#rhetoricalanalysis

-

△➞ ://0018 Hueman ≈ Instrumentality • [1653] ➞ ▲ ▌│█║▌║▌║🔅 ╚╚|░|☀️△☀️|░|╝╝🔅║▌║▌║█│▌ YOUTUBE: 9mdtgB4Sjmo

The three methods of persuasion go back to Aristotle, and they're still the foundation of how we convince each other of things today.

Logos is persuasion through logic and reason. It's presenting facts, evidence, and rational arguments that can be examined on their own merit. When someone uses logos, they're saying "here's the reasoning, here are the connections, follow the logic and see if it holds up." It doesn't matter who's saying it or how they make you feel about it - the logic either works or it doesn't.

Ethos is persuasion through credibility and authority. It's when someone says "trust me because I'm an expert" or "believe this because a Harvard study said so." It's appealing to credentials, reputation, tribal consensus. The argument becomes less about whether the idea itself makes sense and more about whether the source seems trustworthy.

Pathos is persuasion through emotion. It's making people feel something - fear, sympathy, anger, hope - to get them to agree with you. Think of every commercial showing sad puppies to get donations, or politicians painting scary scenarios about what happens if their opponent wins.

Here's why logos should be our default, especially over ethos: Truth doesn't need a pedigree. A logical argument from an unknown source is still logical. An illogical argument from a Nobel laureate is still illogical. When we lean on ethos, we're essentially admitting our ideas can't stand on their own - they need the crutch of someone's reputation to prop them up.

The problem with ethos is it creates this weird dynamic where we stop thinking and start deferring. Someone drops a credential and suddenly we're not examining the actual argument anymore, we're just nodding along because surely the expert knows best. But experts are wrong constantly. Published research gets retracted. Consensus shifts. If we'd been examining the logic itself rather than genuflecting to the source, we might have spotted the flaws earlier.

Tumblr CQ Essay 2

Rhetorical Analysis: Justin Baldoni Redefining Masculinity

In this entry, I will evaluate the critical questions: 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 used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I analyzed Justin Baldoni’s TED talk titled “Why I’m Done Trying to Be ‘Man Enough’”. Baldoni goes into how his past and current TV and movie roles shaped his view on modern masculinity, which challenges the way that people view how men should and should not act, which is ethical because it helps start a conversation on traditional norms on the way men should and should not feel or express themselves. The main purpose of this speech is to encourage open conversations about being vulnerable and redefine the concept of masculinity in today’s society. By examining the usage of ethos, pathos, and logos in this rhetorical artifact, we can see how Baldoni effectively communicates his message. Baldoni has been able to maintain his platform online through his posts about being a man who loves his wife and who is okay with discussing his feelings. According to Baldoni, “I want to be a man who is vulnerable and raw, and admits when I’m weak because I’m strong in my ability to feel all of these things” (Baldoni). This quote explains a genuine desire to encourage chance and this message resonates far beyond the TED talk stage. In Justin Baldoni’s speech “Why I’m Done Trying to be ‘Man Enough’”, Baldoni successfully uses rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos as defined by James. A. Herrick in “The History and Theory of Rhetoric” to challenge societal norms surrounding masculinity. By sharing his experiences and providing empirical evidence, Baldoni establishes credibility through evoking emotions, logically argues for an inclusive definition of masculinity, and authenticity through his experiences, to advocate for a redefined masculinity aspect that embraces being vulnerable while also being able to express yourself freely to positively impact the world.

James A. Herrick in “The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction”, specifically in Chapter 4, helps us understand the art of persuasive communication. Herrick explains, “This proof should develop from what the speaker says in the course of a speech, and not be important on the basis of prior reputation with the audience” (80). This explanation of Aristotle’s perspective is a good perspective, but one might argue that prior reputation can indeed influence how an audience views a speaker. Personally, Justin Baldoni’s speech was something I found specifically because I am a big fan of his from all of the TV shows he has starred in. I feel as if he said something racist or horribly unethical, this would be a different conversation. It is extremely important to acknowledge that Aristotle’s explanation explains the need for speakers to reinforce the necessary means of persuasion and substance in a speech, regardless of their reputation. While Baldoni is a very known actor, his speech was not only credible because of his fame, it is from his willingness to be vulnerable, share his personal struggles and align with the way that Aristotle views that credibility should come from the information and expression of the speech. 

