One question that has continually haunted me since Wednesday's discussion of On Rhetoric is the seemingly contradictory sentiments Aristotle seems to have on emotional appeal in rhetoric. He posits early on that, "verbal attack and pity and anger and such emotions of the soul do not relate to facts but are appeals to the juryman... it is wrong to warp the jury by leading them into anger or envy or pity: that is the same as if someone made a straightedge rule crooked before using it" (30). From this statement, it appears that Aristotle believes that emotional appeal has no place in one's argument in rhetoric. Later on though, he admits that, "[there is persuasion] through the hearers when they are led to feel emotion by the speech; for we do not give the same judgment when grieved and rejoicing or when being friendly and hostile" (38). These are not necessarily contradictory in that Aristotle is admitting that emotional appeal is unavoidable in rhetoric, and his piece would be lacking if he did not address its role. Rather, he seems to look down on emotional manipulation of the audience without the proper argumentation to back it up, for a solid argument will naturally lead the audience to feel certain emotions.
What is curious to me is then why he bothers to characterize the dispositions of the young, the old, and the middle-aged, since this appears to prime the rhetor with the tools to appeal emotionally to the audience he writes or speaks to. Indeed after he characterizes the old and the young, he says, "since all people receive favorably speeches spoken in their own character and by persons like themselves, it is not unclear how both speakers and speeches may seem to be of this sort through use of words" (168). This is where I struggle to resolve Aristotle's seemingly contradictory sentiments. If he is not a proponent of emotional manipulation, then why bother to outline how to appeal to these different audiences? Or is he simply explaining why one rhetor's speech may be ineffective to a crowd which is unlike the rhetor himself? If a rhetor is young, is he incapable of appealing to the old, even if he crafts his speech with the character of his audience in mind? Perhaps Aristotle thinks this is the case, and if so, then this might resolve the inconsistency between his positions on emotional appeal.
2 comments:
Tessa,
This is an issue I grappled with as well in my trace of emotion in "On Rhetoric." The editor also noted the contradiction and offered the interpretations previously presented by other theorists.
This could be a good opportunity to discuss authorship and readership spanning time and space (to think of this relationship in Ong's terms as being one between to terminals).
To talk about why the disconnect has occurred between Aristotle and ourselves would obviously not be worthwhile. The dude's dead, as I said, and knowing that he couldn't conceive of us as his audience is enough.
Instead we should consider the audience he knew. As Kennedy tells us, they were students of dialectic. But to know that they were his students may, in fact, be enough. Last class I tried to deal with this issue in light of Aristotle's comments on the true and strong.
I guess that in directing our attention to the audience as I did earlier was in order to frame my own suggestion about Aristotle's contradiction. Perhaps Aristotle wanted to initially condemn rhetoric so that he wouldn't immediately corrupt his students by teaching it. Rhetoric, as Aristotle demonstrates, is a powerful tool for influencing judgments. He made it clear on page thirty that he did not approve of the way most "trials were governed." He favored trials that focused on the subject rather than "appeals to the juryman" (30).
Later in his discussion of the superiority of "the true and the just," Aristotle says that "if judgments are not made in the right way [the true and the just] are necessarily defeated. And this is worthy of censure" (34). So it seems as if he was not simply criticizing rhetoric on page thirty, but also the system in which the judgments are made. He then is teaching his students to understand that the practices of the system are unjust but to learn them regardless so that the true and just might win.
So in providing the tools for emotional appeal, he is teaching rhetoric to those students he has also primed with a warning about the system.
I hope that made some sense.
Cordially,
Peter
I also noticed the contradictions that Aristotle proposed in the use of emotion in rhetoric. However, in taking a second look, I think that Aristotle is trying to show how emotion needs to be treated in rhetoric.
Overall, Aristotle seems to want logic, reason, and truth to win over emotionality. Lawyers should only present what is or is not. The judge should not take instruction from the lawyers, but he decides for himself based on the written law and using what the law-maker has made clear and what the law-maker has not made clear.
I don't see Aristotle as looking down on emotions. He acknowledges that emotions play a certain role (just as facts play a certain role) for they represent a commonality. Humans overall have and experience the same emotions. So when an emotion is presented, it represents a deeper meaning to the audience. It may be relevant to a demonstration, since "there are morally valid emotions in every situation" (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 39). Futhermore, emotions need be present because if one were to just use facts, then the speech would become "too technical" and not "comprehensible to the judges" (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 46). If one were to succeed in a speech based on fact, then "the knowledge will no longer be dialectic or rhetoric" (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 46). So rhetoric requires an element of emotion, but it needs to be appropriate emotion. "It is wrong to warp the jury by leading them into anger or envy or pity" (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 30). It is wrong to use emotions for the sole reason of swaying a jury. It is right to use emotions to prove a fact or truth.
In looking at different types of people that make up different types of audiences, I think Aristotle is warning about the precision it takes to use emotion effectively. For rhetoric is a tool and emotion is a fragile component of that tool. Aristotle says, the "function is not to persuade but to see the available means of persuasion in each case" (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 35). Therefore I think he is showing how necessary it is to use emotion, as well as how easy it is to misuse it.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.