I think that George Campbell would have made an excellent politician. I was intrigued by his views regarding the importance of appealing to the emotions in rhetoric. While not discounting ethos or logos, Campbell seems to make pathos the central feature of rhetoric, the foundation upon which everything else is built. This stands in contrast (although not necessarily contradiction) to Aristotle, who asserted the foundational nature of logos. In our assigned reading, Arthur E. Walzer provides a complex definition of Campbell's "grand art of communication" involving the interrelated "sentiments, passions, dispositions" (73).
The first thing that jumps into my mind is "manipulator." Yet Campbell spends a great deal of space addressing the moral component of rhetoric. He insists upon "the inability of reason to establish a hierarchy of values that would meet reason's test for truth" (75). Without emotion, Campbell claims that we are unable either to do or to choose what is good.
I started warming up to his ideas a little bit more when I read about that all-important distinction between the calm and violent passions. The violent passions, Campbell claims, are easily excited and can quickly spiral out of control. These are the emotions to which I see many politicians appealing. They want a quick rise; they speak for maximum emotional effect without perhaps weighing the consequences of their words. The calm passions, however, have more depth and more persevering power than the violent passions. Calm passions are more closely related to character, and I see an appeal to these emotions as not only moral, but absolutely necessary. Without engaging the audience's emotions in a fair and honest manner, how will they care about what the speaker has to say? Is it not likely that, regardless of how reasonable the rhetoric was or how much you trusted the speaker, you will walk away and never think about his or her ideas again? Appeal to the calm passions ought to be closely related to the speaker's purpose in writing. This seems to connect to Hugh Blair's writings about taste. Calm passions relate to the cultivation of "the power of receiving pleasure from the beauties of nature and of art" (Blair 1). On a side note, I definitely did not find Blair's ethnocentrism tasteful at all! His statement that nature "in the distribution of those [talents] which belong only to the ornamental part of life, she hath bestowed her favours with...frugality" was quite shocking to a 21st century mind.
The problem is that we almost exclusively see appeals to the violent emotions in public discourse. Because our culture is so oriented toward instant gratification, we grab for the techniques that will get us the best results the fastest. This problem is intensified when rhetoricians avail themselves of Campbell's advice that "art must be concealed" (81), and the best way to get a rise out of your audience is to not let them know that you're appealing to their emotions. To me, this seems to walk the fine line between persuasive techniques and outright fraud. As teachers, as rhetoricians, and as compositionists, we ought to model and encourage openness of discourse that enhances our ethos. We ought to appeal to the emotions judiciously, but we ought always to strive for Quintilian's ideal of "a good man speaking well."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Campbell certainly understood the "psychology" of an emotional appeal. Indeed, twentieth century history bears witness to non-virtuous men speaking well with "violent passions" i.e. Mussolini and Hitler. Do we incorporate into our pedagogy instructions on the ethos of composition? While the "violent" appeals are more obvious, should we teach critical listening/reading skills for the more subtle "calm" emotional appeals? Technology has opened a flood-gate of visual/verbal dynamic duos to sway and persuade. How does the class room teacher help students navigate not only what is posted in cyberspace, but also what they write out there. The "virtuous man/woman speaking well" is no longer limited to the printed page or spoken word. Who teaches this?
ReplyDeleteI like the alteration of "good man speaking well" Marilyn, and you bring up a good point that we have gone beyond the printed page. It's up to teachers to keep up with technology and make sure students are getting the direction they need in order to write for the times.
ReplyDeleteI don't think, however, that we should completely disregard the "violent passion" discussed in the article. While I see how a writer can get off focus and start ranting because of their deep purpose, and provoke people to act impulsively, it also sparks intriguing ideas and new concepts. Also, sometimes getting riled up is exactly what is needed.
When it comes to public discourse I think it is important to alert our students to methods practiced by politicians, advertisers, and others to persuade us. If the students are aware of emotional appeals, they may be able to make conscious decisions rather than offering quick "violent" responses. Students should also be aware of the numerous areas argumentation can appear. With the rise in technology, students are subjected to persuasion more than ever. It is only with awareness of argumentative techniques that students can recognize a "good man speaking well" between less honorable yet gifted rhetoricians.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to expand this dicussion to include the emotions of the writer. We are taught that scholarly writing should be emotion-free, just dealing in the realm of reason. Alice Brand's essay on "The Why of Cognition" points out "Emotional neutrality is considered morally the most advanced . . . but aloofness is really impossible" (708). She points out that including affect with "conscious, deliberate, information processing" creates better writing. Emotion is where the writer finds motivation. Cognition helps with the "how" we write, but emotion points to "why" we write.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is interesting that Campbell had such concern for emotion along with logic and ethics to make a persuasive argument. It was also his understanding of character that fascinated me. He really was a pioneer in psychology, as well as philosophy.
ReplyDelete