A Story Etched into Memory -- the Power of Pathos

Recently, I was drawn to a specific address given by President Henry B. Eyring. He - very strongly - fortified the importance of preparation to my mind through the use of pathos. To get the full message, I encourage you to watch the video if you haven't, the text doesn’t do it justice. For the moment, I will analyze the text, and refer to the expression of speech if necessary.

To begin his talk, President Eyring decided to tell a story – a story so full of emotion that anyone paying attention will remember both the account and its moral. He spoke of a little girl that was thrown fifty feet by an oncoming car, and the call to give a blessing to this girl in the hospital. They were met with opposition, however, as he says,

"The doctors and the nurses only reluctantly let us reach through a plastic barrier to place a drop of oil on the one opening in the heavy bandages which covered her head. A doctor said to me, with irritation in his voice, 'Hurry with whatever you are going to do. She is dying.'” (par. 3)

President Eyring then summarized his feelings of the doctor in three, very powerful words. "He was wrong." After a slight pause (to let the emotional impact sink into the listeners), President Eyring began his address for the importance of preparing long before the time the priesthood is needed.

The details of his address, his vocal emphasis, and overall storyline appealed to the pathos of his talk. The reader/listener could comprehend the importance of his message simply by listening to the feelings they felt as they heard President Eyring speak. Readers can get a sense of the doctors' impatience and frustration, the faith and confidence of the child's parents, the determination of President Eyring and his partner, etc. He used the emotion of his story to leave a lasting impression and memory in those listening -- a prime example of tremendous pathos.

Throughout the rest of his address, President Henry B. Eyring covered two main ways for us to become prepared enough to exercise the priesthood: faith and confidence. He continued to use pathos, but in the context with strong logos and audience appeal.

While he spoke of faith, he gave the example of Nephi (Par. 10-15), showing his faith. Nephi himself had unshakable faith, and President Eyring quotes admirable attributes. Qualities -- confidence, determination, endurance, long-suffering, unshakable faith -- are some of the same that the audience is striving to perfect, and by bringing up Nephi's attributes, President Eyring connects with the thoughts, feelings, and goals of his listeners.

The pathos presented with President Eyring's second point, confidence, is achieved in a similar manner. He recognizes that his listeners at some point in time have felt regret, remorse, and felt "[dragged] down to doubt the existence of God." (par. 22) This phrasing is very important, because President Eyring could have written it much differently. Listeners could feel remorse over breaking the Word of Wisdom, watching a rated-R movie, but doubting the existence of God is out of the question for any person of faith. Thus, listeners are more willing and receptive to the direction of President Eyring. By using hyperboles to exaggerate his point, he can deliver his proposal for all priesthood holders to always be prepared.

Along those lines, we are instructed us to love, support, and show confidence in others, brings those around us up -- and ourselves in the process -- to believe more completely in God. As with faith, President Eyring knows the feelings and desires of his listeners, and gives positive response in the form of pathos with them.

President Eyring's address was both emotionally powerful and emotionally sound in message. The immense impact of a story of pathos and the personal effects of subtle feelings shows the extent of President Eyring's ability to use pathos to support his message. Even outside of the story, he shows us the strength and convincing power of pathos in the company of logos and audience appeal as shown in the use of hyperboles and desirable traits. All of these components lay the foundation for a lasting memory in the minds of the audience.

When Apocalyptical Logic Backfires

This is the second of my two posts dealing with James Lovelock's article about global warming, the former concerning his logos. When I began reading his article, I followed his facts and agreed with his points, but in about the span of a paragraph, he lost all my trust as a reader and interest in his article -- the results of terrible logical fallacies.

The main two that I noticed involved Hasty Generalizations and Post Hocs. The generalization hit home the hardest when Lovelock said:

"[Nuclear energy] fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway..." (Par. 14)

The argument was valid up until the last sentence. Purely from a logic standpoint, the claim that one-in-three die of cancer is quite eye-catching, but there is no source to acknowledge where these statistics came from. Also, the way Lovelock’s voice comes across is that he is quickly generalizing facts he's heard and just putting a number onto paper. This is not conducive to his persuasion.

This quote also has unsound pathos. No matter what side of the fence you're on, no one wants to hear that comment put so blatantly. Lovelock's comment on cancer is emotionally unsound, and is distracting to the reader to say the least. For me, all I remember is the cancer comment -- I don't even remember the logic that lead up to that.

Another fallacy I noticed involved a Post Hoc: whatever happens second is a result of whatever happened first. On multiple occasions, Lovelock suggests that the reason politicians aren't behind stunting global warming and nuclear energy is because it isn't what the lobbyists/Greens want. This is a premature statement, because we don't incorporate all the inner-workings of the political world. True, these are viable reasons, but until we look more in-depth, it is just merely an assumption put into the minds of the readers.

