This is Arka, by the way. A week back or so we discussed a key point of Henry's speech, namely whether it was logos (logical argument) or pathos (emotional arguments) in a facade of logos. While some felt that henry was clearly arguing logically, I feel that closer examination reveals that the latter optionis correct. Much of what Henry says makes no logical sense. For example, he first establishes the "logical" causes for war, then draws a "logical" conclusion that the armies and navies Britain is gathering are intended to make them slaves. (The validity of this is of course in doubt). However, if we examine the historical context, there is a very real threat of war in the colonies. Not only did the colonies face constant threat from the Native Americans on the frontier, but also France, who still had interests in the Americas. Furthermore, the Spanish and the Russians had entered the continent already. Essentially, Henry is using the fear of the colonists of being "enslaved" (which of course would never happen) in order to prod them into fighting. Another example of this that Henry gives is that Britain's actions for the past 10 years indicate logically that a future with Britain would be one of oppression. However, the colonies were not at all oppressed during the 10 years between the seven yrs war and the revolution. On the contrary, the colonies simply returned to the norm of taxation and trade every other colony of Britain had to have for the past hundred years. The taxes and tariffs were not, as Henry states, for the British war machine, but rather to protect the colonies.
Another interesting example of this idea of pathos vs. logos can be found in the Declaration of Independence. While undoubtedly more logical than Henry, the Declaration still contains a large amount of emotional appeals. In the second paragraph for example, Jefferson rephers to a "long train of abuses and usurpations", followed by references to "absolute despotism", "unremitting injuries", and "absolute tyranny" Although the entire first section is explained in a very logical fashion, but these terms Jefferson uses are never justified. What are these many usurpations and this tyranny? Simply a few extra taxes and undesirable laws after a long period of unenforced laws. A similar situation would be if the IRS suddenly increased taxes by some amount, and it resulted in revolution. The colonists are by far better of than the serfs of Eastern Europe or even the peasant farmers of Western Europe. In the next section, the indictment of the King, Jefferson lists many "tyrannies", which if examined from a historical context, have no actual backing. Jefferson is simply trying to emotionally appeal to his readers by using such words.
An interesting thing to note is that after the Revolution, America made up with Britain remarkably fast (although relationships did sour around 1805-1810), suggesting that much of the revolution was a spur of the moment, emotional reaction, rather than a true underlying problem that could logically explained. In addition, it is important to note that even today, most students are taught a remarkably romanticized view of the revolution, appealing emotionally. Not until AP US, did I actually learn of the true circumstances surrounding 1776.
In ending this post, I pose a question: while both logical thinking and rationalism as well as emotional propaganda were prized and used frequently, is it possible to characterize neoclassic writing as based on pathos or logos?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey, it's Jasmine.
I think that Neoclassic writing relied more on pathos. I agree with Arka that Patrick Henry used the facade of logos. In a scientfic-method-like way, he states his observations and then draws conclusions about what the colonists should do. For example, he states that the British have continuously rejected their petitions and oppressed them into submission. Based on this "evidence," he concludes that colonists must let go of their hope for reconciliation and fight back in the war against Britain. The problem is, Henry is obviously biased. He makes the colonists seem like victims and the British like bullies, but he fails to tell the whole story. For example, the colonists were angered at the "taxation without representation." Henry failed to mention that 7.5 million Englishmen were paying even higher taxes to protect the colonists.
Leaving out the other side of the argument is a common way to manipulate people's feelings and opinions. The speaker seems to present a logical argument, but it only makes sense because he is presenting little or no information. Henry used this to his advantage. He neglects to name specific evidence of Britain's tyranny, like the Stamp Act or the Townshend Acts.
Hey it's Erin.
While Neoclassic writing emphasized logic, order, and reason, it's important to remember that it was written with a specific purpose in mind, all writing is. For writings with dual purposes or multiple audiences, both logos and pathos is used, as seen in the Declaration of independence. I think that whether the author of any particular piece relies more on logos or pathos depends on the purpose and audience. We all know that the emotional appeals that characterize pathos would spur nationalists to action but be ineffective on neutrals. So I don't know if I'd try to classify all Neoclassic writing as primarily logos or pathos - I think that there are a lot of overlaps.
Hey, it's Stephanie.
I definitely agree with Erin when she mentioned 'overlaps'. Of course, the most effective oration or piece of writing utilizes all three techniques efficiently, meaning logos, ethos, and pathos. Going back to Hayakawa, our sensory reactions are the primary basis for which we form opinions around experiences, thus ethos is a strong factor when used in writing.
However, I believe Henry did actually use logos as well, not merely the facade of it. As Jasmine said, he presents his points clearly, and his progression of thought is like a step-by-step explanation. The reason his works are so convincing are the fact that these two techniques are almost intertwined, for example: he sympathizes with the colonists and appeals to their nationalistic side by use of select words that arouse certain connotations (even the title 'Give me Liberty or give me death' arouses positive and patriotic connotations with the juxtaposition of death, like his freedom is the essential nutrient). However, logos too is emphasized in his establishment of a point and then support and directly after the flaws of any possible counterargument.
At the end of the piece, when he mentions the coming of the war, he also mentions slavery. This was quite a brilliant yet subtle little manuever. Think about it. The colonists came over from Britain, established their own lives, and enjoyed their individuality while the disregard of the Navigation laws were in effect. After Britain was in debt after the French and Indian war and realized their loose hold on the colonies, the sudden iron grip of Parliament angered the colonists; almost like some were present in Britain again, instead of North America. Thus, I would think slavery would be a key word in igniting the fire beneath the colonies, and would definitely provoke the nationalists.
Post a Comment