Coffee with Aristotle

I suppose pathos is as complicated as human emotions. I never thought about it that way. I actually thought pathos was the most recognizable tools of rhetoric. But this chapter has opened my eyes to how emotions may be manipulated in order to evoke a certain feeling or feelings in an audience. And as I think about pathos I think I am also becoming more aware of how it is interconnected with logos and ethos. They must be woven together in order to be powerful enough to resonate with the audience. But it certainly helps to break them down like Aristotle has in Book 2.

In the Obama piece I've been studying, there is certainly an attempt to create pathetic emotions in the listener. He uses a combination of calmness, friendliness (but also enmity), fear and confidence, shame, kindliness, pity and emulation to make his case. I explore those concepts in more depth below.

Obama uses calmness and friendliness in order to establish the tone of his rhetoric. It's obvious he isn't trying to whip people up into a frenzy, but instead is trying to convince the audience that this isn't a particularly emotional issue for him (which is ironic because it really is an emotional issue for most people). So he calmly explains his position and casts it in terms of friendship. Aristotle puts it this way: "friends are those to whom the same things are good and bad and who have the same friends and the same enemies; for they necessarily wish the same things" (125). So if you agree with Obama on this issue you could be considered "friends" or at least potential friends, if you were ever to meet. The point is that this creates the illusion of a relationship with the President. It makes him a "good guy" if you agree with him.

Aristotle states that the speaker may attempt to "bring those who through anger or enmity are on the other side of the case over to whatever feeling he chooses" (128). I believe that Obama is attempting to sway those who may be on the fence about gay marriage to come over to his side. But ultimately it's about getting more people to think like him so that he will be reelected.

I think that there is an obvious shame component. Perhaps I am biased on this subject, but I believe that Obama is making his argument in order to make the audience feel shame if they don't agree with his position. If a majority of Americans believe it's ok to marry if you're gay then it follows that many of your peers and people whom you respect also feel this way. Obama shows his own shame and the process that lead to his coming around to his current position "over the course of several years." I think he's saying that no matter what you felt before, it's ok. There is no shame in changing how you feel now. There is only shame in continuing to deny these people their rights.

Pity is an important concept here. Obama very quickly brings pity into his argument when he gives an example of how the audience might be made to suffer. Most people know someone who is gay. They might not even know it, but their friends, family and/or people they work with may be affected by this issue, whether directly or indirectly. In particular, in the accompanying post on whitehouse.gov, when Obama brings his children into the argument (as has been pointed out he often does) he brings in this idea of the family - your "own" (139) as Aristotle calls it. No one wants their own to suffer and this becomes a particularly powerful rhetorical device when used in this particular argument. Most people are fiercely protective of their families. So it follows that they are going to accept Obama's argument that people shouldn't be "treated differently."

Obama gives an example of his kindliness - in that he took a big political risk by eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Selflessness seems to be a cornerstone of the concept of kindliness. Contrasted with Romney, Obama is trying to show that he is the benevolent character and that Romney would instead make decisions that would only benefit him (personally and politically). In a sense, Obama is taking a stand that runs contrary to his own benefit, therefore emphasizing his altruism. While Romeny gives away money as a form of altruism, Obama is willing to risk his career for what is "right."

For these reasons, emulation seems to tie everything here together. Obama's goals here are two-fold. He is not only making the argument that you should support same-sex marriage, but that you should also emulate him. He is trying to make a connection with the majority of Americans who now support this issue.  In effect, he is saying "I support gay marriage, which is good, and you should support it and me, because it is all good."