Laugh and Shoot

Practically every single tactic for appealing to pathos given in “Thank You for Arguing” is present in Bill Maher’s documentary “Religulous”. The documentary’s end is especially loaded with the rhetorical conundrums, as it is the most important place for affecting an audience’s judgment by changing their emotions.

Maher uses humor throughout the documentary to calm people down from the extreme ideas he has and is about to present. His jokes also make him appear to stand above any petty squabble in the polemic. In minute 90  Maher says, “There is more than one mosque in the world that used to be a church and before that was a temple, because it is easier to change the sign on the top and say Under New Management than it is to change the whole building. I worked in a lot of comedy clubs in the eighties that still had the disco ball on the ceiling, and in the nineties, they became strip clubs, and now they’re a Starbucks.” The factious joke certainly ridicules the situation, but its purpose is mainly to appease the audience from whatever harsh stuff Maher has said.

The documentary’s last scene, nonetheless, is a feast of rhetorical tactics. Violent images of atrocities caused by the religious accompany Maher’s monologue, where he constantly instigates the audience with fear of “the irrational, the religious”. Maher is close to mimicking what he criticizes when he says, “The irony of religion is that because of its power to diverge man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end.” His language also gets progressively simpler as the music becomes more dramatic. The images of 9/11 and other terrorist acts direct the audience’s anger away from him. Maher’s very last monologue shows him in a frontal shot, portraying his anger by underplaying it, portraying his disgust by being civilized. In the end, the music becomes so dramatic, and the speech so simple that the film culminates in an explosive “Grow up, or die!”

Bill Maher, is evidently a master rhetorician using his ethos to his benefit, presenting very serious ideas in frivolous ways. An entire blog post could be dedicated to his use of decorum. But his appeal to pathos is even more masterful. He uses the very same fear-indulging tactics that his religious contenders have used through the ages. He knows how to set up the audience to become afraid and susceptible, eagerly awaiting for whatever answers Bill has to say. It is difficult to end the movie without feeling hatred for religion. The purpose is masterfully accomplished. He makes his audience hate religion and love Bill. 

How Decorous of You

Carl Sagan's delivery of the Gettysburg Battle commemorative speech is such a rhetorical prowess.  The rhetorical skills employed in the speech are alone worth analyzing, but even more fascinating is Sagan's mastering of his decorum.

Sagan, in being there, being who he was, possesses all the three qualities of a persuasive ethos proposed in "Thank You for Arguing".

Without having heard a word from the speaker, the audience already has a certain predisposition for trusting Sagan, as he is a notable representative of science, the discipline of logic, evidence, questioning. People's beliefs regarding religion, politics, morals are all personal and often irrational, but when it comes to empirical evidence, few have the guts to disagree. People believe Sagan shares their values, because he believes in logic and proof, and those are unifying agents in an increasingly skeptical society. 

Most of the speech is just facts and figures about events which relate to the topic. For example, he opens the speech with, "Fifty-one thousand human beings were killed or wounded here..." These facts were undeniable, especially in a time without smart phones. Sagan's use of facts is a straightforward demonstration of his character and also a proof of his practical wisdom. He makes people believe he knows what he is talking about because, as a scientist, he values truth, therefore, beyond the fact that the topics covered are not of scientific nature, they must be true and relevant because that is the way Carl works. 

The mere presence of Sagan delivering the speech is the demonstration of the third quality: selflessness or disinterest. Sagan is not a politician, he is not in arms race for power, he is a simple academic with strong convictions. By delivering that speech it seems as if he is not doing it to achieve some personal interest. He has, in fact, not much to win by reprimanding the behavior of the two strongest nations in the world at the moment, and sadly a lot to lose. And yet, he does it anyway, because his true interest is the safety of humanity, not just Americans, but humans. 

All in all, Sagan's speech accounts for half of the persuasive techniques used. His mastering of decorum is what prepares the audience to listen attentively to what Sagan has to say. If the same speech was delivered by a republican presidential candidate (highly unlikely) the story would have been different. 

