the way people think about the situation they are in. While this may be true in many cases, this negates the possibility of any “receiver” creativity. Ultimately people think for themselves. Much like a poem or a painting, a speech is up for interpretation. Whether discussing a set of exigencies in a speech, appealing to pathos or logos or simply physical movements in the presentation of a message—people react differently and therefore form opinions. The audience is capable of making informed decisions given a messengers chosen content. DeVito's states that meaning is essentially created. Situations of rhetoric make possible “unique” meaning not necessarily defined by the speaker but rather the receiver.
Lamiah poses some interesting questions, many of which are unanswerable without knowing the specifics of any given situation. However, generally speaking, I think many would argue that the speaker is only a foundation for creativity. This is to say that much of the responsibility is endowed on the receiver who interprets a message based on his/her own individual creativity. A speaker cannot force interpretation. When it comes down to it, individuals will consume any given message however they are structured to do so. For example, a gay man takes a message very differently from a heterosexual man when it comes to Barack Obama discussing something such as marriage rights. While Obama wants to appeal to both audiences, he must leave room for interpretation as he does not want any one group to become alienated. It is a balancing act to which audience demographics takes huge importance. As to whether or not being politically correct will limit a message, I would disagree. Perhaps I have faith in the collective human race that searches for answers outside of speeches, but I would argue that an act of rhetoric is merely one outlet to gain information on a specific message. There are other avenues to which we can research and understand an issue. Those who remain stagnant with a singular definition of a situation are neglecting discourse. The cyclical relationship between situation and discourse needs to be in constant motion.
Burke's/Philpott's notion of “persuasion by perspective” is somewhat negligent of the fact that individuals have the ability to think and define a situation for themselves. The persuasion by perspective approach insists that a speaker shapes the way people think about the situation they are in. While this may be true in many cases, this negates the possibility of any “receiver” creativity. Ultimately people think for themselves. Much like a poem or a painting, a speech is up for interpretation. Whether discussing a set of exigencies in a speech, appealing to pathos or logos or simply physical movements in the presentation of a message—people react differently and therefore form opinions. The audience is capable of making informed decisions given a messengers chosen content. DeVito's states that meaning is essentially created. Situations of rhetoric make possible “unique” meaning not necessarily defined by the speaker but rather the receiver.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
