I'm sure we have all been following the protests in Libya with intense interest for the past week. Hopefully, I'm not the only one constantly refreshing Al Jazeera's live blog of the protests. Of particular interest is Gadaffi's remarks during this whole event. During a speech on Tuesday, he referred to the protesters as "rats" and "mercenaries" and accused them of being on hallucinogenic drugs. Unsurprisingly, this speech has actually been blamed for further angering the protectors, and accelerating Gadaffi's inevitable downfall. Not to mention the widespread condemnation it brought from the rest of the world.
Now, the fact that Gaddafi's speech failed to rally Libyans to his side is unsurprising given his harsh despotic rule and the the fact that he's widely considered to be insane. But it does illustrate a key point when trying to persuade people to your side. Don't insult your opposition. First off, by making the argument personal all you'll end up doing is adding to your opposition resolve, who will be more determined to prove your wrong. A similiar situation was during the Iranian protests of 2009 where the President of Iran referred to protesters as "dust in the wind", which only furthered increased the protests who angrily chanted "we are not dust". And, as Gadaffi showed us, insulting your opposition hurts the legitimacy of your arguments. Granted, Gadaffi had few legitimacy left at this point but worldwide condemnation did seem to increase after that speech.
So basically, when you're in a debate with someone, remember to not make the argument personal. All it will do is hurt any legitimate points you had. This can be applied for a variety of situations, such as an informal debate with a friend, an organized debate with a debate club, or if you end up a leader of a third-world nation through a military coup and are trying to brutally suppress a popular uprising.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Pathos in Mad Men
So, Mad Men is one of my favorite shows. And while reading the chapter on pathos, I couldn't help but remember this scene.
Mad Men: The Carousel
This scene is without a doubt the definition of pathos. The scene starts out with the Kodak representatives asking if the ad Don Draper has prepared makes note of the fact that the projector uses a wheel, an idea which obviously would not have resonated with the ad's audience. The Kodak representative's statement "wheels aren't seen as exciting technology even though they are the original" sounds unbearably dull.
Don then changes the subject and says that while technology can be a "glittering lure...there's the rare occasion where the public can be engaged on a level beyond flash". He never actually uses the word pathos, but he might as well have. When the slide show of Don's family plays, the audience understands fully the powerful effect of nostalgia as a form of pathos. While the slides alone are sweet and sentimental, the music is what does it. Through the music, the audience feels like they are being transported to Don Draper's past and are watching a flashback, not merely a slide-show. By the end of the slide-show, one of the executives, Harry Crane, leaves the room crying and the Kodak representatives are left awestruck.
This scene, which is probably one of the most moving scenes in the history of television, perfectly shows how powerful pathos can be. At the same time, it shows that pathos can be very hard to pull off, as not every object or topic will strike an emotional cord with the audience. Don himself mentions this, and demonstrates how a slide projector is one of the few products for which pathos can be used, since its entire purpose is to relive memories.
So, while you should consider every opportunity to use pathos in a speech, you must carefully consider whether or not your pathos can be used for your topic or if it will resonate with your audience Otherwise, your pathos could fall flat, or even worse, be considered overtly sentimental.
Mad Men: The Carousel
This scene is without a doubt the definition of pathos. The scene starts out with the Kodak representatives asking if the ad Don Draper has prepared makes note of the fact that the projector uses a wheel, an idea which obviously would not have resonated with the ad's audience. The Kodak representative's statement "wheels aren't seen as exciting technology even though they are the original" sounds unbearably dull.
Don then changes the subject and says that while technology can be a "glittering lure...there's the rare occasion where the public can be engaged on a level beyond flash". He never actually uses the word pathos, but he might as well have. When the slide show of Don's family plays, the audience understands fully the powerful effect of nostalgia as a form of pathos. While the slides alone are sweet and sentimental, the music is what does it. Through the music, the audience feels like they are being transported to Don Draper's past and are watching a flashback, not merely a slide-show. By the end of the slide-show, one of the executives, Harry Crane, leaves the room crying and the Kodak representatives are left awestruck.
This scene, which is probably one of the most moving scenes in the history of television, perfectly shows how powerful pathos can be. At the same time, it shows that pathos can be very hard to pull off, as not every object or topic will strike an emotional cord with the audience. Don himself mentions this, and demonstrates how a slide projector is one of the few products for which pathos can be used, since its entire purpose is to relive memories.
So, while you should consider every opportunity to use pathos in a speech, you must carefully consider whether or not your pathos can be used for your topic or if it will resonate with your audience Otherwise, your pathos could fall flat, or even worse, be considered overtly sentimental.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Differences of Rhetoric in China
So, I started studying Chinese last semester and am probably going to end up majoring in it. I'm also hoping to study abroad in China this summer. Since I've started studying Chinese, I've learned a little bit about Chinese culture which deals with personal relationships and rhetoric, both from my class and from my Chinese friends.
One notable instance is eye contact. Our textbooks tells us to look people in the eye when we make a speech. The inability to look people in the eye is often associated with shiftlessness and nervousness. It is completely different in China. It is considered disrespectful to make eye contact with a person. Most Chinese people will look downward when they make conversation.
