Kennedy – A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric

Based on animal observations and research, Kennedy offers his eight theses which present rhetoric as being prior to (or a “necessary condition for”) just about everything—speech, writing, intentionality, etc.  Not being well informed on animal communication, I was quite impressed with the evidence he showed for rhetoric’s presence long before the evolution of humans. I also like Kennedy’s writing style; he makes some far-reaching claims, but is careful not to extend those claims beyond that for which he has evidence.  Aside from general praise for Kennedy, there was one section which particularly caught my eye.

On page 7 Kennedy presents his second thesis, stating that “The receiver’s interpretation of a communication is prior to the speaker’s intent in determining the meaning.” With “prior” being somewhat ambiguous, Kennedy further elaborates, noting that “what the receiver is already conditioned to do on receipt of a certain message—the receiver’s knowledge of the rhetorical code—determines what the receiver does when the message arrives (emphasis added) (7-8).  In this sense, the interpretation of the message by the audience is the “more primitive and a more basic criterion in meaning” (8).  And Kennedy offers evidence of this view, noting that some male birds’ mating calls function to inform other males that the territory is occupied, and simultaneously function to inform females of the male’s readiness to mate (8).

This excited my interest because it seems to contradict our society’s notion of speech’s meaning. Indeed, Kennedy admits that “In human society, rhetoric is, however, usually given some direction and form by varying degrees of intentionality on the part of a speaker.” (8). Still, he goes on to present in his next thesis that “rhetoric is prior to intentionality or to any belief on the part of a speaker…” (9). So Kennedy seems to place a lot more weight on audience reception than on authorial intent.  This reminded me of a discussion we had in class last week, where Davis noted that (paraphrasing) regardless of a rhetor’s intent, they are still responsible for the effects of their words, for the actions that people take based on their communication.  Several of us tried to get Davis to rephrase this, and express it as a causal relationship, rather than one of “responsibility.” I, for instance, noted that our legal system doesn’t generally hold people accountable for consequences they didn’t intend.  Upon reflection, that’s not completely true. We hold people accountable for negligence.  Also, when people take actions that have consequences they didn’t anticipate, but that a “reasonable person” should have anticipated, they’re still culpable.  So you can be legally responsible for a lot of things that aren’t part of your intent.  This reflection helped me to appreciate where Kennedy and Davis were coming from.  Once your words leave your mouth or pen (or you press “send” on that email) your intent seems to lose relevance. Sure, intent guided your construction of the argument. But once the rhetorical speech is spoken, the meaning seems to be primarily defined by its reception.

I take from this that rhetors(and people in general) must be incredibly careful and sensitive to the way their words will impact listeners now and in the future.  However, this seems to be a daunting task, when we can never know for certain what the future will bring.

Damasio “Descartes’ Error” Ch 1-4

I was truly impressed by the distinction between functioning “intellect” (and other sensory/cognitive functions) and impaired “emotion/feeling & rational decision making” that Damasio’s work produced. I can’t really quote an exact page number because the entire 4 chapters built and espoused this newly-discovered revelation.  People can be intellectually sound (like Elliot, from chapter 3, who passed all of the psych tests with flying colors), and still “catatonically indecisive” (in the case of the near comatose woman who recovered in chapter 4) or incapable of “reach[ing] decisions… [and] mak[ing] an effective plan” as we saw with all of the case studies. (Damasio 37).  It echoes the interconnectedness of rational decision making and emotion that we’ve been dealing with all semester.  It goes further, even, providing a tangible, empirical basis for this connection.

Also, I found one line telling (especially for us Rhetoric majors): “Nor will I deny that seemingly normal reason can be disturbed by subtle biases rooted in emotion.  For instance, a patient is more likely to prefer a treatment if told that 90 percent of those treated are alive five years later, than if told that 10 percent are dead.” (Damasio 52). (Here, Damasio is actually talking about the support for the common notion that “emotion can be a major source of irrational behavior.” (52).)

We’re probably all cognizant of the reasons behind this. In the former case, the focus is upon life, and it is stressed that the treatment preserves life 90% of the time. In considerably dire circumstances, this would certainly seem appealing.  The hope of preservation of life is what drives the reasoning, which in turn elects the treatment. In the latter case, the focus is upon death, and it is stressed that the treatment causes death 10% of the time. In considerably dire circumstances, this should still seem appealing (from a strictly rational standpoint).  But, as Damasio notes (and our intuition echoes), it’s not. The fear of death *intersects* with the reasoning, guiding the patient to opt out.  Fear can be a much stronger motivator than hope.

