ierinomalleyy-blog

[ierinomalleyy-blog]

What is Rhetoric to Me?

In Comm 380, Rhetorical Traditions, I learned about many theories of rhetoric. This essay highlights how my definition of rhetoric shifted from the beginning to the end of this course. In the beginning of the term, I was asked to take out a piece of paper and define the term ‘rhetoric’. At that very moment, I knew I was in for a long semester. With a pen in my hand, I looked around the classroom to see everyone jotting down their definition. My mind continued to stare blankly and not a single idea could come to my head. Our professor stated that there is no right answer and an eye roll was in action seconds after that. How could there not be an answer? I stated that “I think it’s a way of communication and speech. Honestly I don’t really know! Way to express thoughts”?

The evolution of my definition of rhetoric was formed through ideas, theories, and people that have influenced me along the way that modified my idea of rhetoric. In the beginning of this semester, Professor Kunde pulled up a power point slide that was filled with the components of Rhetorical Criticism. The components consisted of the claim, proof, and analysis that formulated the outcome of rhetorical criticism. The claim answers the question of what do you see? The proof is gathering of quotes that is taken from where you saw it from. The analysis is the final question of “so what”? (Campbell and Huxman). Personally, understanding rhetorical criticism is what helped me piece together what rhetoric is and where an individual would locate it. With forming my definition, the rhetorical criticism helped me understand that there has to be a point as to why something is being expressed through words, hence locating the proof in quotes.

The first definition of rhetoric that I came into contact with was from Aristotle. Aristotle defines rhetoric by “rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing [or finding] in any given case the available means of persuasion”(Aristotle, 6). Taking from my observation of rhetorical criticism, the point to why something is being expressed through words is the means of persuasion. Overall, it is the ability to discover what is persuasive in a given situation. With bringing rhetoric in the face of an audience, it is used to help gain understanding and alternative possibilities. As stated by Aristotle, “for argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then, we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions passes by everybody, as we observed in the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience”(Aristotle, 2). The way I interpreted this quote is that persuasion must be placed in with rhetoric when getting an audience to land on the same page when dealing with a popular topic that could contain multiple sides.

The final style of rhetoric that finalized what rhetoric could be defined as is the feminine style. Characteristics of feminine style described by Campbell are the concrete and contingent reasoning, inductive structure, reliance on personal experience; personal tone, anecdotes and examples as evidence, participatory interaction - connect  between audience and rhetoric, and the balance between rhetoric and the speaker (Campbell). In relation to my definition of rhetoric, it switches it up a notch to relate it back to personal experiences. As Campbell expresses, it is the reliance on personal experience which is expressed through personal tone by the speaker.

My definition of rhetoric can be symbolized by this piece of cloth with colorful paw prints. If you attended The Gray Matters event, this square size cloth may look familiar. It was one that was used in making the blankets that were raffled off at the end of the event. This artifact incorporated my definition of rhetoric because I believe that this cloth holds a deeper meaning than just a section taken off from fabric. When it was given to me by one of the creators of the mental health campaign, I was told to always give it a little touch to release whatever overwhelming feelings was there in the moment. When holding this, I am able to attach the meaning of the mental health campaign along with the significance of why it was given to me. With that personal connection, it was developed as a symbol in my eyes.I’m not here to explain why I was placed into being a representative for The Gray Matters, but I’m here to explain why this cloth replicated my definition of rhetoric now. Throughout this year, having an open mind and understanding of individuals backgrounds, it was taken to heart when learning how to speak up.

After a semester of researching and discussing how theorists contributed to rhetoric, I was able to piece together my own definition of what rhetoric means. I describe rhetoric by focusing on the idea that there is never a single way to go about a speech that is useful for every individual. Everyone applies rhetoric in the most relatable way to their own unique life when trying to get a statement or thought across. To me, rhetoric is a weapon you can utilize when necessary to explain your thoughts and ideas. Anyone can express their feelings, but with this powerful weapon, it takes it up a notch by connecting each individual’s personality to their style of rhetoric. That is my definition of rhetoric.