Between these last two posts, James Lovelock presents a very solid defense for nuclear energy. Nevertheless, even the strongest fortress can be broken if it is built on fallacies.

The Logic Behind Apocalypse

My next two posts have to deal with the Global Warming article Lars had analyzed earlier. This first post will deal with the logical strengths and advantages of this article written by James Lovelock of the United Kingdom.

It is pretty safe to assume that most, if not all, educated people have heard of the issue of global warming. It usually carries a negative connotation, and Lovelock's writing is no exception. Compared to most arguments, however, Lovelock has strong factual backing, but sadly fails to refer to their sources.

Right off the bat, Lovelock refers to a prominent figure Sir David King, the UK's chief scientist, predicting the gravity of global warming on the world. At that time, he remarks that King's prediction did not draw a large amount of attention, but Lovelock continues to show evidence of a worsening climate. One such involved a heat spell in Europe during the summer of 2003. Nearly 20,000 people died of heat-related incidents. Some claimed this just a "deviation from the norm" (Par. 5), although Lovelock points out that climatologists of the time predicted this degree of deviation had a 1-out-of-300,000 chance of occurring.

To support his claim even more, Lovelock reports predictions that by 2100 A.D., the global temperature will rise 6 degrees-Celsius. In order to identify the magnitude of this change of temperature, the author shows that it would raise the sea level by seven meters -- enough to sink cities such as Venice, London, New York, Tokyo, and half of southern Florida.

As you can see, Lovelock’s article leans heavily on facts, because without them, no one would see reason to change. The data presented is very convincing, but at some times, the numbers make the reader think whether or not they are exaggerated. In a normal situation, a curious reader would follow the author’s references to read for themselves what exactly the data represents. Unfortunately, Lovelock has no references. For all we know, he could be making up the values just to scare us. Without citations, all of Lovelock’s argument is just convincing facts and not necessarily true facts.

James Lovelock's article contains an immense amount of support from recent research, studies, and other scientific reports – none of which we can verify. According to the stated information, awareness and action on global warming has increased over the years, but Lovelock does not think this will be enough to save the planet. By Lovelock's article, it is easy to understand why he thinks that nuclear power is the only way to save the world. He suggests that we don't have time to experiment with alternative energies, and that we already have a good, clean, and green solution to global warming -- nuclear energy.

Changing the Views of Isolationism from Controversial to Irrational

For this analysis, I once again review Steven Duin's article about the scrutiny of community in the United States today. This time around, I'm focusing on his language and the way he uses his words to get the message across.

In short, Duin wrote a column for a Portland, Oregon newspaper, detailing his thoughts of some of the public's views on President Obama's actions when dealing with the community. He views their thoughts to be unreasonable for this particular time in our nation's history, and argues that focusing on the community rather than the individual is what is best for our country. When readers begin his article, they have their own take on whether the individual is more important than the community or vice versa. The way Steve Duin writes, however, makes you feel as if his view is the only view that can be deemed acceptable. This is accomplished through very intricate uses of language tools.

One such vastly apparent tool is Duin's use of imagery and figurative meanings. Statements like "this train of thought rumbles out of the right-wing noise machine" (par. 3) works to not only identify which group thinks that individualism is more important than community, but also discredits the source. Duin could have written that right-wing citizens hold this view, but he decides to include statements like these -- ones that Duin obviously deems "radical" or "irrational" -- happen all the time and that right-wing perspectives are always just seeking attention. A statement like this can, however, hurt his audience, especially those that have the views of Duin’s “right-wing noise machine” (Phoebe has already addressed that perception, if you want to read a more in-depth look).

Immediately following this segment, Duin continues to write things such as "Unions do the devil's work" (par. 5) to give samples to the readers of why right-wing views are drastic and excessive, and that his view on the argument is fairer. The usage of imagery runs rampant in this article.

Another language tool Duin uses lies near the end of his writing. Keeping with the same tone present throughout his paper, Duin's final message is to leave a few questions in the mind of his readers. Using rhetorical questions like, "[A president who believes] in the sacrificial giving that serves those who cannot fathom your prosperity? I would hope so" (Par. 18-19) Duin words the situation to be favorable to his argument. No one wants to admit to prioritizing greed over humanitarianism, especially in a president, so of course the reader will want to agree with Duin's statement. Ending articles with statements like these proves to make Steve Duin's argument all the more powerful.

"Ending our Splintering Isolation" uses numerous other language tools, such as allusions and definite tone, to get Duin's point across. The article -- in its entirety -- is an amazing representation of what shaping the words and context of an argument to your benefit can do.

