About Rhetoric: Pathos (February 2)
Read Jay Heinrichs, Chapters 9-10 & Chapters 22.
Describe a moment when you saw "pathos" in action. You could describe a moment you deployed pathos 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. Big stakes or small, personal or public, choose an example that really lets you explain what pathos 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 pathos you saw at work. Support your definition using quotations from at least two different chapters of the book (of three that discuss pathos). 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 pathos "working" -- what did the speaker/writer do to generate pathos, and did you find it effective in achieving their rhetorical purpose?
This is perhaps an example of rhetoric being twisted, but it is what came to mind first for me:
ReplyDeleteI listen to quite a few podcasts -- usually to have on in the background while I do something else, like clean or drive -- and sometime recently I put some YouTube-recommended podcast episodes on shuffle while I washed a large batch of dishes. The playlist had nothing to do with my tastes/algorithm, it was just what was globally popular at the time. The first episode I listened to constituted a large group of men sitting around a table and discussing how women should behave in a relationship. It was infuriating. They spoke as if they had some divine, insurmountable logic about the "modern dating scene" and "high-value women," yet their arguments were full of contradictions.
Looking back, I can now see how their arguments were entirely pathetic (in both senses of the word). It was meant to elicit emotion -- either devotion and desperation for approval from people who already subscribed to their values, or anger from those who didn't. Either way, it meant more engagement and more money for them, so they crammed as many wild and inflammatory statements into their episodes as they could. Jay Heinrichs describes this use of anger as “[arising] from a sense of belittlement. You can direct an audience’s fury at someone by portraying his lack of concern over his problems” (Heinrichs 90). Heinrich also states that “it’s an identification thing: people who feel themselves being cast out by the elite will go to great lengths to restore their status” (Heinrichs 86).
Additionally, they employed a very annoying form of banter. Partway through the episode I listened to, they took a few calls from women who wanted to criticize/debate the way they handled conversations about gender, gender roles, and morality. Whenever it was the guys’ turn to respond, they would give a ‘witty’ reply that ultimately undermined whatever the girl had said (and proved they weren’t actually really listening). Heinrichs describes banter as “the humor of snappy answers, works best in rhetorical defense. It uses concession to throw the opponent’s argument back at him” (Heinrichs 97). In the case of this podcast, those who were already in support of the guys’ values would consider their banter a “win,” whereas their opposers would be induced to further anger, thus boosting engagement.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
I love this because you are a great writer, first, and because you have reminded me that there are a number of podcasts that talk about argument strategies. They pull apart arguments and debates using the tools Heinrichs talks about. I wonder, now that you think about it, whether Heinrichs has one.
DeleteBack when I watched TV I vividly remember these 2 minute long and highly emotionally charged commercials about dogs that had been abused. I always used to change the channel whenever they would come on because of how depressing they were.
ReplyDeleteAn important part of the influence that this ad has is showcased in chapter 22 of the text: “Sight leans toward the pathetic, because we tend to believe what we see—and as Aristotle said, what we believe determines how we feel” (Heinrichs, 239). The commercial cuts between 5 second long recordings of depressed-looking animals, having us see them and thus believe that these animals have been abused. Not only does it get us emotionally invested in the animals, it also empowers us to donate money to the foundation presented in order to help them. Additionally, later in the commercial it shows similar short clips of extremely happy looking animals, indicating that this is the outcome of donating to the foundation.
Another important quote pertaining to this ad from Thank You For Arguing is “When you argue emotionally, speak simply” (Heinrichs, 83). The commercial starts by saying how every hour an animal is abused or beaten. This is very simple language that communicates a great deal of emotion, persuading the audience to invest themselves in the commercial. The ad even goes on to use similar straightforward and impactful quotes throughout the runtime, making sure to take 5-10 second breaks in between them so they really sink in for the viewer.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
This is a smoothly sophisticated answer.
DeleteWhen I was watching the cheerleading national championships a week or so ago, they frequently aired an ad made by St. Jude's that was made specially for being aired during cheerleading events. The ad included videos of a little girl jumping around in a little cheer costume, and the mother in an interview, tearfully explaining the effect that St. Jude had in helping her daughter.