Citations:

Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric. Book 1: Chapter 2-3. (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, K. K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her. Westfort, CT: Greenwood Press. 1-15.

Campbell, K.K. and Huxman, S. S. (2003). The rhetorical act. The rhetorical act (3rd ed.) (pp.21-34). Belmont: Wadsworth.

[ierinomalleyy-blog]

*Gender and Rhetoric*

https://youtu.be/-QEDZkj_Riw 

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: What gender/sexuality norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how is it rhetorically done, and/or how does it promote a dominant ideology over a marginalized group or push back against gender norms? Is it productive or unproductive (ethical/unethical)? 

Thinx is a company that sells period-proof absorbent underwear. The purpose of this ad campaign is to address the stigma that menstruation should not be openly discussed due to the dominant ideology that periods are dirty, shameful, and should not be discussed. The gender norm is undone in a figurative world where men and women both get their period. The commercial begins with an adolescent boy sitting in the bathroom before collecting himself to tell his dad that his period has started. With that note, the dad assures his son that it just means he is growing up. Throughout the commercial, men appear to check the back of their pants for blood stains, fighting with a sanitary pad/tampon dispenser that appears to be empty, and borrowing a tampon from another man as it is passed under bathroom stalls. As well as openly discussing periods among both genders. The commerical end with a heterosexual couple kissing, before the man tells the woman he is on his period. Before going any further, she reassures him that she is on her period but are comfortable. To conclude the purpose of this campaign, the commercial ends with “If we all had them, maybe we’d be more comfortable with them.” 

To investigate these questions addressed in my thesis, I examined Thinx’z first ad on national TV. This campaign titled “MENstruation” was the first campaign to be launched by a period underwear company. The opening line of this ad campaign was “I think I got my period.”. This was uttered by a young boy who goes through the everyday occurrence for people who get periods. Thinx’s ad reframes those experiences by asking: What if we all had periods? The commercial continues to give examples of what life would be like if everyone got their period. The commercial lead to men having experiences with their periods that women could relate to. The commercial also gave examples of both genders discussing their periods and conversations or acts concerning periods were open and normal. This construction, as performed in this rhetorical artifact, works to undo gender norms in a positive way. This commercial undoes gender norm by making periods a shared experience, an experience that is not deemed as shameful, dirty, or should be kept a secret. 

The question to what it means to undo restrictively normative conceptions of sexual and gendered life is explored in Judith Butler's article “Undoing Gender”. Throughout this article, Butler investigated the experience of undoing gender in both good and bad aspects. In understanding humans, each individual is viewed on “its race, the legibility of that race, its morphology, the recognizability of that morphology, its sexm the perceptual verifiability of that sexm its ethnicitym the categorical understanding of that ethnicity” (Butler, 2). Through these key aspects, the human strived for desire in gaining recognition. With recognition, “if the schemes of recognition that are available to us are those that “undo” the person by conferring recognition, or “undo” the person by withholding recognition, then recognition becomes a site of power by which the human is differently produced” (Butler, 2). Butler believes that gender is made up of several outside aspects. 

The Thinx ad campaign recognizes women and the gender norms they face once a month that periods are dirty, shameful, and should not be discussed. The Thinx company gives women the recognition by showing a metaphorical world where period are openly, and positively, discussed. With this recognition, the ad campaign pushes back against the given gender norms. In the ideal world that men experienced periods, women would be more comfortable in discussion. As shown in the ad, women wouldn’t have to be concerned when dropping pads in the hallway of their academic building. Women would be comfortable in public to ask if a friend had a tampon in which they could use. Women wouldn’t have to feel ashamed when announcing to a significant other during intimacy that they’re on their period. 

When coming to the decision whether this given campaign is unethical or ethical, it steers more towards ethical. Within this ad campaign, it encourages younger ages to allow the conversation of acts concerning periods to more comfortable. Having this ad comes from the viewpoint of a tween boy, it allows both genders to be able to relate with others on the terms for female norms. It address the stigma that menstruation should not be openly discussed due to the dominant ideology that periods are dirty, shameful, and should not be discussed.  