9/11 -- Connecting the Cold to the Children

Peggy Noonan's article "The Children of 9/11 Grow Up" has a very strong emotional pull to its readers, as Phoebe analyzed previously. Almost as interesting as the emotional-side of this article is the audience that it addresses.

After Noonan's opening paragraph, she begins to both personalize her story and direct her audience away from just the general public. She starts off the body of her article with, "I've been thinking about..." (par. 2) in order to let her readers know that she is going to be telling her perspective on the effect 9/11 has had on college students that were children during this event. Noonan stays attached to the students emotionally and keeps the focus on them, but she separates her writing and views from the students. Her strategy is to make her story more appealing and applicable to people of her age -- those that have been through a great tragedy before.

Further on, Noonan states that "9/11 was for America's kids exactly what Nov. 22, 1963, was for their parents and uncles and aunts" (par. 6). Noonan doesn't bother to explain the date, because she expects the majority of her audience to know what that date stands for. For me, as a "child of 9/11" I had to look up the date to realize November 22nd, 1963 was the day when JFK was assassinated. Noonan used JFK as an excellent connection to bring more understanding of the situation to those that have grown cold to constant tragedy.

Those that aren't in Noonan's majority of readers aren't too distracted by this phrase because they just assume the date has a greater meaning to other people. A majority of those in this type of mindset are people that have felt overwhelmed by the events of 9/11. In order to keep this article attached to these readers, the imagery and emotion used by Noonan provides a bridge between her view and their memories. As Noonan interviews college students, those that have memories of 9/11 frequently connect their thoughts to the experience of the interviewees – including me.

"Children of 9/11 Grow Up" does a wonderful job to connect its older audience to the feelings of current college students, while also keeping those “children” interested in the article. This college connection might have been intentional, or Noonan might have been primarily focusing on her own generation. Either way, they are both great results of effective writing.

The Aura of President Monson

On September 15th, President Thomas S. Monson came to BYU to address the students in our weekly devotional. I've heard hundreds of talks from different leaders of the church, but his address was a very unique message, speaking on the prophets during President Monson's life, what they stood for, and what we can learn from them.

Before a word had even left his mouth, there was a high level of authority, or ethos, which came with the name "President Thomas S. Monson." His audience - members of the Church of Jesus Christ and possible investigators - know that Thomas S. Monson is the head of their church, and thus has a high level of credibility and believability. Quite frankly, he is the head of the organization that shapes the audience's lives. A lot of President Monson's message plays off of this fact: the audience believes what he is saying, they know he won't lead them astray, and they know what he stands for.

As if that wasn't enough, President Monson creates an even greater sense of ethos throughout his talk. He could have spoken on the lessons that he learned from all the prophets, but he chose to only speak on the prophets of his life. President Monson has an actual connection and personal experience with each and every one of the past prophets that he spoke on. By throwing in their favorite foods or funny stories that only someone that saw them on a constant basis would know, President Monson gives us reason to trust what he is saying as he connects past prophets to the current prophet – himself.

Social Networks, Communities, and the Government

I read an opinion editorial by Steve Duin, a newspaper columnist in Portland, Oregon. His story is titled "Ending our Splintering Isolation," and Duin touches on the current thought process surfacing saying that President Obama is turning the United States towards Socialism.

I've found two main points Duin focuses on when addressing this situation that creates a great sense of kairos: the view of the president, and the view of the community.

View of the President -- Right now, there are many citizen arguments made that Obama is trying to create a socialist country. The find socialist roots in his attempts to create a universal health care system, merging more companies/businesses into the government, etc. When President Obama gave his back-to-school speech, there were citizens saying that, "This is a President who believes in community above individuals and its [sic] clear in the talking points sent out to schools" (par. 2).

There are many on this conservative side, and Duin spends his time trying to reason with this viewpoint that turns "community into a shameful code name for socialism" (par. 13) His article works well to bring the opposing opinion into the argument, stating that what this country needs at this time is community support - we need to be cooperative and work with each other.

View of the Community -- Duin's article subtlety addresses another global situation in our communities: the lack of social networking. I read an article that summarized a book by Robert Putnam called "Bowling Alone," which addresses the issue that, due to a number of factors, people have stopped communicating in person, and social communities have fallen apart. People have gotten into the cyber-era of texting, emailing, and using other forms of digital communication to keep in touch with others.

This new form of "culture" is why Steve Duin is arguing for community unity in his article. Very few will deny that more and more people are shifting towards individualism because that is what they witness all around them every single day. Duin's strongest sense of kairos plays off this fact. Since people are drifting away into isolation, it is good that our president is finding ways to connect the public. Since people don't realize the importance of living, concrete communities in our country in the here and now, Duin shapes his article to bring people towards his view – America and its people need to support the communities, and not only is it good that President Obama is doing so, it is imperative that he does.