A big part of Chinese politeness is humbleness. In the west, when someone compliments you, it's considered perfectly acceptable to accept the compliment. In China however, it's expected that you deflect or downplay all compliments directed towards you. For example, if someone complimented your clothes, you would say that you just threw on the first thing you grabbed out of the closet, or that your clothes are old and ratty. In fact, the proper response to "thank you" in Chinese is "bù kèqi" (不客气), which literally means "Don't Thank Me".
Although, in some ways, the Chinese are more informal than us. There used to be equivalent terms to "Mr." and "Mrs." in mainland China, but they died out with the communist revolution. They were replaced with revolutionary terms, but those too died out. Now, in mainland China, it is common to call adults who are close acquaintances or are strangers of equal or lower status to yourself, and are the same age as your parents, "uncle" and "aunt". For example, you would address your friend's parents as "aunt" and "uncle".
All in all, this helps illustrate to things. One, that guidelines of rhetoric are far from universal, and can vary quite differently from culture to culture. And two, that you must adapt your speech to your current audience. Especially if they are of a different culture than you.
One notable instance is eye contact. Our textbooks tells us to look people in the eye when we make a speech. The inability to look people in the eye is often associated with shiftlessness and nervousness. It is completely different in China. It is considered disrespectful to make eye contact with a person. Most Chinese people will look downward when they make conversation.
A big part of Chinese politeness is humbleness. In the west, when someone compliments you, it's considered perfectly acceptable to accept the compliment. In China however, it's expected that you deflect or downplay all compliments directed towards you. For example, if someone complimented your clothes, you would say that you just threw on the first thing you grabbed out of the closet, or that your clothes are old and ratty. In fact, the proper response to "thank you" in Chinese is "bù kèqi" (不客气), which literally means "Don't Thank Me".
Although, in some ways, the Chinese are more informal than us. There used to be equivalent terms to "Mr." and "Mrs." in mainland China, but they died out with the communist revolution. They were replaced with revolutionary terms, but those too died out. Now, in mainland China, it is common to call adults who are close acquaintances or are strangers of equal or lower status to yourself, and are the same age as your parents, "uncle" and "aunt". For example, you would address your friend's parents as "aunt" and "uncle".
All in all, this helps illustrate to things. One, that guidelines of rhetoric are far from universal, and can vary quite differently from culture to culture. And two, that you must adapt your speech to your current audience. Especially if they are of a different culture than you.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Kairos in the Egyptian Political Crisis
What's interesting to observe, as the Egyptian political crisis continues to unfold, is how delicate many of the involved parties tend to be in their speech, almost downplaying the significance of the crisis. Besides the actual Egyptians, rioting and screaming in the streets of course.
First, we have President Mubarak, who hilariously stated that he decided not to "run" for "re-election" this September, as if he merely has low approval rating, and not actually facing a violent revolution against his thirty year dictatorial rule.
But more interestingly we have President Obama and other members of the White House administration. Since the US is now facing the awkward situation of having a popular uprising against their backed dictator, whom they've funneled about a billion dollar a year foreign aid, the US can't just stay by Mubarak or give their support to the protesters. First, Obama urged "restraint" for both sides. But now that it seems definite that Mubarak will soon be overthrown, Hilary Clinton has said that she wants an "orderly transition to democracy" from Mubarak.
What all of this illustrates is the principle of kairos. How a person's speech must be adapted for present conditions. Since it was obviously in the US's interest to keep Mubarak in power, Obama tried to merely diffuse the situation by urging "restraint". But when it became apparent that Mubarak would not be able to stay in power, the US had to begin to voice support for the protestors, otherwise it would look like the US does not support democracy. At the same time, the US has not given vocal support to the protestors, due to the fear in the US that the revolution will overthrow the secularist government and replace it with an Islamist government which will attack Israel.
While it may be morally dubious that the US is not vocally supporting democracy, this whole event does illustrate the importance of being flexible in your speech and being able to adapt to changing conditions. If you don't adhere to the principle of kairos, you could find that your rhetoric harms rather than helps your cause, or could make you look bad in the future.
First, we have President Mubarak, who hilariously stated that he decided not to "run" for "re-election" this September, as if he merely has low approval rating, and not actually facing a violent revolution against his thirty year dictatorial rule.
But more interestingly we have President Obama and other members of the White House administration. Since the US is now facing the awkward situation of having a popular uprising against their backed dictator, whom they've funneled about a billion dollar a year foreign aid, the US can't just stay by Mubarak or give their support to the protesters. First, Obama urged "restraint" for both sides. But now that it seems definite that Mubarak will soon be overthrown, Hilary Clinton has said that she wants an "orderly transition to democracy" from Mubarak.
What all of this illustrates is the principle of kairos. How a person's speech must be adapted for present conditions. Since it was obviously in the US's interest to keep Mubarak in power, Obama tried to merely diffuse the situation by urging "restraint". But when it became apparent that Mubarak would not be able to stay in power, the US had to begin to voice support for the protestors, otherwise it would look like the US does not support democracy. At the same time, the US has not given vocal support to the protestors, due to the fear in the US that the revolution will overthrow the secularist government and replace it with an Islamist government which will attack Israel.
While it may be morally dubious that the US is not vocally supporting democracy, this whole event does illustrate the importance of being flexible in your speech and being able to adapt to changing conditions. If you don't adhere to the principle of kairos, you could find that your rhetoric harms rather than helps your cause, or could make you look bad in the future.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)