ReplyDeleteOne of the tools I saw working in this ad was self-control of emotions. In Chapter 9, Heinreichs claims that, "A persuader who apparently struggles to hold back her emotions will get better results than one who displays her emotions all over the floor of a bank." (Heinreichs, 84). We start the interview with the mother composed, describing her daughter as a joyful, happy child, and then as she describes her cancer diagnosis, the struggles of treatment, and the help that St. Jude provided, her emotions get shakier and she loses composure and cries through her words a bit more, which serve to make us more empathetic towards her and believe her emotional state, instead of if she was overly emotional the whole time, which maybe would have made the audience more off-put and uncomfortable.
Another thing to consider is the medium, which is a streaming service dedicated to cheerleading and dance, and that airs nothing else, so the audience is people who are fans of or engaged with cheerleading. It's also a visual and auditory medium; it leans pathetic, as Heinrichs claims in chapter 22, "Sight leans toward the pathetic, because we tend to believe what we see—and as Aristotle said, what we believe determines how we feel." (Heinrichs, 239) Using this pathetic medium means not only demonstrating the tearful exposition of the mother, but also showing video of the little girl that caters specifically to the audience. It shows videos of the girl in a cheer uniform jumping around, dancing, and smiling, intercut with photos of her in treatment, sick, and in a wheelchair, which relates the audience to her, which then makes them feel sympathetic.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
Thank you so much for reminding us about the effect of medium! Given your minor, it also lets you put your expertise forward!
DeleteIt’s impossible to escape advertisements these days, even on streaming services like Netflix. Every time I watch a show, there are ad breaks that go on and on and on. I hate them. In the field of advertisement, pathos is utilized to appeal to many emotions including pride, sympathy, anger, joy, and more. Of course, pathos works alongside ethos and logos, but for now, I’ll focus on the pathos portion in a specific ad I see all the time for a medication called Skyrizi.
ReplyDeleteOn page 85 of the book, Heinrichs mentions that, “Other emotions—such as joy, love, esteem, compassion—work better, Aristotle said. Some people tend to revel in them, while others start fund drives.” Within the ad, a man with severe plaque psoriasis taking Skyrizi is shown experiencing a wonderful day on the water with his friends and dog, enjoying the sun and water activities, provoking a positive reaction from viewers. He talks about how taking Skyrizi has given him clearer skin and shows that the medicine has made his life significantly better.
Sight plays a big part in the positive emotion of joy viewers experience. As Heinrichs says, “Sight leans toward the pathetic, because we tend to believe what we see—and as Aristotle said, what we believe determines how we feel.” (Heinrichs, pg. 239). Viewers are “told” by watching that this medication effectively relieves symptoms of plaque psoriasis, resulting in a more enjoyable and pleasant life. Watching the advertisement appeals to the emotions of joy and compassion, as viewers indirectly experience the healthier life the patient has after taking the medication.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
Pharmaceutical ads are so complicated, because they don't talk about the bad things -- no sympathy kind of stuff here. It's all about joy -- no pain. Great example for us to work through!
DeleteThe first thing that came to mind when reading Heinrichs' definitions and tools of pathos was the St. Crispin's Day Speech from Shakespeare's Henry V, specifically the Kenneth Branagh version. While reading the speech surely arouses emotions in the reader, it is this performance where pathos is clearly employed.
ReplyDeleteFor context, this speech takes place before The Battle of Agincourt, where Henry V (and his soldiers) would defeat the French forces even though Henry V's side had significantly less resources and manpower. This speech was given by Henry V to his men to instill confidence and rouse patriotism, willing these men to go into battle even though the odds were against them.
Within the speech itself, Henry V uses a few tools of pathos particularly well, notably experience/expectation and patriotism. The men, of course, are nervous, and believe that they will not win. In response to this, Henry describes what will happen to the men should they live: "He that outlives this day and comes safe home/Will stand o' tiptoe when this day is named.../Old men forget...But he'll remember with advantages/What feats he did that day" (Shakespeare 4.3.44-45, 51-53). In saying what will happen in the future, Henry is able to rouse emotions by "giv[ing] the audience the sensations of an experience" (Heinrichs 80).