Baldoni is an American actor, director, and producer who is known for his roles in very popular TV series such as “Jane the Virgin”. Beyond his career, he is known for promoting conversations about redefining gender and societal norms. He discusses traditional notions of manhood which include, but are not limited to, emotional restraint, and physical strength. According to Baldoni, “Growing up, we tend to challenge each other. We've got to be the toughest, the strongest, the bravest men that we can be. And for many of us, myself included, our identities are wrapped up in whether or not at the end of the day we feel like we're man enough” (12:15). This shows that Baldoni’s upbringing was based on traditional notions of masculinity and he had societal pressure to conform to being tough, strong, and brave. Being man enough is also used as a sense of a personal struggle that Baldoni has within, as demonstrated through his usage of his ethos and pathos.

Baldoni establishes credibility and authenticity, also known as ethos, by sharing his own personal experiences of society's expectation of masculinity. According to Baldoni, “Being soft meant that I was bullied…my dad wasn't traditionally masculine, so he didn't teach me how to use my hands. He didn't teach me how to hunt, how to fight, you know, man stuff. Instead he taught me what he knew: that being a man was about sacrifice and doing whatever you can to take care of and provide for your family” (4:40). Through his own experiences, Baldoni explains why he is invested in this topic because of his own credibility of what he went through growing up. His experiences make him reliable and a trustworthy source of his information. Baldoni also establishes ethos through his own struggles with society’s expectations, which has impacted his own identity. Baldoni uses his experience to connect with listeners who have experienced similar struggles. According to Herrick, “The speaker must exhibit phronesis (intelligence, good sense), arete (virtue), and eunoia (goodwill)” (pg 80-81). Baldoni does all of these things and it is very known through the response of the crowd to everything he said and the positive response given. His good characteristics through his TV shows, movies, etc are also very beloved, which gives people a sense of virtue and intelligence. 

Baldoni establishes credibility through evoking emotional response, pathos, from his audience. Baldoni explains, “I’m just a guy that woke up after 30 years and realized that I was living in a state of conflict, conflict with who I am in my care and conflict with who the world tells me as a man I should be… I don’t just want to be a good man, I want to be a good human” (3:00). By sharing this standpoint, he makes his audience feel empowered and self-reflecting. This moment in his speech, he allows for his audience to see him as a human being, rather than just a ‘famous actor’ and as a public figure. This evokes the audience to feel compassion and understanding towards Baldoni. Also, Baldoni’s voice and the way he talks emphasizes the emotional impact of his message. This allows for the audience to feel inspiration and motivation, as it communicates to the audience that this topic is serious and important, but also resonates with his personal life and affects him and many other people. Baldoni successfully and ethically uses pathos to create a deep emotional connection with his audience and the emotional response is very important for the effectiveness of his message.

Baldoni’s TED talk emphasizes ethos and pathos rather than heavily on logos as a primary rhetorical appeal. Unlike other persuasive speeches, Baldoni’s TED talk does incorporate data or as much statistical evidence to support his message of redefining masculinity. He discusses how his social platform has been his Trojan horse where he can create a daily practice of authenticity and vulnerability and that his responses have been incredible but it’s all from a certain demographic: women… Why are only women following me? Where are the men?” (07:21). This standpoint shows that although his following demographics, as displayed on-screen during his speech, are something of a problem because the men are not following him to be able to see his messages. Although he does not rely on very much more statistics or data, he chooses to connect with his audience on a more personal and emotional level. This rhetorical choice shows his goal of the speech, which is to challenge norms in a way that he understands through his perspectives to align with others who have experienced similar struggles. 

