About Rhetoric: Ethos
Read Jay Heinrichs, Chapter 1 & Chapters 4-8.
Describe a moment when you saw "ethos" in action. You could describe a moment you deployed ethos in attempting to communicate with someone else or a moment you felt it being used on you. You can describe the way you saw it working in a televised speech, a written essay, or a dialogue in a television show, movie, or drama. You can use political examples, as a politician tries to win your vote, or you can talk about the moment you tried to convince your teacher that you deserved a better grade because you have always "been an A student." Big stakes or small, personal or public, choose an example that really lets you explain what ethos is and how it works.
To complete this, you will need to summarize the communication interaction you are talking about. (50 words)
You will need to define the tools of ethos you saw at work. Support your definition using quotations from at least three different chapters of the book (of the five that discuss ethos). When quoting, include page numbers and include a bibliographic reference at the end of your answer (just to practice bibliography). (100 words)
Then, explain how you saw ethos "working" -- what did the speaker/writer do to generate their "ethos," and did you find it effective in achieving their rhetorical purpose?
As is true of all posts in this public class space, if for reasons of privacy, you prefer not to use your real name or other identifying information, you may choose to do so. You may also email your instructor about receiving credit without posting in this space.
I worked in an elementary school for eight years and, let me tell you, ethos was in action all the time. In preschool, I saw “arguments” between the four year olds and the teacher a lot. Everyday. (Becuase…kids always think they’re right and want to do what they want.)
ReplyDeleteTeacher: “(student’s name) keep your hands to yourself.”
Kid: *ignores her.*
Teacher: “(studen’ts name) I said keep your hands to yourself!
Kid: “It’s my body I can do what I want with it.”
Teacher: “Well it’s my class, my rules. And as a teacher, I say hands to yourself.”
Kid: *teary eyed that she lost the argument, she kept her hands to herself the rest of the walk.*
In this argument the teacher pulled her authority card to win. It’s very similar to the same argument in “Thank-You-For-Arguing,” where, on page fifty-six, Jay tries to convince his child to wear pants to school. The kid asks “Why?,” and he responds with, “because I told you to, that’s why.”
Jay Heinrich gives another example of ethos in conversion when he goes to buy a suit.
“I bought it. But when I gave Joe my credit card I looked down at the Captain’s shoes. They were terrible” (Pg 70) Jay was swayed into an expensive purchase because he assumed the man selling him the clothes knew a lot about fashion. He trusted his opinion as the salesman. It was only after he realized, perhaps the “Captain”, as he called him, was not so fashion-savvy after all. Oops.
Chapter 5 in Heinrich’s book discusses decorum and the agreeable side to ethos.
As a paraprofessional, I used this tactic a lot. If I wanted my student to listen, follow the rules, or engage in an activity, I had to get them to like me first.
I had a child who hated walking to the bathroom and would always run away whenever it was time to go change. Over time, I won this battle by making the long walk to the bathroom-of-doom a game instead of a “you have to do this now” type of feeling. We raced lightning mc queen cars down the hall very loud and goofy. Did I look like an idiot? Yep! But
I was the only one who could successfully get him to do the task. He trusted me and had fun. And I got him to do what I needed him to. A win-win for us both.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I love this answer. It's in the spirit of the book, which opens with an interaction with a child.
DeleteOver the summer, some friends and I planned a night where we all prepared a presentation on why our male alter-ego was the most attractive; we each took photographs of ourselves, ran it through a gender-swap filter, and created a fake 'dating profile' (based on what we thought their personality would be) to present to the group. My persona was Kael, the mustached, philosophical, tortured poet with a deep affection for matcha and animals.
ReplyDeleteI obviously didn't realize it then, but I used a few ethos tools in my efforts to win the ladies' hearts. In Chapter 8 of Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs describes a tactic known as dubitatio, or 'dubious.' He explains it as the "best trick of all: make it seem like you have no tricks ... show doubt in your rhetorical skill. The plain-spoken, seemingly ingenuous speaker is the trickiest of them all, being the most believable" (Heinrichs 75-78). In other words, bank on humility and sincerity so audience members are predisposed to believe you. In my case, I started my presentation by saying that "I could never hope to compete with the other fine bachelors we've met tonight. What could a simple, animal-loving, tote bag-carrying, feminist literature enthusiast like myself possibly say to win over the hearts of such beautiful, independent maidens? But that doesn't mean I won't try -- because I am decisive and intentional, and I am decided and serious about you girls."