Patriotism is also employed here, with Henry V explaining how fighting for England will result in great honor, saying "If we are marked to die, we are enough/To do our country loss; and if to live,/The fewer men, the greater share of honor" (Shakespeare 4.3.23-35). This aligns with Heinrichs' idea of how patriotism gets triggered: "you get patriotic when your group is under threat" (Heinrichs 88), which is exactly what is happening in the context of the St. Crispin's Day Speech.
Kenneth Branagh's performance of this speech in particular uses the medium of spoken word, but it's the mannerisms that Branagh uses that convey pathos well. Furthermore, this is a movie, which leans towards the pathetic because "images trump sound" (239). With his broad smiles and direct eye contact with his soldiers, Branagh's Henry V gives the air of confidence that rouses a sense of action in his men. Although having Henry V be the speaker uses ethos, the way he speaks and behaves while he is speaking is most effective in this sense. Furthermore, because this is a televised version of this speech, what is being said might even create a stirring of emotions in audiences watching the movie, which might make this speech even more pathetically appealing, if I'm interpreting Heinrichs' point correctly. The beauty of Shakespeare's plays are how they can be used again and again for different audiences in different contexts, the St. Crispin's Day Speech being no exception.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
Shakespeare, William. Henry V, The Folger Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 2 Feb. 2026. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/henry-v/read/4/3/
This is as old-school an example as I can imagine! Thank you!
DeleteI have used pathos when I volunteered to teach elementary students competitive swimming. The goal was to get them interested in swimming and show them a part of what they would be doing on the team in a few years. Even though the sport is physically demanding, I had to try and convince them that all of the hard work was fun and worth it. In addition, I had to distract their minds when they started to become frustrated.
ReplyDeleteJay Heinrich talks about tools for pathos in persuasion one of which being storytelling. One word of advice he gives is "When you want to change somebody's mood, tell a story" (81). When the swimmers would start to get tired, frustrated or I could sense their reluctance about the sport, I would talk about the team. In all honesty, the team is the reason a lot of people stay on the team. Practice is such a bonding time that we become really close throughout the season. The practices that we put on weren't that hard, but the kids weren't used to swimming that much or the skills. When these problems would come up, I would tell a story about my first year on the team. Or I would bring up times when I missed a turn or was disqualified to make them feel better about doing the same thing.
Another thing I learned to do both volunteering and on the actual team is use humor. When younger swimmers get nervous or think they're not doing good, I like to make jokes to lighten their mood. If I was close to my teammate, I would be able to use banter with them, but if I wasn't as familiar, I would use wit. Heinrich says that it is "drier than urbanity and... it plays off the situation" (95). I would make jokes about the situation so that they knew it wasn't that serious. A lot of times young athletes compare themselves to a seasoned one and are frustrated when their skill isn't the same. I like to make a joke about tugging on the lane line during backstroke or basically being waterboarded my first time attempting butterfly. These little things help them relax and view the team as welcoming to everyone not just fast swimmers.
The final tool I use is emulation, which goes along with ethos. I tried to be a good role model by being encouraging, kind, and welcoming. I tried to remember the swimmers' names and celebrate with them when they did well. Emulation doesn't seem like a pathetic tool, but Heinrich argues that it in fact is. He says "emulation makes sense in modern times when we view it as an emotional response to a role model" (88). I hoped that I could be a good role model to them, and my actions made them want to join the team despite the hard and daunting practices.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing, Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 6 Aug. 2013.
Children are an interesting example for this class and for this book. Heinrichs opens with a story of his child, I think, in part because we can imagine rhetoric, even very manipulative rhetoric, being used with a child "for their own good" -- so we can't be accused of doing something unethical to/with them. Maybe? What do you think?
DeleteOne moment when I saw ethos clearly in action was during Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign announcement speech. I watched this video a few times over for something I was digging into for a play I was recently in, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.
ReplyDeleteIn the speech, Obama introduced himself not just as a candidate, but as a constitutional law professor, U.S. senator, husband, and father. He framed his life story, his upbringing, education, and public service, as evidence of his character and judgment. By emphasizing his background in community organizing and his work in the Senate, he presented himself as trustworthy, experienced, and morally grounded, inviting voters to see him as credible and relatable.