This speech is ethical through starting a conversation through rhetoric to discuss traditional norms on how men should feel and express themselves. By sharing his experiences and advocating for an inclusive definition of being a man, Baldoni helps people understand that societal pressures have contributed to men being unable to express themselves emotionally and he challenges this norm. Baldoni expresses epideictic oratory through the goal of being contemplative rather than pragmatic; and prompts the audience to think, to reflect, or to embrace a new idea (Herrick, Chapter 4, 77). Baldoni allows for a powerful reminder that persuasion is not just about convincing the audience, it is about creating a sense of understanding and also empathy. In our society there are outdated stereotypes of masculinity that continue to foster harmful ideas, and Baldoni’s message helps as a call to action for positive change. By encouraging change, Baldoni has ethical means of promoting mental health while emphasizing an inclusive understanding of masculinity. Through his prioritization of being honest and vulnerable, Baldoni shows a commitment to a progressive future in society. He relies on being able to self-disclose to help others who may have experienced these societal norms to understand and trust Baldoni because he has also been through this harmful stereotype. Baldoni also expresses, “You might recognize me as ‘male escort #1’, ‘photographer date rapist’, ‘shirtless date rapist’, ‘shirtless medical student’, ‘shirtless steroid-using con man’...” (00:36). His acknowledgement to these toxic masculinity roles that he plays as an actor don’t represent who he is, and explains that when he looks in the mirror, that is just not how he sees himself. Although, this is how Hollywood saw him and over time he noticed the parallel between the roles he played as a man both on-screen and off (00:56). This acknowledgement helps us understand that although he plays into these characteristics in movies and shows, this is not an accurate representation of the way he feels or acts in real life. This is why this speech is ethically needed, not for himself but for everyone who watches these movies and sees themselves or who they want to be. It is something that he shows is not a real representation of what a man is or should be and it is not how he is, despite his amazingly talented acting. 

In conclusion, through the examination of Baldoni’s TED talk, “Why I’m Done Trying to Be ‘Man Enough’”, It becomes extremely clear that Baldoni successfully gets his point across through his usage of rhetorical devices of ethos pathos and logos to convey his message about redefining masculinity. Through the questions guiding this essay prompt, we can think about how his emotional storytelling helps his audience reflect on their own experiences and perceptions of masculinity. While this speech may not rely on logos, empirical data, we can see the emotional impact and relatability that Baldoni uses to get his message across. Also, the presence of ethos and pathos are very closely aligned to Aristotle’s understanding of rhetoric, which emphasizes the importance of establishing credibility. This also shows that there is power in personal narrative and emotional connections in advocating for a positive social change. Through his usage of these rhetorical devices to inspire his audience to question societal norms and foster an inclusive and empathetic view of masculinity. 

Works Cited

Baldoni, J. (n.d.). Why I’m done trying to be “Man enough.” Justin Baldoni: Why I’m done trying to be “man enough” | TED Talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/justin_baldoni_why_i_m_done_trying_to_be_man_enough

“You quickly took in the information and made an informed, and likely somewhat accurate, decision about that person. Over the years, as you have interacted with others, you have built a mental database that you can draw on to make conclusions about what a person’s looks tell you about their personality. You have become able to analyze quickly what people are saying about themselves through the way they choose to dress, accessorize, or wear their hair.” (46)

“We have, of course, heard that you “can’t judge a book by its cover,” but, in fact, we do it all the time. Daily we find ourselves in situations where we are forced to make snap judgments. Each day we meet different people, encounter unfamiliar situations, and see media that asks us to do, think, buy, and act in all sorts of ways.” (46)

“The more we know about how to analyze situations and draw informed conclusions, the better we can become about making savvy judgments about the people, situations and media we encounter.” (46)

“Rhetoric—the way we use language and images to persuade—is what makes media work. Think of all the media you see and hear every day: Twitter, television shows, web pages, billboards, text messages, podcasts.” (46)

“Media is constantly asking you to buy something, act in some way, believe something to be true, or interact with others in a specific manner. Understanding rhetorical messages is essential to help us to become informed consumers, but it also helps evaluate the ethics of messages, how they affect us personally, and how they affect society.” (46)

“If we refuse to stop and think about how and why it persuades us, we can become mindless consumers who buy into arguments about what makes us value ourselves and what makes us happy.” (47)

“In the same way that you decide how to process, analyze or ignore these messages, you create them. You probably think about what your clothing will communicate as you go to a job interview or get ready for a date. You are also using rhetoric when you try to persuade your parents to send you money or your friends to see the movie that interests you.” (47)

“What we choose to wear (tennis shoes vs. flip flops), where we shop (Whole Foods Market vs. Wal-Mart), what we eat (organic vs. fast food), or even the way we send information (snail mail vs. text message) can work to persuade others.” (48)

“Rhetorical messages always occur in a specific situation or context.... You choose your clothing depending on where you are going or what you are doing; that’s context. A television commercial comes on during specific programs and at specific points of the day; that’s context. A billboard is placed in a specific part of the community; that’s context, too.” (48)

