One Sunday afternoon a couple years back, I was sitting in a Mormon chapel for sacrament meeting. It was a student ward–my ward–with about 100 college-age attendees. We had the privilege of hearing from a visitor to the ward–a high council member in his fifties. We hadn’t previously heard from this man so we didn’t know what to expect. He was the last speaker and he came out swinging. It was a full-frontal barrage of life advice and opinions about the YSA (young single adult) life. He had a lot to say, and honestly a lot of it was objectively solid advice. He told stories, he spoke clearly, and his analogies made sense. And yet, something was wrong. I had the distinct experience of his words entering one ear and going out the other. I was slightly annoyed. I wasn’t distracted–I was paying attention–but his words just slid right off the surface of my mind. Later I spoke to my roommates who reported a similar experience. I pondered it throughout the day and then it hit me–the man spent no time gaining our trust and establishing credibility. The absence was glaring. From the moment he opened his mouth it was Logos and Pathos of decent quality, but he was crippled by lack of Ethos, and it was his downfall, at least to me. I got nothing from his talk and neither did my friends.
As a general refresher, Ethos is a member of the three ‘artistic proofs’–Ethos, Logos, and Pathos–coined by Aristotle in his study of rhetoric. They represent methods of rhetorical appeal, AKA how to make an argument. Taken from Greek to English they read: Ethical, Logical, and Pathetic. ‘Pathetic’ is usually renamed ’emotional’ because that word is more accessible, ‘logical’ is straightforward enough for most people, and ‘ethical’ is often misinterpreted to mean ‘moral’. This confused me in high school English classes because the line between ‘moral’ and ’emotional’ wasn’t clearly defined. I couldn’t be bothered to clarify the meaning as a high school junior so I just conflated Ethos and Pathos for years until I began studying rhetoric in college.
Ethos is the credibility of the person making the argument. Rather, it is the perceived credibility. If I want to make an argument, I need to make logical and emotional appeals, but I also need to establish in the mind of the audience my own credibility as a speaker on that topic. Come to think of it, high school debate might be part of the reason I took so long to understand ethos. As a high school debater, I prepared cases in affirmation and in negation of a thesis and would argue both sides during a tournament, anonymously, with an anonymous opponent and judge, on a topic arbitrarily chosen by a national committee. And the topic changed every two months. I didn’t bother trying to establish credibility in any tournaments because I obviously had ZERO on any topic. It didn’t even occur to me because it was just mutually understood that I was a high-schooler, my opponent was a high-schooler, and our judge was probably a soccer mom, so credibility wasn’t even part of the equation. Only logos and pathos, so that’s all I understood.
Of course, looking back, I definitely was making ethical appeals, I just didn’t understand how. I made an effort to be eloquent and pleasing to listen to, I dressed nicely and combed my hair, and I smiled. These are all subtle ethical appeals that could influence the judge’s decision. The sacrament meeting speaker I mentioned earlier had some ethos–he was elderly, had a decent suit, and he spoke like an intelligent man–but he needed more to reach all of his audience. It wouldn’t have taken much effort on his part, but he didn’t try at all. It‘s as if he just expected everyone to soak up every word solely because he’s an adult and standing at the pulpit. It’s a shame, because what he said was actually good.
Ethos, Logos, and Pathos are a sort of rhetorical triumvirate. Each is represented equally but they’re certainly not equal in power. Over these last few years I’ve become more and more convinced that ethos is the most subtle, the most crafty, and indeed the most powerful. There is much to be said on that point (Trump won the 2016 election purely on ethos, for example, as crazy as that may sound) but that’s not the purpose of this post. Being that this is the inaugural post of this new blog, I think I need to establish my ethos. I need to show you why you should trust me and take me seriously. Or, most critically, why you should not.
I’m tempted to just vomit out my full life story and let the reader decide what’s ethically relevant. Of course, I’ll selectively leave out those parts that don’t reflect on me well. Like how I wasted a LOT of time in my youth playing video games and watching porn, or cheated on my first girlfriend and broke her heart. Maybe I’ll brag about being a ‘world-class procrastinator’ as a sort of self-aggrandizing way to introduce a serious character flaw. Of course, I’ll be leaving out the really embarrassing stuff. Like how I didn’t work more than 5 hours last week because I was playing competitive computer games online and getting really upset when I lost. Or how I spent a significant portion of my expensive undergraduate study abroad program watching movies alone in my apartment. Probably shouldn’t mention that…talk about ethos-undermining!
I’ll just draw a few arrows from my quiver of ‘weaknesses’, easily accessible in job interviews. You see, I just have a hard time with emotional communication sometimes, ya know? That’s a real weakness of mine. Ya got me. Guilty! I’m a little insensitive sometimes. Also did I mention that I sometimes get hyper-focused on something and struggle to change tasks? And at those times I’m extremely vulnerable to being derailed by distractions or environmental changes? Geez guys, you’re really making me dig deep here. I’m embarrassed! Oh, I hope you don’t ask about the mole on my leg. It’s so embarrassing! Goodness gracious… Pay no attention to the real person behind the curtain. Sometimes he picks his nose and wipes it on the bottom of his chair. One time he watched bestiality porn and masturbated to it. And he struggles with impostor syndrome at really random times–sometimes he’s super anti-social and awkward. We can’t be taking someone like that seriously, can we?
As a formality, I’ll state some things here for context. I plan to write extensively on Mormonism, Mormon culture, and other Mormon-related matters so it’s worth mentioning that I was a practicing Mormon for the first 25 years of my life. I was all in. Served a full-time mission, held multiple callings, and attended the temple regularly–the standard package. Life has taken me in a different direction now. My current beliefs will come through my writing but suffice it to say I’m far from Mormon orthodoxy. Yet still close to it in certain ways–perhaps even more than before. I have a Bachelors of Science in Physics with a couple minors. I speak fluent Japanese, I’ve been to 15 countries for a grand total of ~2.5 years abroad, I’ve started two businesses, I play most every sport, I have a Y-chromosome, and I have no food allergies. I think that should do it.
I have quite a few posts on the docket for the next couple months. I haven’t yet decided the order but I do have some titles. ‘Missions and Mental Health’, ‘The Problem with Mormon Apologetics’, ‘For the Strength of the Eternal Youth’, and ‘The Problem with Love Letters’ are a few. Average length should be 1500-2500 words. We’ll see how that turns out. And why write any of this, you ask? The answer to that deserves its own post.
Feel free to comment and give your input–I look forward to seeing the light whenever I’m in error.
Thanks.
CJC
Death by Analogy 