Jay Heinrichs defines ethos as “the argument by character” (Heinrichs 57). He explains that persuasion depends not only on logic or emotion but on whether the audience believes the speaker is “a good person, who shares their values” (Heinrichs 62). In another chapter, Heinrichs notes that “the audience decides whether you have ethos” (Heinrichs 78), emphasizing that credibility is granted, not claimed. Later, he describes decorum as matching “the audience’s expectations in language and attitude” (Heinrichs 143). Together, these tools, virtue, shared values, and appropriate tone, form the foundation of persuasive ethos.
In Obama’s speech, ethos worked through careful self presentation. He highlighted his biography to establish practical wisdom (experience in law and government), virtue (commitment to public service), and shared values (family, opportunity, fairness). He used inclusive language like “we” and referenced common American ideals to signal identification with his audience. His calm tone and measured delivery reinforced decorum, matching the seriousness of a presidential campaign. I found his ethos effective because it made his policy proposals feel grounded in integrity rather than ambition. His credibility made listeners more willing to trust his vision and consider his arguments!
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 2013.
I think this is in the wrong spot.
DeleteOne powerful moment when I saw pathos in action was in Dead Poets Society during Mr. Keating’s “O Captain! My Captain!” scene (One of my favorite movies).
ReplyDeleteAfter Keating is forced to leave the classroom, Todd stands on his desk and declares his loyalty. One by one, other students follow. The scene is brief but emotionally charged, appealing to loyalty, admiration, and courage rather than logic. The boys are not arguing with statistics, they are expressing devotion and moral solidarity through a dramatic, symbolic gesture.
In Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs explains that pathos works by persuading through emotion rather than logic. In Chapter 9, he writes, “Persuasion is an emotional process” (Heinrichs 143), emphasizing that people make decisions based largely on feeling. In Chapter 10, he notes that effective rhetors “change the mood of the audience” (Heinrichs 155), showing that argument often depends on shifting emotional states. Later, in Chapter 22, he explains that storytelling can trigger identification and sympathy, making the audience feel personally involved (Heinrichs 247). Together, emotional appeal, mood control, and identification form the core tools of pathos.
Pathos works in this scene through symbolism, tone, and timing. The students stand silently on their desks, a bold, visual gesture that signals loyalty and moral courage. The music swells, their voices tremble, and the camera lingers on their faces, heightening emotional intensity. Keating’s quiet reaction, moved but restrained, deepens the emotional impact. The scene does not try to prove Keating was right through evidence, instead, it makes the audience feel that he mattered. I found it extremely effective because it creates admiration and inspiration, leaving viewers emotionally aligned with the students act of defiance.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 2013.
I had no idea that young people still watched this movie. Cool example!
DeleteOne of the most striking uses of Pathos I have seen in any media is the ending of the soviet war film "Come and See". The story follows a Belarusian boy who joins partisan rebels after the German invasion of the USSR in 1942. After seeing the horrors of war first hand and losing almost everyone he cares for, he coldly wishes for captured German prisoners to be burned alive for the war crimes they committed that same day. The last scene depicts the boy, named Florya, raising his rifle and aiming at a photo of Adolf Hitler, as he starts firing into the photo, photos of Hitler start being cross edited along with the bullets. Eventually, the last photo shown is of that of Hitler as an infant. Florya then hesitates, realizing this person that is so evil and that he hates so much was once a boy like him.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 9, Heinrichs says "Persuasion is an emotional Process" and Not only does Come and See show that, but it is the most masterful way I have seen it depicted in any war film. The message is clear, no matter how evil someone is or what they have committed, they were once an innocent infant. Florya lost his innocence, friends, and his sanity for fighting with the partisans. He realizes that at the end of the day, war only perpetuates the violence into other wars. How many young children like him are left bitter and filled with anger after their families die in a conflict, that's one of the main reason for Germanys starting to invade other countries. Heinrich also adds in chapter 22 that sympathy and empathy are one of the most effective and pivotal uses of pathos, something I think this particular example shows quite well.
Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing: Revised and Updated Edition. Three Rivers Press, 2013.
While the monkeys example was a little weird, this example is powerful and I am glad for it.
Delete