“Exigence is the circumstance or condition that invites a response... rhetorical discourse is usually responding to some kind of problem.” (48)

“Another part of the rhetorical context is audience, those who are the (intended or unintended) recipients of the rhetorical message. The audience should be able to respond to the exigence. In other words, the audience should be able to help address the problem.... Rhetors make all sorts of choices based on their audience. Audience can determine the type of language used, the formality of the discourse, the medium or delivery of the rhetoric, and even the types of reasons used the make the rhetor’s argument.” (49)

“The constraints of the rhetorical situation are those things that have the power to “constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (Bitzer 306).... Constraints can be “beliefs, attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives” (Bitzer 306). Constraints limit the way the discourse is delivered or communicated.” (49)

“Some rhetoricians look at subject, purpose, audience and occasion. Others might look at the “rhetorical triangle” of writer, reader, and purpose.” (51)

“What you really want to understand is the argument—what the rhetor wants you to believe or do and how he or she goes about that persuasion.... Aristotle articulated three “artistic appeals” that a rhetor could draw on to make a case—logos, pathos, and ethos.” (52)

“Logos is commonly defined as argument from reason, and it usually appeals to an audience’s intellectual side. As audiences we want to know the “facts of the matter,” and logos helps present these—statistics, data [numbers and charts], and logical statements.” (52)

“Few of us are persuaded only with our mind, though. Even if we intellectually agree with something, it is difficult to get us to act unless we are also persuaded in our heart. This kind of appeal to emotion is called pathos. Pathetic appeals (as rhetoric that draws on pathos is called) used alone without logos and ethos can come across as emotionally manipulative or overly sentimental, but are very powerful when used in conjunction with the other two appeals. Emotional appeals can come in many forms—an anecdote or narrative, an image such as a photograph, or even humor. Pathos can also be a very effective appeal if the rhetor has to persuade the audience in a very short amount of time, which is why it is used heavily in print advertisements, billboards, or television commercials.” (53) 

“[P]athetic appeals will often hold our interest much longer than intellectual appeals.... The humor of the ad... is meant to draw the reader in and help them become interested in the argument before the ad gets to the logos.” (54)

“The humor also makes the organization seem real and approachable, contributing to the ethos. Ethos refers to the credibility of the rhetor—which can be a person or an organization. A rhetor can develop credibility in many ways. The tone of the writing and whether that tone is appropriate for the context helps build a writer’s ethos, as does the accuracy of the information or the visual presentation of the rhetoric.” (54)

“Aristotle’s artistic appeals are not the only way to understand the argument of rhetoric. You might choose to look at the claim or the unstated assumptions of a piece; someone else might consider the visual appeal of the rhetoric, like the font, page layout, types of paper, or images; another person might focus on the language use and the specific word choice and sentence structure of a piece. Logos, pathos, and ethos can provide a nice framework for analysis, but there are numerous ways to understand how a piece of rhetoric persuades (or fails to persuade).” (54-55)

“• Does the rhetoric address the problem it claims to address? • Is the rhetoric targeted at an audience who has the power to make change? • Are the appeals appropriate to the audience? • Does the rhetor give enough information to make an informed decision? • Does the rhetoric attempt to manipulate in any way (by giving incomplete/ inaccurate information or abusing the audience’s emotions)? • What other sub-claims do you have to accept to understand the rhetor’s main claim?  • What possible negative effects might come from this rhetoric?

Rhetorical analysis asks how discourse functions in the setting in which it is found. In the same way that a commercial for denture cream seems very out of place when aired during a reality television show aimed at teenagers, rhetoric that does not respond well to its context often fails to persuade.” (55-56)

“1. What are examples of rhetoric that you see or hear on a daily basis? 2. What are some ways that you create rhetoric? What kinds of messages are you trying to communicate? 3. What is an example of a rhetorical situation that you have found yourself in? Discuss exigence, audience, and constraints.” (57-58)

For each blog post due before class meets, you will analyze and reflect on the assigned readings and generate two class discussion questions. After the class meets, you will respond to at least two classmates.

For Tuesday, please read and blog “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis” and ”The Language of Multimodal Texts”

You are always welcome to include memes, GIFs, images, links, etc. in your blog posts that are relevant to your analysis/reflection. Does something in the reading remind you of something you read or watched recently? Please do share!