In doing additional research on this topic, a scholarly article, The Relationship between Conformity to Gender Norms, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity for Sexual Minorities, further explains the dimensions of masculinity and femininity. Comparing gender norms, “the conventional socialization of women in the United States tends to reflect themes of agreeableness, attractiveness, domesticity, and subservience to men. In contrast, for men socialization tends to revolve around themes of being self-reliant, pursuing success, acting tough, being competitive, controlling emotional expression, feeling superior to women, having positive attitudes toward casual sex, and fearing and hating sexual minority men” (S. L. Budge et al. 80). Through these gender themes, it presents the construction of gender/sexuality norms. According to the authors, “both conformity and nonconformity to different gender role norms can lead to various social benefits and social costs to that individual and to others” (S. L. Budge et al. 80). Individuals social aspects play a great deal with the affiliation to gender roles.

In summary, this construction, as performed in this rhetorical artifact, works to undo gender norms in a positive way. In the commercial, men are not, and do not act, more superior towards women. Instead, the commercial puts both genders at an equal playing field, due to the common experiences had during their periods. Men and women are also both perceived as having a postitive and equal relationship to sex. Men are also shown to not be self-reliant, but rather rely on other men and women for tampons, discussing menstruation, and looking for recognition when on their period. Overall. this commercial undoes gender norm by making periods a shared experience, an experience that is not deemed as shameful, dirty, or should be kept a secret. 

Budge, Stephanie L., et al. “The Relationship between Conformity to Gender Norms, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity for Sexual Minorities.” Counselling Psychology Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 79–97. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09515070.2016.1214558. 

Butler, J. (2004). “Introduction: Acting in concert.” In Undoing gender (pp. 1-4). New York Rutledge 

[Thinx]. (2019, Oct 3). MENstration [Video File] retrieved from https://youtu.be/-QEDZkj_Riw

[ierinomalleyy-blog]

*Rhetorical Commitments*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: How does this rhetorical artifact display unilateral or bilateral arguments or both and what are the implications? How could the rhetoric be improved by taking a bilateral approach? 

To investigate these questions, I will examine a political cartoon created by Thomas Nast, a political cartoonist, in 1865. A political cartoon is a cartoon that makes a point about a politician or event. Noted in the definition, a successful political cartoon makes one think about current events. It also tries to sway one’s opinion towards the cartoonist’s point of view. In this case, Nast published a political cartoon that left an open-ended question, inviting both sides of the argument to share their perspectives. 

Thomas Nast supported the North’s side during the Civil War and supported rights for African Americans during America’s Reconstruction Era. Nast drew for a New York magazine called Harper’s Weekly, and his published work reflected his support. The rhetorical article that I am using to identify a bilateral argument is a cartoon that was published in Harper's Weekly edition. In this cartoon, is pictured an African American man and Lady Liberty or Columbia. Lady Liberty or Columbia is a representative of freedom and America. As pictured, her arm is laid upon a veteran from the Civil War. From evaluation, one can see that the black man in indeed a veteran because he is wearing a uniform from the North. He is also missing a leg, which you could connect to an injury that was a result of the war. 

 Underneath the cartoon is a caption that states: “Franchise? And not this man?” Franchise means an authorization granted by the government for granting the right to vote. With a quick background summary to keep in mind, the Civil War ended in 1865, slavery was abolished in 1865, and this cartoon was published in 1865. The question that Nast is addressing the question posed to freed slaves during this time: what more could you possibly want? The answer was the citizenship and the right to vote. Freed slaves didn’t get the citizenship granted to them until 1868. African Americans didn’t get the right to vote until the government granted it in the 15th amendment in 1869. After the Civil War ended, the country was viewed as being placed in total ruins. Financially the South was broke, physically it was destroyed, and mentally all the people had to overcome the “us vs. them” mentality of their own countrymen. The government on the other hand had to decide what to do with the slaves that were now granted freedom. Reverting back to the talk about the Reconstruction Era, the freed slaves were not yet granted the title of citizenship and had no rights, money, or education to their name during the time of the published cartoon.