I also ended up using a tool Heinrichs discusses in Chapter 8, unambiguously titled "showing off your experience." He suggests saying things such as 'I know what it's like,' for "in an argument, experience usually trumps book learning. And it is fine to brag about experiences, rather than yourself" (Heinrichs 68). Shared experience is an excellent way to build trust and compassion. It is part of practical wisdom -- the audience must consider you a practical person if they are to follow you. In my presentation, I (or rather, Kael) appealed to the most pervasive emotions in the dating world: frustration and heartbreak. "Ladies," I said, "let me make something quite clear -- I am in your court. I'm an older brother to fifteen sisters. I have seen all manner of fallout from ghostings, missed dates, non-commiters, and liars. It's rough out there. It hurt me as much as it hurt them (if not more), and after seeing all I have seen, I assure you with complete certainty that I would show up for any one of you 110%. Say the word and I'll pull out the ring."
Finally, I remember using a tactic Heinrichs describes as "character references," or getting someone else to brag for you (Heinrichs 62-63). "According to Aristotle," Heinrichs writes, "people have to be able to trust your judgment as well as your essential goodness. They may think you're a terrific person, but they won't follow you if they think you will lead them off a cliff" (Heinrichs 56). I had to bring in a second opinion to add to my credibility. I video called my real-life roommate, who donned a fake mustache and posed as Kael's roommate, Joel, and Joel attested to my empath superpowers, manly mustache, and awesome Clairo posters. He assured the ladies of the audience that I was a great friend, clean roommate, and person confident enough in his masculinity to date a woman who made more money than him.
These arguments (as well as the Dubai chocolate I brought for everyone) sold me. I convinced my beautiful friends of my intelligence, handsomeness, and reliability thanks to the powers of rhetoric -- dubitatio, showing off my experience, and character references. I won the presentation night and left with seven new girlfriends.
Now that I think about it, though, maybe it was the chocolate that persuaded them the most. Nothing quite like good old fashioned bribery.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I learn something about my favorite students every day. Thank you.
DeleteAlso, thank you for the exhaustiveness of this essay.
Just recently we read the article "The Saints and the Roughnecks" by William J. Chambliss in one of my Sociology classes. I wanted to use this because I think it had some great examples of ethos in action. Essentially, the article highlights two high school gangs in the 1970s, The Saints (which I will specifically be focusing on) and The Roughnecks. For a background, The Saints are a small group of wealthy and preppy-presenting kids that get their way by persuading people through the use of status and deception.
ReplyDeleteOne example in the article was when a Saint named Charles convinced his friend Ed's math teacher to let Ed out of class early because he was needed in a rehearsal for the upcoming drama club play. Of course, neither Charles nor Ed were apart of the drama club at all, and they were most certainly not going to practice for the play. Regardless, the teacher believed Charles and Ed because of a couple of ethos-related reasons.
For starters, both Ed and Charles had status. They had good grades, were a part of many activities at the school, dressed well, and were wealthy. Jay Heinrichs makes a similar example in the book when he tells his child "You have to wear pants because I told you to” (Heinrichs, 40). The premise in his case is that his child should listen to him on the basis that he has status as his father. Similar to this, the math teacher is more inclined to trust Charles' request because both Ed and Charles have a good reputation.
Another element to this is how The Saints were dressed. Heinrich states that another part of ethos is to “look the way you think your audience will want you to look” (Heinrichs, 51). The article never explicitly states what Charles and Ed were wearing, but it does describe all of The Saints as being "well dressed." Since Ed and Charles were dressed nicely, I would say that this fits perfectly for the occasion of their bluff. Someone wearing respectable clothes would be much more likely to be perceived as doing something good and genuine rather than being up to no good.
