Eulogy

This class has been something of an odd experience for me. Being a Journalism major has taught me to approach writing with a certain structure in mind. Composing clear and concise sentences. Using simple, yet expressive, prose. I have been taught how to manage my words on the sentence level. This class was more about the feel of writing. While this has been something that I have always been aware of and toyed with in my other writing pursuits it has been something outside the focus of my academic study. Approaching the feel and logic behind discourse was entirely refreshing for me. It reminded me why I decided to pursue a writing intensive major.

If I could make one suggestion to improve the course it would be this: reduce the assigned number of blog posts and increase presence of peer reviewed papers. While blog posts reduce the physical paper load of the class it does not foster the same level of writing analysis that the in class group sessions provided. Reading my words aloud to a group really helped me understand the flow of my argument and I could hear where my paper needed work.

All in all this class was an enjoyable writing class. While I did not always see the connection between lecture and lab, and often doubted any true synergy existed between the two I feel that I learned a great deal. Both teachers were enthusiastic and always had more to say than each day than the allotted time slot allowed.

A Beautiful Failure

Mankind has always sought to capture an idea in time. From petroglyphs on to hieroglyphs and into the modern age of writing man has tried to store and convey experience through the written word. However, even thousands of years of evolution in human discourse have come up short. There is still no way to transcribe the true essence of thought. I think that one of the reasons for this is that as a species we lack the capabilities to truly comprehend any experience entirely. When I attempt to describe a city I am limited by how I perceive the world. My concept of Madison and someone else's can be entirely different. This does not mean that either are less truthful. Both of us are simply limited by our schema of understanding.

Another way in which the written word fails to encapsulate human experience is its inability to truly capture an emotional appeal. Do not misunderstand me, I have been moved by the words of many authors. But, the true heart wrenching agony of a personal loss or the love felt for one's family can never be conveyed with simple language. As a species we have always understood that text has its limits. This is one of the reasons why emoticons, as lackluster as they are, became so popular. It is simply another attempt to embed text with meaning.

I wish that I could visit Earth several hundred years from now to see evolution of human discourse. Just as I am sure man will still be trying to supplement their ability to capture an idea, I am equally sure we shall still fall agonizingly short.

closing statements

In terms of aggregate good done by a class, this class checked out. I very much enjoyed ILS 200; it required me to excel in writing through fun and creative assignments. I enjoyed the assignments a lot actually, and I went beyond the class and stepped up my reading just so I could properly portray my rhetoric; this class helped me see how important portraying what you want to say is, and how to do it. Capturing the philosophy of why we do something is not only important for following through with action; it’s a virtue for the learning process. This was facilitated through this class: Success!

Pathos is an interesting beast. It requires a person who is delivering a message to tailor their presentation towards an appropriate audience in order to disclose their information in the way that they see fit: to lock their message in their viewers mind, just the way they want. Celebrities around the world fall victim towards this in a strange way: how they present them self. They need to be concerned with their actions on a 24/7 basis. Though this might seem unfair to an alien, it makes complete sense to a cognitive human. Google search any of these athletes salaries; with the unique accepting of A-Rod-whom only get's 6 million from his endorsements-the major athletes in the world, and especially tiger woods, derive the majority of their salaries from endorsements, or at least a substantial chunk (40 percent or more). What does this mean? These athletes are the best sales people in the world. Big name companies pay these guys copious amounts of green because they are, for one excellent at their sport, and secondly becuase they have a solid image that they can associate with their company--which in turn leads to sales. When someone like tiger-who over 80% of his salary is based off of his image-get's him self in trouble by doing something that everyone see's as extremely unethical, you better believe everyone is going to here about it. It's only right for the integrity of these companies: the companies essentially responsible for these athletes wealth. Am I saying that anyone who chooses such a profession-one in which requires public light-deserves to have everyone know each intricate detail concerning their life? No, absolutely not, but what I am saying is many athletes accept sponsorships-sponsors which choose them based off of their public image-and it is only fair to these sponsors to maintain their image.

public discourse too pathetic?

