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.

The world of pathos: Tiger woods

I am someone who believes in balance. There is balance in everything that we perceive, feel, and experience. Pathos is no exception to this concept. In this world we dwell in, we have seen exponential growth in technology, globalization, and industrialization all increase on exponential scales; this growth-note that correlation is not always indicative of causation-positively correlates with the patterns of pathos (due to the forces of balance). As it has become more routine to know every single bit of information about the littlest shatoe in a jungle in africa-globalization-the lives of public figures our society cares about, have also been more exposed. This is simply natural and the direct result of balance. The more we know about someone-once again please ignore causation (post-hoc fallacy)-positively correlates-and in this situation causes-with ones salary/worth. This is all due to the power of marketing. If someone is in the public spotlight and mentions a product, it sells. This is simply how this work's, and something like Tiger Wood's privacy hindering because of this movement, is simply just the balancing of an equation. Tiger make's 80 million on MKT deals alone. So essentially what that means is, he gets paid 80 million dollars for his public image. If his public image is disturbed, not only will he loose money, people we know. Look at this mathematically, Good at sports=public image, Public image + being a good citizen = money, Money + being a bad citizen= loss of money. IT BALANCES JUST LIKE AN EQUATION AND THIS IS LIFE!