The way a question is framed has a huge impact on how it is answered.  This is seemingly why our legal system lets attorneys ask leading questions during cross-examination (when the witness is presumably hostile) but not while questioning their own witnesses (who are likely to have a bias toward answering the way the attorney wants anyways).  The use of the “leading question”, with its inherent bias, may only be used to mitigate another bias (hostile cross-examination), not to exacerbate one.  Damasio’s work seems to retroactively justify this convention, and reveal that it really serves equitable justice, as opposed to being another arbitrary rule handed down from days of old.  

Outside of the legal realm, framing is still at work.  The psychology students among us are no-doubt aware of the “framing effect”, and its interplay with gains/losses and risk aversion.  We are all so incredibly manipulate-able, via our emotions, that we are likely to choose almost any option if it’s presented to us the right way.  This is perhaps good news if you’re the orator; Its also a strong caution to the recipient of the persuasive speech.  Damasio suggested that knowledge of Elliot’s compromised free will (38) justified him receiving disability benefits. It wasn’t that he was lazy; he was categorically incapable of electing a sound plan and following through with it.  If we’re really this susceptible to the way things are framed to us, how much free will does the “normal” (Non frontal-lobe-damaged) mind have?

Visual Analysis - Montana Meth Project PSA

Context – I found this image looking through a web browser, but it was originally posted on the Montana Meth Project’s website, www.montanameth.org. They inspired a national organization, whose site is www.notevenonce.com. The organization publicized this image in various print media, such as billboards, newspapers and the internet. The images creator claims to target Montana youth ages 12-17. So while the intended audience seems to be teenagers, the myriad media used ensure a much wider actual audience. Given their policy statement, they are focused overridingly on preventing first-time use. This is reiterated by their motto “Not Even Once.” Thus, they’re focused on potential meth users far more than they’re focused on current meth users.

Emotions – The pathemata in this image come in waves. First, the brightly-colored lipstick and the bright white text to the left jump to the audience’s attention, setting a lighthearted tone.  At a glance, the appearance of the girls themselves offers no challenge to this. They’re dressed in casual, colorful clothing and light jewelry. The content of the text: “my friends and I share everything” reinforces the visual components and instills a sense of fondness and amiability, as one draws upon notions of youthful friendships.  Then the audience momentarily glances at the worried look on one girl’s face (the girl on the left). This evokes slight apprehension and tenseness by stimulating our human capacity for empathy (ex. mirror neutrons).  This slight change from positive emotions becomes a complete reversal as the viewer reads the broken, blotchy text to the right: “now we share hepatitis and HIV.” The viewer feels alarmed and shocked at the calamity that the second sentence implies. As one looks back at the image, the girls’ faces tell a new story. The dark circles under their eyes, their greasy, grimy hair, and the blank, mindless expression on the other girl’s face are revealed for what they are. We suddenly realize that their physical appearance isn’t the harmless result of a couple of hours spent sweating in a club; it’s the beginning stages meth addiction.  This changes the pathetic effect of their appearance from one that invokes fondness to one of repulsion.  Dismay and hopelessness set in as we realize the tragic fate of these seemingly innocent young girls, now condemned to suffer through deadly, incurable diseases.  The lipstick changes its emotional statement as well, as we realize that the harmless gesture of sharing lipstick is being paralleled to the haphazard way that drug users share needles. Thus, it finally becomes a powerful symbol of broken trust and lost innocence, invoking anguish and dismay.

Behavior – This image, doubtlessly, inspires the viewer to abstain from doing methamphetamines. It also serves to increase awareness of the risks of unprotected sex and intravenous drug abuse, and may encourage current meth users to quit.  Principally, though, it’s aimed at getting the audience to never try meth—not even once.

Interpretation – The link between the affect and the behavior is rather straightforward. The audience’s feelings of fear and sadness are intended to translate into a belief that meth is destructive, in general, and sharing needles (or having unprotected sex) is worse. It is suggested, implicitly, that meth use and sharing needles (and having unprotected sex) are inseparable (that is, everyone who does meth shares needles and/or has unprotected sex). This serves to remove a layer of insulation from the feelings of fear and sadness. Viewers can’t reassure themselves that they might do meth, but would never share needles or have unprotected sex. In a nutshell, this image invokes the following interpretation: Meth use leads to IV drug use and unprotected sex. IV drug use leads to sharing needles. Sharing needles and unprotected sex lead to HIV and hepatitis. Hepatitis and HIV lead to death. But all of this happens so instantaneously that the only conscious interpretation would be “If I try meth, I’m going to end up dying because of it.”

