The rhetoric of six rings

The industry of sports is something I understand; that of rhetoric, something I haven’t quite grasped. So instead of attempting to paint a well crafted, phenomenally insightful analogy of Aristotle’s On Rhetoric (kudos to you classmates who seem to have it on the money), I’ll make an attempt to compare his work to something that didn’t make me feel less intelligent after having read it. I fell upon a line from reddit.com and bleacherreport.com that read: Michael Jordan makes more money from Nike annually than all of the Nike factory workers in Malaysia combined.

 

Of course, Michael Jordan makes more money—he’s Michael Jordan, six-time NBA champion, the holder of 32,292 career points, and the star of Space Jam—but, what exactly is he doing now? While the Malaysian workers lace shoe upon shoe day after day in a factory that’s probably infested with bugs and harsh air conditions, Michael Jordan just shoots and scores, commercial after commercial. Take a look at the following Nike commercial, sponsored by the NBA: 

In George Kennedy’s introduction to On Rhetoric, he writes of Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric: “Rhetoric is an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Kennedy, 14). In the above video, the means of persuasion is that of ethos, “those derived from the character of the speaker” (Kennedy, 14). By exposing his failures and portraying his mistakes or missed opportunities, Jordan, over the course of 30 seconds, shows himself as “fair-minded and trustworthy” (Kennedy, 14).

In this commercial, “[there is persuasion] through character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way to make the speaker worthy of credence; for we believe fair-minded people to a greater extent and more quickly [than we do others] on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt” (Aristotle, 1356a 4).  

It’s safe to say we’re not doubting Michael Jordan’s athletic ability nor his ability to sport Nike attire on the court and on the town. In no way would this commercial have been as effective if it featured Greg Buckner or DeShawn Stevenson (you probably can’t even place who these players are, can you?). Simply put: Jordan’s character, his ethos as a speaker for Nike, gives him obscene amounts of power and a trail of digits written on a paycheck.

Let’s move back to the factory workers in Malaysia. Why does Nike choose to sell consumers shoes using the power of ethos rather than the power of pathos? Why doesn’t Nike fund a commercial that says: “Hey, buy our shoes. Poor, hard-working, low-paid Malaysian workers made them for you?” According to Aristotle, this persuasion would work: “[There is persuasion] through the hearers when they are led to feel emotion [pathos] by the speech; for we do not give the same judgment when grieved and rejoicing or when being friendly and hostile” (Aristotle, 1356a 5). Those heart-tugging, tear-jerking SPCA commercials take this route, and dogs and cats are sent to better homes every day. Which commercials, those playing on ethos or those on pathos, are more effective?

What about this commercial?:

Michael Jordan doesn’t say a word. All persuasive power exists within his image, his appearance in the frame. His character silently speaks among the echo from the beating basketball. That’s the rhetoric of six rings.

Sources:

Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.

“Michael Jordan ‘Failure’ Nike Commercial.” 25 August 2006. YouTube. Accessed on 23 September 2012. Web.

“Michael Jordan ‘Heart’ Nike Commercial.” 27 February 2006. YouTube. Accessed on 23 September 2012. Web.

Pumerantz, Zack. “100 Random Sports Facts You Never Knew: 98. Greatness Could Feed the World.” 22 November 2011. Accessed on 23 September 2012 from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/950303-100-random-sports-facts-you-never-knew/page/4