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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
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
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tucson Shooting
So, probably like everyone else in the class, my post is going to mention the State of the Union Address. Obama started off the speech by taking note of the Tucson shooting and praying for the health of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Obama then takes note of how bitter and contentious public debate in the US has become in the past two years and says that the shooting "gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater – something more consequential than party or political preference".
Here's something we should be asking ourselves however: What does it say about us as a country when it takes six people shot to death to finally make us realize that actual civil discourse has become nonexistent, and has instead been replaced by hateful, partisan and toxic shouting matches?
The US Congress responded to this tragedy by having a few representatives and senators from opposite parties sit side by side at the State of the Union address. Is that it? How is this one-time gesture going to improve debate in the US Congress?
If the state of public discourse is to improve in this country we need more than half-assed symbolic gestures. We need both parties to stop demonizing the other side as if they're baby eaters. The past two years should have been proof enough that this kind of "debate" does not help in actually passing laws. Look at the health-care bill. By demonizing the Democrats, the Republicans ended up with a bill that had absolutely nothing they liked, rather than a compromise. Meanwhile, Democrats were able to pass very few laws by refusing to compromise with Republicans.
Honestly though, I'm cynical. I think the Tucson shooting will probably be forgotten in months and public discourse will return to its previous toxic level. Because while this kind of "debate" doesn't help pass laws, it sure as hell does help politicians scare voters into supporting them.
Here's something we should be asking ourselves however: What does it say about us as a country when it takes six people shot to death to finally make us realize that actual civil discourse has become nonexistent, and has instead been replaced by hateful, partisan and toxic shouting matches?
The US Congress responded to this tragedy by having a few representatives and senators from opposite parties sit side by side at the State of the Union address. Is that it? How is this one-time gesture going to improve debate in the US Congress?
If the state of public discourse is to improve in this country we need more than half-assed symbolic gestures. We need both parties to stop demonizing the other side as if they're baby eaters. The past two years should have been proof enough that this kind of "debate" does not help in actually passing laws. Look at the health-care bill. By demonizing the Democrats, the Republicans ended up with a bill that had absolutely nothing they liked, rather than a compromise. Meanwhile, Democrats were able to pass very few laws by refusing to compromise with Republicans.
Honestly though, I'm cynical. I think the Tucson shooting will probably be forgotten in months and public discourse will return to its previous toxic level. Because while this kind of "debate" doesn't help pass laws, it sure as hell does help politicians scare voters into supporting them.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Body Language
In public speaking, controlling your body language is a particularly important skill. While its often misquoted from the researcher Albert Mehrabian that only 7% of all communication consists of words itself, it is still important that you give an impression of confidence and sincerity in your speeches through your body language. Many people have been considered poor public speakers due to their body language. Probably the most famous example is the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy Presidential debate, where Nixon looked sweaty, nervous and sickly,while Kennedy looked relaxed and confident. Radio listeners believed Nixon had won the debate while television viewers believed Kennedy had won. Many analysts blamed the debate for why Nixon later lost the election.
The importance of body language in public speaking raises an important question for our generation: how capable public speakers can we really be when our communication is becoming increasingly dominated by written communication? Until only twenty years ago, the main form of written communication between people was mail. Even when people called people on the phone, they could still pick up the tone of a person's voice to read their emotions. But in 2011? It's considered easier to text a person rather than call them. The number of written formats for written communication, such as email, instant messaging, forums, Facebook, chat rooms and blogs, has increased exponentially. We have video chat in the form of Skype, but that's generally only used for lengthy conversations. All in all, technology seems to be reducing the frequency with which we use body language in our daily life.
Mastering public speaking could be a greater challenge to our generation than any other generation before us. If we mainly communicate with people through written communication, how can we be expected to get in front of people and give a relaxed, confident speech? How can we be expected to give off good, nonverbal, cues? As we learn the art of public speaking in this class, extra attention should be given to teaching us proper body language.
The importance of body language in public speaking raises an important question for our generation: how capable public speakers can we really be when our communication is becoming increasingly dominated by written communication? Until only twenty years ago, the main form of written communication between people was mail. Even when people called people on the phone, they could still pick up the tone of a person's voice to read their emotions. But in 2011? It's considered easier to text a person rather than call them. The number of written formats for written communication, such as email, instant messaging, forums, Facebook, chat rooms and blogs, has increased exponentially. We have video chat in the form of Skype, but that's generally only used for lengthy conversations. All in all, technology seems to be reducing the frequency with which we use body language in our daily life.
Mastering public speaking could be a greater challenge to our generation than any other generation before us. If we mainly communicate with people through written communication, how can we be expected to get in front of people and give a relaxed, confident speech? How can we be expected to give off good, nonverbal, cues? As we learn the art of public speaking in this class, extra attention should be given to teaching us proper body language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)