Applied

Today I tried convincing my parents to let me cook instead of ordering fast food. I failed. Despite that, there are a few things I can recover from the attempt, such as my first conscientious application of the concepts presented in Chapters 1 and 2 of "Thank You for Arguing". 

There were three clear appeals and tenses in my argument. Following the line of Logos, Ethos, Pathos my chain of thought was: "Take out is unhealthy.  We are all trying to lose weight, and there are plenty of veggies awaiting in the fridge. It is also cheaper and faster to cook than to order. Plus you love my food, and know that the result will be exquisite because I am such a great cook. You know what? I can even make you those pork carnitas you love so much and have wanted for a while. Remember how we used to eat tacos every Sunday when you were together?"

It worked perfectly, I had them convinced at the prospect of a free, delicious, heartwarming meal that would take us back to those careless days when we were a family and everything was alright. Needless to say, there was nothing careless or alright about those days, as no time has ever been like that, but the taste of slow roasted pork obliterates memory. 

Then my mother remembered that she always ends up cleaning the dishes, and that I am very messy when not scolded by an irritated, fire spitting chef. That was the deal breaker. 

Still, I am quite proud that I managed to set my personal argument, set the goal for my audience, and accomplished persuasion by changing their opinion on delivery, stimulating their emotions on home cooking, and getting them to act (I was already setting the pots on the burners when Mom informed me they were no longer necessary).

From this experience I concluded, rhetoric is like physics. After learning about them, you have a deeper understanding of the concepts behind the facts. I can no longer feel a car break suddenly without thinking about inertia. I can no longer see any advertisement without knowing they are appealing to pathos. 

Ni Chicha Ni Limoná

Ghttps://docs.google.com/a/cng.edu/file/d/0B0liDXUjLAa8NDcwSE1tQ0RGTEE/edit?usp=docslist_api

Why?

I was surprised when I found Wu Tang Clan's "36 Chambers" in the 99 cent record section. Then I remembered I was in a rock record store. Needless to say I bought it. A few days later, I was walking by Fredrick Douglass boulevard around 134 st. when I heard my favorite track from that record coming out of a little joint. Only now do I understand the beauty of that conjunction.

After reading Douglass' memoir, I listen to "Can It Be All So Simple" differently. 

The memoir's ending feels rushed, a bit exhausted, just as I imagine Douglass feels after all he has done. The last paragraph of the narration is so unlike Douglass' solemn, ceremonial tone that it doesn't feel like the ending of the story. The reader does not sense closure. The ending is not happy, I feel. When Douglass says in his last paragraph, "The truth was, I felt myself a slave, and the idea of speaking to white people weighed me down." He reminds the reader of how much more work is yet to be done. Douglass learned that official freedom does not mean credibility, or equality. I am reminded by Douglass' remark of the times he wished he hadn't been born, of how his circumstance made his life so tough, just because he was born of black parents. 

The song's title "Can It Be All So Simple" is a straightforward longing for tranquility. In the song RZA and Ghost talk about the hardships they had to pass while growing up. The arbitrariness of being born to your family, social class, ethnicity, is the factor that sadly determines in a good part, your live's fate. Why can't it be simpler for us? They asked in the 1990's. Douglass asked the same question a century before. 

This book leaves me with a distaste for humanity, but also a certain drive toward bettering the situation. I firmly believe that an imposed condition as is skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc should not be the limiting agent of a life. I know that an equitable world is but a dream. Because I do not recur to faith in order to justify monstrosity, and because I believe there is no true justification for it, all I am left with is the book in my hand, the record on my table, and the thought that perhaps art, by transforming temporary disgrace into eternal beauty, is the only thing that makes everything worth it. 