This rhetorical artifact displays bilateral arguments by posting the question, “You (the government) are creating new legislation during the Reconstruction Era. Are you not going to give this man, who represents all freed slaves in the cartoon, who fought in the Civil War for the North and has been permanently handicapped because of it, the right to vote?” In order to display a bilateral argument, the open-endless of the cartoon allowed for people who supported rights and did not support rights for freedom, for newly freed slaves, to answer the question. 

Gerard A. Hauser (1986) explained that bilateral arguments are defined as “the arguer must use no device of argument he could not in principle permit his interlocutor use” (Hauser, 48). It uses language and appeals the reflection of a message and the possibilities for revision on shared opinions. The conditions that need to occur for it to be considered a bilateral argument is when it forces a wedge between the rhetor and the message. The active consideration that the message may have to be revised or questioned is what they mean when they are talking about a wedge. Taking the assumption we normally make and having to question the idea that is at hand.

One of the displays of bilateral arguments in Nast's cartoons is the active consideration that the message may have to be questions. With the question that Nast is posing,  “You (the government) are creating new legislation during the Reconstruction Era. Are you not going to give this man, who represents all freed slaves in the cartoon, who fought in the Civil War for the North and has been permanently handicapped because of it, the right to vote?” This gives both sides the opportunity to argue whether this man should or should not get the right to vote. The way the language is used in this posed question, it allows the audience to express their thoughts on revision based off of shared opinions. The political cartoon, though biased, does not repress any opinion other than Nast’s. Rather, the cartoon poses a question that will inevitably lead to discussion and debate. 

With extended investigation relating to the implications of a bilateral argument, the argument results in gains and lost because of the way the argument was laid out. By separating the message from that of the rhetor, it allows the audience to evaluate it the message critically and come to the conclusion on their own terms. With the collection of feedback, the rhetor is than able to remove or revise the argumentative statement in hopes of a resolved outcome. 

Gerard A. Hauser further explains how rhetorical communication is intended for “human choices on specific matters that require attention, often immediately” (Hauser, 3). As applied to Thomas Nast’s cartoon, drew the attention and support to create legislation that allowed African American men the right to vote. In this matter, rhetoric was used to manage symbols by a written art form. As stated by Hauser, “Rhetoric, then, is concerned with the use of symbols to induce social action” (Hauser, 3). A wounded Africa American soldier, who contributed to the winning of the North and the unification of the country, was denied the right to vote. 

Lloyd F. Bitzer further explains how rhetoric is a mode that in placed in course of changing reality. Rhetoric does this through the steps of thought and action. As applied to Thomas Nast, his political cartoon was expressing supported rights for African Americans during America’s Reconstruction Era. According to Bitzer, “a work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change it in the world; it performs some task” (Bitzer, 4). As stated before, Thomas Nast was a supporter of the North and the freeing of the slaves. In placing a cartoon for Harper’s Magazine in New York, Nast successfully made people think about the current event that was at hand. While the government was creating new legislation laws during the Reconstruction Era, Nast made it publicly known with his cartoon that the government would not grant voting rights to one who fought in the Civil War for the North. Not only has this African American fought in the war, but has been permanently handicapped because of it. 

With bringing about attention to the situation at hand, Bitzer explains “rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to a situation, in the same sense that an answer comes into existence in response to a question, or a solution in response to a problem. A rhetorical situation must exist as a necessary condition of rhetorical discourse, just as a question must exist as a necessary condition for an answer (Bitzer, 6). Nast quite simply posted the question “You (the government) are creating new legislation during the Reconstruction Era. Are you not going to give this man, who represents all freed slaves in the cartoon, who fought in the Civil War for the North and has been permanently handicapped because of it, the right to vote?” In order to display a bilateral argument, the open-endless of the cartoon allowed for people who supported rights and did not support rights for freedom, for newly freed slaves, to answer the question.