Demographics – This image seems to strongly target a specific group: teenage girls. Some obvious indicators of this are the gender of the people displayed in the image, and the presence of the lipstick. The first phrase, “my friends and I share everything”, when combined with the lipstick, and the girls clothes, seems to target mainstream cliques of girls. The girls are both rather thin and not-unattractive, which can be interpreted two ways. The first, and more direct, is that they are focusing on these types of girls—popular, mainstream, conventional, lipstick-lovin’ American girls, as opposed to the introverted, “loner”, counterculture girls that mainstream society probably associates more with meth use. This is consistent with the sponsoring organization’s note that meth has spread rapidly into the mainstream. Another interpretation would be that they are targeting the other group-the loners.  Everything in the girls' appearances suggest that these are the “popular” girls whose acceptance would be appealing to a “non-popular” girl. This interpretation might have merit because this loner/non-popular/outcast stereotype is perceived as doing meth for two reasons: to be socially accepted, and to lose weight (stimulants cause weight loss). This image offers this group a caution: if you try meth, you may gain friends, and you may lose weight, but you’ll pay for it dearly.

Whether it appeals to the mainstream, the socially outcast or both, the appeal is clearly tailored to the young.  Aristotle’s comments on the young, though meant to apply only to men, might be universal.  No matter the gender, we youths tend to “look at the good side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. [We] trust others readily, because [we] have not yet been cheated.” (On Rhetoric, bk 2, ch 12, para 2). This image offers a taste of the bad, the wickedness, and those who would cheat us out of our lives.

Nussbaum, Aristotle and Anger

In Martha Craven Nussbaum’s article, “Aristotle on Emotions and Rational Persuasion”, I was particularly intrigued by one line. Nussbaum, in consolidating Aristotle’s views on emotions and rational persuasion (views which seem, at times, to conflict each other) states that “Anger is said to be a necessary motivation for defending things that are beloved—presumably because anger is seen as an acknowledgment that the item damaged has importance and without that acknowledgment one will have no reason to defend it.” (Nussbaum 316).

For me, this seems to be a critical and often overlooked reality of the modern world.  We are quick to discount anger as counter-productive. As we read in our courses’ earlier texts, American society presents logic and rationality as the only legitimate bases for decisions.  This flies in the face of the real decision-making process (from a neurological perspective), as Walker notes when he reminds us that those with “no-affect… would have difficulty forming any motive or intention whatsoever, would be in a state of profound indifference.” (Walker 84). So, a person who has no emotional dispositions, rather than being the epitome of the rational decision-maker, is nearly catatonic with indecisiveness. 

In class, one student said something along the lines of “anger always gets such a bad rap, but in my opinion it’s the most important emotion to invoke in an audience” (If you said this, and I’ve mis-paraphrased please correct me!). My immediate, internal reaction was one of disapproval. Anger, it seems, has all-too-often been used to the detriment of rational “good” decisions. Hitler’s defamation of Jewish people would be the common example. But after reading Walker and Nussbaum, I’m beginning to think that anger may be crucial in discourse. After all, a lack of anger is indicative of a lack of values, an absence of things that are acknowledged as important (According to the first quote above). I’m beginning to see anger as a necessary expression of values, rather than the loss of rationality. So in reference to the common example, it now seems that our anger at Hitler (‘s anger) is a manifestation of the importance we place upon life, and compassion, over hatred.  Anger at injustice and hatred, then, seems to serve the protection of justice and compassion/love. Maybe we need a little anger, then, to make rational decisions.

Gordon's Visual Analysis

Montana Meth Project PSA

Context – I found this image looking through a web browser, but it was originally posted on the Montana Meth Project’s website, www.montanameth.org. They inspired a national organization, whose site is www.notevenonce.com. The organization publicized this image in various print media, such as billboards, newspapers and the internet. The images creator claims to target Montana youth ages 12-17. So while the intended audience seems to be teenagers, the myriad media used ensure a much wider actual audience. Given their policy statement, they are focused overridingly on preventing first-time use. This is reiterated by their motto “Not Even Once.” Thus, they’re focused on potential meth users far more than they’re focused on current meth users.