One last element to The Saints' deception is how they use language. Heinrich states that “Besides knowing how to dress, a decorous persuader has to know how to adapt her language to the particular occasion” (Heinrichs, 53). The Saints were described as having behavior that was "contrite, polite and penitent" (Chambliss 186). Since the math teacher was Charles' superior, he very likely adopted his language to fit his role as to who he was attempting to portray, a good student. By behaving the way Charles is expected to, he is able to better convince the math teacher that his cause is truly genuine.
Chambliss, William J. "The Saints and the Roughnecks." Society, vol. 11, no. 1, 1973, pp. 186-194.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
Everyone thinks about ethos as fancy talk -- thank you for reminding us that ethos is also about the norms of any other community. When I go home to family, I talk about "youse guys." It makes sense to my family. It's our common language for mutual grooming.
DeleteOn Wednesday night, I was at an open mic at Wussow's Music Cafe, as I am most Wednesdays. Generally, people will use the opportunity onstage to perform covers or original songs for the audience, which is to be expected at a music cafe. Every so often, though, someone will go onstage and perform something that is not music related. On this particular occasion, it was a comedy routine.
ReplyDeleteWhen the comic got onstage, ethos tools were immediately employed. They began with a preface, letting the audience know that this was their first time doing a set in front of a "real audience" and implored us to "go easy on him". While I didn't realize it at the time, he was using what Heinrichs refers to as "Honest Abe's Shameless Trick", which is to make it seem like you, as the speaker, have no tricks (75). As he continues through the chapter, Heinrichs explains how this technique was called dubiatio, and could be identified by a speaker making the choice to "feign helplessness by pretending to be uncertain how to begin or proceed with his speech" (75). Starting with this introduction, I felt the need to at least try and laugh at the jokes.
However, because the jokes were funny and tasteful, the comic was also able to use yet another tool Heinrichs describes Lincoln as using, which is rhetorical virtue (59). Because the jokes were in good taste --meaning that they seemed to match the values of the artist-riddled audience-- we all felt more inclined to laugh at his jokes. In this way, the comic also used the tool of decorum, especially in the sense that he was following the "audience's rules" (48). He was achieving this generally through the material he presented: many of the jokes were political in nature and followed the beliefs of the crowd (shown in their laughter). The jokes were also crude enough that they would entertain the adult audience, but not so inappropriate that people were cringing in their seats. Before this reading, I hadn't really thought about how everyone getting in front of an audience is generally trying to persuade them to react in a certain way. Comics especially need to take the audience into account when performing material to elicit the correct response.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I love Wussows! And I love this answer -- what a situation to find rhetoric in!
DeleteI am in the Student Government here at UMD, and we recently had a competitive election where we had two candidates competing for one seat as CAHSS senator. I'll forego names and specific details for obvious privacy reasons, but I saw ethos deployed heavily as each candidate took their turn advocating for why they believed they deserved the position.
ReplyDeleteWhen it was Candidate A's turn to speak, he largely focused on his virtue and how his values match those of both the SGA members and CAHSS students as a whole. Heinrichs claims that, "Support your audience’s values, and you earn the temporary trustworthiness that rhetoric calls virtue." (Heinrichs, 65) He did this by demonstrating the decorum of a student whose program was cut in the recent program cuts that overwhelmingly affected CAHSS programs. Many other students in the room, including myself, have been personally affected by these cuts and therefore felt a connection to him that made us trust him when he claimed that he would prioritize CAHSS student voices and protect and advocate for smaller programs. He also, by doing this, alluded to the principle of selflessness and personal sacrifice, implying that though he suffered his own program being cut, he would use that unfortunate personal circumstance to protect other CAHSS students from the same fate. "Claim that the choice will help your audience more than it will help you; even better, maintain that you’ll actually suffer from the decision." (Heinreichs, 78)
Candidate B took a different approach, largely capitalizing on the tool of practical wisdom. Heinreichs states on practical wisdom that, "The audience should consider you a sensible person, as well as sufficiently knowledgeable to deal with the problem at hand. When you remove an appendix, a medical degree proves your practical wisdom more than your knowledge of the Bible." (Heinrichs, 67) He cited his involvement already with CAHSS administration, serving in multiple administrative committees and attending budgetary meetings, while Candidate A cited more involvement with students and faculty. He also gave specific, attainable ideas for what he wanted to see in CAHSS, more specifically, a CAHSS-centric career fair, which, during deliberation, many CAHSS members of SGA cited being very excited for.