Thomas Nast’s published cartoon in 1865 along with scholarly article by Lloyd F. Bitzer, helped me explore my critical question to the implications of displaying a bilateral argument.The main purpose of the artifact, Thomas Nast’s cartoon, was to display a bilateral argument from the open-endless of the cartoon allowing for people who supported rights and did not support rights for freed, for newly freed slaved, to answer the question. Gerard A. Hauser and Lloyd F. Bitzer come together on the use of rhetoric language and appeals the reflection of a message and the possibilities for revision on shared opinions. Leaving an audience left with an open-ended question, it invites both sides of the argument to share their perspectives. 

References:

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Hauset, G. A. (1986). Making commitments through rhetoric. In Introduction to rhetoric theory 

(pp. 45-55). New York: Harper and Row

Thomas Nast, “Franchise. And Not This Man? ,” Remaking Virginia: Transformation Through 

Emancipation, accessed October 24, 2019, 

http://www.virginiamemory.com/online-exhibitions/items/show/589.

[ierinomalleyy-blog]

*Aristotle: Ethos and Logos and Pathos*

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: What is the main purpose of this artifact’s message and how are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical? 

To investigate these questions, I examined a speech from a 16 year old girl, Greta Thunberg, convincing politicians to take climate change seriously. To take the steps in to stopping global warming that will affect the generations of children yet to come more than it affects anyone who has the title of power today. The main purpose of this artifact’s message is to open the eyes of those who are in power to realize the world is now in its earliest stages of a mass extinction. Politicians should be developing solutions and strategies to fix this climate issue. Younger children, like Thunberg, shouldn’t have to be the ones who are concerned if they will ever see their future. Ethos, pathos, and logos are used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose of the values held, the support from the audience, and the reference of scientific research and studies to support the given claim. 

On September 23, 2019 this video of Greta Thunberg speaking to the politicians to take climate change seriously, became viral. In it we listen to a message for the world leaders at the United Nations at the Climate Action Summit in New York. Thunberg begins by speaking in terms that she should be at school, on the other side of the ocean. A young girl shouldn’t have to be at a summit to try and convince politicians to take climate change seriously. The eyes of the young citizens are upon the ones holding power and if they choose to fail the generations to come, forgiveness is not in eyesight. The speech expresses ethos, pathos, and logos to achieve the message. 

Herrick explained that rhetoric can be held to be constructed of arguments and appeals involving beliefs shared by the speaker and audience. With presenting an enthymeme speak, “a “heartfelt” argument in which the audience sensed in the rhetoric's language and delivery a passionate commitment to the position being staked out” is what draws in the audience to feel a certain emotion (Herrick, 74). The way rhetorical appeals are useful is if “successful construction is accomplished through the joint efforts of speaker and audience, and this is its essential character (Herrick, 75). A speaker can easily express their emotions, but it takes the audience to connect to those given emotions in order for it to be successful.* When arguing with the awareness of public values “successful rhetoric must connect with what the audience believes. By its very nature, then, rhetoric is a communal or democratic approach to resolving issues (Herrick, 75). With resolving issues that are involved with the public, one must connect with what the audience believes in order to get to the successful conclusion. There are three categories in which an issue is addressed “different setting in which speeches occur, the corresponding purpose or goal (telos) of a speech, and the varying roles audiences play” (Herrick, 75). Such elements come into play when giving a successful speech. The three artistic proofs that come into play”are (1) logos or arguments and logical reasoning, (2) pathos or the names and causes of various emotions, and (3) ethos or human character and goodness” (Herrick, 78). The term , logos, has many different meanings. Herrick narrows it down to the idea that “it meant simply a work, or it could refer in a plural sense of the words of a document or speech. It also carried the sense of a thought expressed in words, discourse, an argument or an entire case” (Herrick, 79). Logos overall is a collection of arguments that are put together in order to make a rational decision. Study of emotion is also what comes into play when presenting a successful speech. Pathos is defined as “putting the audience in the right frame of mind” to make a rational decision (Herrick, 79). Within a speech “pathos is often used to refer to emotional appeals that give persuasive messages their power to move an audience to action” (Herrick, 79). With having a speech that grabs the audience’s emotions to match up with the speaker’s emotions, that is what causes the speech to make the audience want to place themselves into action. When it comes to the speaker, “a knowledgeable speaker can engage the strong beliefs and feelings that both influence the reasoning of the audience members and move them to action” (Herrick, 79). It’s one thing to get the audience to feel a certain emotion, but it’s another thing when you give the audience a reason as to why they could feel a certain emotion and what action to take having that mindset in hand. A speaker can follow a couple simple steps in how to get an audience to feel an emotion, but to “understand human emotional response toward the goal of adjusting an audience’s emotional state to fit the nature of seriousness of the particular issue being argued” is a whole other ball game (Herrick, 80). The speaker must form its character into three parts to “exhibit phronesis (intelligence, good sense), arete (virtue), and eunia (goodwill)” (Herrick, 81). In order to get the audience onto the speakers side, one must prove to the audience that they are trustworthy. With proving to the audience that one is trustworthy, “they will be very likely to accept as true what that speaker has to say” (Herrick, 81). Having a speaker who is backed up with trustworthy sources, help them gain trust in what is being said. Overall, once all three of these are placed into act “they can be employed in a carefully achieved persuasive balance” (Herrick, 81). The way that these rhetorical appeals are used, are shown ethically