In the words of Walt Whitman:

"Sometimes with one I love I fill myself with rage for fear I effuse unreturn’d love,

But now I think there is no unreturn’d love, the pay is certain one way or another

(I loved a certain person ardently and my love was not return’d,

Yet out of that I have written these songs)."

I'd Rather Go Blind Boy

One sentence delivered in Douglass' "American Slavery, American Religion, and the Free Church of Scotland" address reminded me particularly of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". After discussing the tactics used by slave owners to diminish a slave's spirit through constant abuse so that he forever accepts his condition, Douglass says,  "If a slave has a bad master his ambition is to get a better; when he gets a better, he aspires to have the best; and when he gets the best, he aspires to be his own master." In the Allegory of the Cave, men who during their entire lives saw only the shadows of objects and then get the opportunity to see the actual object, never want to go back to the unclear shadows.

 Neither the slaves who haven't grasped a sense of liberty, or the men who have not witnessed three-dimensionality miss any of the latter. Equally, if one only experiences excess of what has been denied, the alternative then does not seem as tempting. 

This was one of the tactics used by slave owners to discourage any longing for freedom. On holidays, slaves were forced to succumb to excessive intoxicating activities, thinking they were enjoying a touch of freedom, when in fact this was just another savvy tactic from their owners. At the end of each holidays, all slaves would be so sick and miserable that they longed no more for freedom. It is as if the men in the cave only saw humanity's most lascivious acts when shown the outer world, like if they were taken to a Southern cotton plantation while any of the masters was committing a brutality such as the many described by Douglass. 

Douglass never succumbed to those excesses, he was well aware of the mischief behind them. Whatever glimpses of freedom he did experience served only to enlarge his appetite for it. He knew what freedom meant, and would not be fooled by anyone in his attempt to achieve it.  

Compliance

Faith is not concerned with reason. Frederick Douglass often questioned (righteously) the existence of the benevolent, wise god he was raised to believe in. Ironically, in his most desperate moments, a simultaneous disbelief and attachment to the abstract figure emerged in him. Often after bantering about religion, and doubting on the existence of God, he would say something like, "...in the darkest hours of my career in slavery, this living word of faith and spirit of hope departed not from me, but remained like ministering angels to cheer me through the gloom..." This reminds me of the verse by Vinicus de Moraes 

"Quero só que surjas em mim 

como a fé nos desesperados"

Perhaps the only topic Douglass feels ambiguously about in his narrative is religion. Throughout the book he uses the word pious to describe the many slave holder's hypocritical display of virtue. The word pious can also be ascribed to the description of anyone devoutly religious, be them hypocritical or not.  A word which can potentially describe two very distant characters as are Douglass and any of his devout masters is then by nature ambiguous, as is religion. 

The role of religion in the development and sustainability of the "institution" of slavery in America is pivotal to say the least. In my research on the subject, I found an address delivered by Douglass in London in 1846 called "American Slavery, American Religion, and the Free Church of Scotland." Here Douglass develops on Christian derived churches' scandalous role in slavery's proliferation on American soil. In his address he denounces, "I have to inform you that the religion of the southern states, at this time, is the great supporter, the greater sanctioner of the bloody atrocities to which I have referred." And later states "As a proof of this, I need not do more than state the general fact, that slavery has existed under the droppings of the sanctuary of the south, for the last 200 years, and there has not been any war between the religion and the slavery of the south." Douglass needs not to restate the facts so evident in any segment of his memoir. Yet, it is curious to me how Douglass, aware of his religion's compliant role in the worst affair conducted by mankind, still chooses to subscribe to that faith.

Douglass' protest against the church and insistent attachment to it is a clear proof of the distinction between organized religion and faith. Today more than ever, it is evident that both can exist separately. 

Douglass chooses to continue believing. Faith has served an important purpose in his life, a most important role of moral support. In his own words, "I love the religion of our blessed Saviour, I love that religion that comes from above, in the wisdom of God, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." Douglass is therefore, according to the dictionary simultaneously, pious and not pious.