In the end, Candidate B won by a large margin. I myself voted for him. Both candidates were very qualified, and if there were two positions open, they both would undoubtedly get it and be great in those positions, but what I believe drew people to Candidate B more than Candidate A was specific appeals to his administrative CAHSS connections, which implies he is capable of truly inspiring change over instead of just being a voice for the CAHSS students. His idea of a CAHSS career fair demonstrated practical wisdom by being a very attractive idea that made me want to vote for him, just to hope to see it come to fruition.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
What an interesting place to see rhetoric -- at once exactly what it was for, and at the same time, I never would have thought of it.
DeleteA common example I see of ethos happens on a daily basis through social media. When I’m just scrolling, let’s say TikTok, influencers frequently (too frequently in my opinion) come across my page advertising some sort of product that they are paid to sell. Much of their ethos stems from their title as “influencer”. In the textbook, the author mentions that good ethos “employs the persuader’s personality, reputation, and ability to look trustworthy” (Heinrichs, pg. 40). As an influencer, trust is gained through their ability to promote good products that are actually useful and worth the buyer’s time, their likeableness, and through building a good reputation with their followers.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, a good ethos stems from experience. On page 68 of the textbook, Heinrichs mentions that “In an argument, experience usually trumps book learning.”. It’s one thing for an influencer to say that they know what they’re talking about, but after a short scroll on their page, it is immediately clear to a viewer whether or not the influencer has lengthy experience and is thus worthy of trust.
In their promotional videos, influencers use specific language, often positive, to persuade their viewers that the product “changed their life” or “solved their problem”. This positive language is yet another tool of ethos. Heinrichs says on page 53 that a successful speaker “know[s] how to adapt her language to the particular occasion”, a skill many social media influencers have mastered. Using language appropriate to the circumstance persuades viewers to be more likely to believe the product or service actually “changed the life” of the influencer. It can be manipulative, but language serves as a powerful tool of persuasion.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I am very interested in what I see building across your essays, Briannah.
DeleteI am loving that this can be used to inform family relationships!
ReplyDeleteA comical example but one that comes to mind right away is from one of my favorite video games, System Shock 2. To summarize the plot, you are an augmented cyber soldier with amnesia on a spaceship ravaged by evil parasite aliens and an rampant AI system called Shodan. Among the terror is a comical interaction about the lab monkey's stored on the ship. Scientist Grassi details in an audio log the following.
ReplyDelete"Whose idea was it to bring 150 chimpanzees on board anyway? The interests of science? What about the interests of hygiene? Does anybody have any idea how much crap 150 lab monkeys make in a day? The poor chimps... they come onboard for the most historic mission of all time, and they end up being chopped into little pieces in the name of progress"
While delivered in a funny way, Grassi has made it apparent that it is not very ethical for the monkeys to be contained and vivisected for no apparent reason. What makes this interesting is that there isn't a direct ethical call to action, but the way Grassi phrases his concerns makes it take on a ethical question. Henrich's says that someone's call to action should match their approach to the issue at hand, stating "“the audience’s expectations in language and attitude” (Heinrichs, 143). Grassi's voice has anger yes, but most importantly he comes across as uneasy about the whole situation, an uneasiness stemming from conflict in ethics. The universe System Shock is set in has plenty of ethical questions. "Should Ai get to the point of controlling major security systems", "Should we make our Ai hyper intelligent" and "Are cybernetic implants ethical to the human condition", But I always think of the Monkey example as while yes it is absurd, it encapsulates an example of ethos in a subverted way and in a way that also leaves the audience chuckling while being subjected to digital space horrors beyond comprehension. Looking glass studio was filled with fantastic writers, and there are plenty more examples to comb through, I just chose this one as it seemed a bit less grandiose in contrast to the other examples.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
System Shock 2. Looking Glass studios, Windows, 1999
Unexpected and welcome example. Thank you.
Delete