The ways that ethos, logos, and pathos are used ethically in the rhetorical artifact, Greta Thunberg’s speech, is what achieves the main purpose. Greta Thunberg uses ethos ethically when presenting her speech by expressing the values in which she holds. When speaking directly to the politicians, Thunberg expresses “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe” (Bill Chappel, npr). In this case, Thunberg is holding high the characteristic of goodwill. Thunberg expresses her kindhearted feelings towards the politicians because she refuses to believe that they hear the young and grown citizens. If they heard them and understood the urgency but continued to do nothing about this issue, they would be evil. That is what Thunberg tries to erase from her mind because she truly wants to believe that that isn't the reasoning. Coming to an end to this speech, Thunberg expresses “You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I saw: We will never forgive you” (Bill Chappel, npr). As a sixteen year old kid, one shouldn’t have to worry about the future of their generations. They shouldn’t be concerned about whether or not they will see their future or this kids future. This young generation is starting to understand the concern about climate change and have to miss school in order to get the one’s with power to understand climate change as well and convince world leaders to take legislation seriously. With a final ending, “We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not” (Bill Chappel, npr). The fight to convince world leaders to take climate change and legislation seriously is being expressed through this speech given by a sixteen-year-old girl. Whether the leaders like the idea of change or not, these younger generations are going to make that change in order to fight for their future. 

Greta Thunberg uses logos ethically when presenting her speech by being able to construct her character as trustworthy. Thunberg constructed her character as trustworthy by her use of references from scientific research and studies to support her claim that climate change is real and potentially disastrous.  Thunberg states, “The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control. Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist” (Bill Chappel, npr). Here, Thunberg addresses the concern of toxic air pollutants or the aspects of climate change that her generation is going to have to face when the time comes. Continued, “So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences” (Bill Chappel, npr). Thunberg expresses the concern that the world leaders are only focusing on a couple of years that will be affected rather than keeping their minds on the children, even their own, that will have to deal with the consequences faced because of the actions not being taken today.

Greta Thunberg uses pathos ethically when she refers to her childhood and dreams being taken away. When expressing those emotions, the applause of the audience demonstrated that they support her. Thunberg states, “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!” (Bill Chappel, npr). This is the first message that Thunberg has to the world leaders. AS stated before, Greta should be in school and not having a single worry about if she’ll have a future. Yet, the world leaders are doing nothing about climate change but expect to lean on future generations for hope. Continued, “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” (Bill Chappel, npr). Thunberg engages in the strong beliefs and feelings she holds when answering a question about the message she has for world leaders. The hope that world leaders will understand the human emotion from the speaker and audience with the idea to take that response and placing it towards a goal for the future generations.