On a whole, public discourse, along with most aspects of mainstream media, have become a little too pathetic. While use of pathos or appeals to emotion can be positive for getting more and more people interested in a certain topic, it fails to logically inform these people in order for logical discussion to take place. For example, ask the question of whether or not the U.S. needs health-care reform (uh oh touchy subject). Dramatic stories and situations that appeal to the emotions of Americans could point to positive reinforcement as to why health-care reform is necessary. On the contrary, scare tactics and hypothetical projections could point out negative aspects and repercussions of health-care reform. However, these dramatic appeals do not inform us of the specifications of the reform and what we can expect from it. If facts and information were presented instead of sob stories that have a tendency to dramatically slant our opinions on certain topics, then logical discussion could be had and necessities could be determined. After all, people can believe in health-care reform, but may see it necessary to meet somewhere in the middle of the opinions of the far left and far right. This thought process could be applicable in most topics of public discourse, and would provide a more fair and accurate argument for discussion. Unfortunately, I do not see much light at the end of a very dark tunnel of pathetic appeal, especially because the mainstream media is one of the largest contributors to emotional appeal. No matter what major news channel you look at, all use pathos to sway their viewer to one specific political party whether it be Democrat or Republican. No matter how fair and balanced you think your news channel of choice is, your opinion is most likely slanted because your political affiliation probably matches that of the certain channel you watch. These news channels know their audiences, and use whatever type of pathetic appeal necessary to fit their demographics. Is there a realistic solution to this never ending problem of pathetic appeal? I really hope there is a solution, but I wouldn't cross my fingers.

The Politics of Pathos: Neither Good Nor Bad

It has been argued that discourse today is far too pathetically slanted. Examples of this can be seen most prevalently when watching political pundits but the trend dominates most forms of mass media today (especially television). If this is a good or bad thing is a topic I am extremely split on. On the one hand over dramatizing everything makes participants in discourse reliant on emotion and makes them apt to overlook, or downplay logical arguments. Appeals to emotions have become the norm in modern society. While this is an extremely detrimental side effect, having a pathetically minded populace does have its benefits. Foremost people are much more in tune with their feelings and this does wonders for mental health. Secondly, people become much more engaged in a topic if it tugs at their heartstrings or plays on their fears. Advertisers have been using this technique since Edward Bernays imported it into commerce from his days as a propagandist in South America during WWII. Engagement is the key to interaction and as long as people become involved with discourse this is a start.

While moving towards a more logically minded schema of discourse would be extraordinary it does not seem that this will be the case any time soon. Mass media outlets provide a framework for how people structure their own discourse. We are bombarded by advertisements and other forms of pathetic content literally thousands of times a day. And the way that mass media is shaped today seems to suggest that this trend will only increase in the future. So good or bad this is a framework that is here to stay.

While some may find this future bleak we must understand that this is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history civilizations usually reach a point where discourse is saturated with pathetic appeals. In the United States this has been most prevalent in politics but elsewhere across the globe many civilizations have faced the same conditions. As long as we are able to learn from other cultures (and equally importantly, our own) this is a trend that can be utilized to do tremendous good by encouraging discourse and fostering engagement.

Public Discourse

Public discourse requires a certain balance between pathos, ethos and logos. But in our current form of public discourse is pathos being used more than it should, is the balance becoming unbalanced? Some might say yes, I say it depends. It depends on your perspective. Currently it takes a lot to get people’s attention and weighting a message heavily with pathetic appeals creates something that is hard for people to ignore. Sometimes it is necessary for us to use a strong appeal towards emotion in order to get our point across.

It seems to be necessary to use a strong emotional appeal in order to send a message but should it be necessary? I believe that, in public discourse, pathos, ethos and logos, should remain in balance regardless of what grabs people’s attention. Especially in politics because when politicians use heavy emotional appeals and less logic and ethics we, as an audience, miss out on important information because politicians are only telling us stuff that appeals to our emotions and they are not telling us the whole story. It can be deceiving and honesty is something that we look for in politicians.

I think currently, pathetic appeals are too prevalent in our public discourse, it is often hard to wade through fact and fiction and playing off our emotions makes it even harder. It is too easy to use pathetic appeals to pad your messages, whether it be in politics or something else and I don’t think that is a legitimate reason for its use. When we can successfully fix the balance between pathos, ethos and logos public discourse can truly be effective.