Emotions – This image seems to be soliciting several emotions related to fear and sadness. The visual components seem to achieve this through contrast to the words. The audience momentarily glances at the worried look on one girl’s face. This evokes slight apprehension and tenseness by stimulating our human capacity for empathy (ex. mirror neutrons). But the image largely serves to set a visual “tone” that the text contradicts. The text on the right side is bright and consistent, which parallels its content. The lipstick also sets a somewhat lighthearted tone. This tone is changed dramatically by the broken, blotchy text to the right: “Now we share hepatitis and HIV”. The second sentence seems to provoke stronger feelings of fear as well as some degree of horror. By contrasting these two, relatively healthy-looking young women with such powerful text, the image invokes strong feelings of alarm, shock and dismay. The viewer feels alarmed and shocked at the calamity that the second sentence implies. They also feel dismay and hopelessness, because the young girls are condemned to suffer though incurable, deadly diseases.

Behavior – This image, doubtlessly, inspires the viewer to abstain from doing methamphetamines. It also serves to increase awareness of the risks of intravenous drug abuse, and may encourage current meth users to quit. Principally, though, it’s aimed at getting the audience to never try meth-not even once.

Interpretation – The link between the affect and the behavior is rather straightforward. The audience’s feelings of fear and sadness are intended to translate into a belief that meth is destructive, in general, and sharing needles is worse. It is suggested, implicitly, that meth use and sharing needles are inseparable (that is, everyone who does meth shares needles). This serves to remove a layer of insulation from the feelings of fear and sadness (viewers can’t reassure themselves that they might do meth, but never share needles). In a nutshell, this image invokes the following interpretation: Meth use leads to IV drug use. IV drug use leads to sharing needles. Sharing needles leads to HIV and hepatitis. Hepatitis and HIV lead to death. But all of this happens so instantaneously that the only conscious interpretation would be “If I try meth, I’m going to end up dying because of it.”

Demographics – This image seems to strongly target a general group: teenage girls. Some obvious indicators of this are the gender of the people displayed in the image, and the presence of lipstick. The first phrase, “My friends and I share everything”, when combined with the lipstick, seems to target mainstream cliques of girls. The girls are both rather thin and not-unattractive, which can be interpreted two ways. The first, and more direct, is that they are focusing on these types of girls- mainstream, conventional lipstick-lovin’ American girls, as opposed to the introverted, “loner”, counterculture girls that mainstream society probably associates more with meth use. This is consistent with sponsoring organizations note that meth has spread rapidly into the mainstream. Another interpretation would be that they are targeting the other group-the loners. This might be so because this stereotype is perceived as doing meth for two reasons: to be socially accepted, and to lose weight (stimulants cause weight loss). This image offers this group a caution: if you try meth, you may gain friends, and you may lose weight, but you’ll pay for it dearly.

Ethics & Ethos – Aristotle’s Views on Maxims

In book 2, Chapter 21, Aristotle discusses the appropriate uses of maxims.  He defines a maxim as “a statement, not a particular fact… but of a general kind…about questions about practical conduct” (Bk 2, Ch 21, Para 1).  For example, a common maxim might be “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs”.  He goes on to give some general advice about the use of maxims. I found a couple of noteworthy statements in this section.

Aristotle posits, in the last paragraph of the section (1395b) that “One great advantage of Maxims to a speaker is due to the want of intelligence in his hearers, who love to hear him succeed in expressing as a universal truth the opinions which they hold themselves about particular cases” (Ch 21, Para 6).  It seems that for Aristotle the purpose of a maxim is to capitalize on the values of your audience, and trick them into regarding their values as absolute truths. He describes how “people love to hear stated in general terms what they already believe in some particular connexion” (Ch 21, Para 6). Aristotle recommends that the orator guess the subjects on which his audience holds views, and restate these views as general truth (Ch 21, Para 6).  This, presumably, is meant to make an audience more receptive to other things you say.  So, by constructing your views in order that they affirm the values of the audience, you are able to convince them to take other actions your prescribe.  What’s troubling for me is that maxims are virtually never universally true. In fact, many of them contradict each other. For evidence of this, visit this page, which offers competing maxims on various facets of life.  So it seems that anyone could discredit Aristotle merely by stating a competing maxim (assuming there were conflicting maxims).  Also, gaining audience credibility by pretending to share their views (when you don’t) seems morally problematic, and likely to discredit a speaker when their ruse is discovered.  This passage is ironically followed by the claim that “One advantage of using maxims…is more important – to invest a speech with moral character” (Ch 21, Para 6).

Earlier in the chapter, Aristotle seems to advocate outright lying: “To declare a thing to be universally true when it is not is most appropriate when working up feelings of horror and indignation in our hearers.” (Ch 21, Para 5). In other words, hate-mongering is best achieved by lying.  But wait, wasn’t Aristotle a noted advocate of virtue and moderation?  And isn’t misrepresenting yourself to your audience likely to be eventually discovered, thus being detrimental to your moral character?