This leaves us with the question of whether the way of using ethos, pathos, and logos is ethical. The speaker, Greta Thunberg, is being ethical with her chosen language in order to bring attention to the complicated issue that is at stake. The time that the audience limits to the speaker, gives the speaker a mindset that one must be respectful and prepared to that time limit. Thunberg presented herself as well prepared as she held a paper that had her key ideas to present to the world leaders and the audience in hand. From the very moment Thunberg began speaking, she had the crowd clapping in agreement to her points and emotions that were being expressed. Thunberg presented in her speech necessary facts and references to back up her points in which she would be presenting. Helping her delivery flow and keep the audience’s attention as well as their satisfaction. Greta Thunberg presented herself as responsible and knowledgeable, all while being able to express her emotions. Thunberg is a sixteen-year-old girl who came to present her concerns on climate change with the future generations at stake.

In doing additional research on this topic, a scholarly article by Andrew Dlugan, Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Pillars of Public Speaking, further explains how the use of ethos, pathos, and logos can achieve a purpose towards the main goal of a speech. As a speaker, one should understand and be educated on how to apply these three key ideas of public speaking. In order to get the audience on your side, “these are the three essential qualities that your speech or presentation must have before your audience will accept your message” (Dlugan, 1). Getting the audience to agree with you by accepting your message, is the goal that all public speakers should aim for. The first pillar to cover is that of Ethos. As Dlugan states, “before you can convince an audience to accept anything you say, they have to accept you as credible” (Dlugan, 2). Greta Thunberg’s speech represents credibility as she collects and refers to scientific research and studies to support her overall claim. Thunberg states, “To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world has 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less then 350 gigatons” (Bill Chapell, npr). With presenting the audience and world leaders with information of the degrees in gigatons of CO2, Thunberg is presenting herself as a high reason to why the audience should find her acceptable. With connecting on a deeper level to the audience’s emotions, “emotional connection can be created in many ways by a speaker, perhaps most notable by stories. The goal of a story, anecdote, analogy, simile, and metaphor is often to link an aspect of our primary message with a triggered emotional response from the audience” (Dlugan, 3). When your characterization, words, and visuals connect on a deep level of emotion, the audience will bounce off that with a connection. As Thunberg states, “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe (Bill Chapell, npr). Thunberg expresses her emotions of sorrow and anger to the world leaders in front of the audience to show the meaning of emotion as to why she is here speaking. In order to incorporate logos into a speech, a speaker must have a message that ends with a reasoned argument to why the point has been made. With the bullet points made in the article, “is your message based on facts, statistics, and evidence?” (Dlugan, 3). As Thunberg discusses the statistics of the access to CO2, “so a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us – we who have to live with the consequences” (Bill Chapell, npr). Thunberg’s message to the world leaders and audience is backed up by multiple facts, statistics, and evidence throughout the speech. Inserting these three pillars of public speaking is the secret to get the audience to steer towards the speaker’s side.

Greta Thunberg’s speech along with scholarly article by Andrew Dlugan, Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Pillars of Public Speaking, helped explore my critical question to how ethos, pathos, and logos are used to achieve a purpose. The main purpose of the artifact, Greta Thunberg’s speech, message was to give the world leaders and the audience a wake-up call to take climate change and legislation seriously. The generations that are yet to come, may not be seeing a future if the way this is playing out continues. A change needs to be done whether the world leaders prefer it or not. Ethos, pathos, and logos are used to achieve this purpose by giving credibility and character to the speaker, gaining an emotional connection to the audience, and making logical arguments to support a solution to the issue.

Video Link:

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763389015/this-is-all-wrong-greta-thunberg-tells-world-leaders-at-u-n-climate-session?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0uZwcChhYFKby00DvtQzNhPVdUB2tjKB8R0hs4DlaeCan5ag02pxFI3IU&jwsource=cl

References:

Dlugan, Andrew. "Ethos, pathos, logos: 3 pillars of public speaking." Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills 24 (2010).

Herrick, J. A. (2005) Aristotle on rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed.) (pp.69-81). New York: Routledge.

Chappell, B. (2019, September 23). 'This Is All Wrong,' Greta Thunberg Tells World Leaders At U.N. Climate Session. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763389015/this-is-all-wrong-greta-thunberg-tells-world-leaders-at-u-n-climate-session utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1Rv6giz3c0wvjqmmujz6AOFbRGdDMVQkni8amav6G8E1m3GvJ1MnFSPA