The Greater Good and Two Harrys

     For “the greater good” is a theme in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series that serves as the rallying cry of the dark wizard community over the non-magical community and is, somewhat, comparable to the Nazi persecution of Jews and other non-Aryans before and during WWII.

     Aristotle describes the idea in On Rhetoric, and defines the meaning of various terms such as, good, great, and greater. “And,” he says, “things that are productive are greater; for this was the meaning of productive of the greater. And [the good] of which the producer is greater [is greater] in the same way.”(1.7.7-8) “And if one thing is an ‘end’ and another is not [the end] is a greater good]: one is sought for it’s own sake, the other for something else…” 

     “The greater good” implies that if, in the prosecution of this repressive ideology in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the conscience of any wizard is morally disturbed by the thought of unjust behavior toward the ‘muggle’ or non-magic community, it should be alleviated by the knowledge that cruel treatment is a just means to the worthy end, that wizard domination over muggles is the greater good.

     Certainly any reader of J.K. Rowling might think that the following might serve as an apt description of Harry Potter, “And since the more difficult and rarer is greater, so opportunities and ages in life and places and powers make things great; for if a person [acts] beyond his power and beyond his age and beyond such things, and if [the actions are done] in such a way or place or at such a times, he will have greatness of fine and good just things and their opposites. “(1.7.32), This seems to perfectly describe seventeen year-old Harry Potter whose destiny is to face probable death in the attempt to destroy the most evil wizard in the world. By facing his enemy in the Dark Forest, the deliberately unarmed Harry chooses “what a better person would choose [is greater]… to be wronged rather than to wrong...” (1.7.22).

     Another Harry, the King of England, in Shakespeare’s Henry V, gives a famous and inspirational pre-battle speech to his outnumbered men. It's meaning and choice of words also seem to be reminiscent of the following lines from On Rhetoric.

     “…if courageously is finer [than] and preferable to temperately, courage is preferable to temperate….for good is what all desire, so greater is what more people [desire]. And what opponents [regard as a greater good] or enemies or judges or those whom judges judge….And sometimes the greater is what all share (for not to share in it is a disgrace); but sometimes [the greater is] what no one else or a few [have] (for it is rarer). For things that are more praiseworthy [are greater]; for they are finer.” (1.7.27-30).

Anger and Calm in The Newsroom

In Aristotle’s discussion of rhetoric, Aristotle lays out the definitions and uses of different emotions available to a speaker.  Among the emotions that Aristotle brings up are anger and mildness (calm).  Although these two emotions are in total opposition, both of them, according to Aristotle, can be utilized by a speaker to persuade an audience.

Aaron Sorkin’s new drama, The Newsroom, opens the series with a passionate speech from the show’s main character, Will McAvoy, on why America is no longer the greatest country in the world. McAvoy, the anchor of a popular show on a major news network, is a moderate Republican with a short temper and loud mouth. Often his character will have angry outbursts that upset, well, pretty much every other character on the show.

When “Sorority Girl” originally asks McAvoy why he believes America is the greatest country ever, the moderator refuses to let him avoid the question by saying, “I want a human moment from you,” and, boy, do we get one. In this instance, McAvoy’s angry response to what he perceives to be a stupid question actually helps him prove his point. His impassioned, and clearly heartfelt, reply strikes the audience as more truthful than his previous, sarcasm-filled answers.

McAvoy strikes out at the other two members of the panel for replying to the question with canned, superficial responses that don’t really mean anything. His actions vibe with Aristotle’s assertion that anger actually empowers a speech when it inspires the audience to question the speaker’s opponents: “…it is clear that it might be needful in a speech to put [the audience] in the state of mind of those who are inclined to anger and to show ones opponents as responsible for those things that are the causes of anger and that they are the sort of people against whom  anger is directed,” (1379b, 27).

What’s also interesting about this particular speech is the sudden turn of emotion halfway through it. Aristotle begins his section on calm by saying, ““Let calmness [praünsis] be [defined as] a settling down and quieting of anger” (1380a, 2). After a bit of an awkward pause due to McAvoy’s outburst, he continues much more calmly and rationally. Suddenly the diction turns from obscenities (“If liberals are so fuckin’ smart, then how come they lose so goddamn always?”)  to words like “moral” and “aspired,” and inspirational music swells in the background as McAvoy sighs and looks nostalgic for the American he remembers.

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

Rhetoric: You're Doing It Wrong

Reading Aristotle was slightly less cumbersome than Plato, but certainly had a more handbook like feel to it. It seems to be the text book for what was then the modern day Greek student. Did they cringe at the writing as much as I did? Probably not. Then again, our sense of writing style has sense evolved and I can't discount Aristotle too much for that: he had no idea people thousands of years in the future would be reading this.

The same can be said for writers today. They write with a specific audience mind and never think of the potentially endless tertiary readers out there. This nebulous field is a breeding ground for endless critique, but this isn't happening hundreds of years into the future. It's happening now. Take for instance of my favorite feminist websites, Jezebel. It's main goal is to put a snarky feminist twist on popular topics and articles floating around in the media and on the web. Recently, they posted a critique of a Fox News opinion article  that you can view here. The critique is entirely in gifs.

Given the audience, women of varying ages (though I would argue geared toward younger feminists and also men who are feminists or have an interest in gender issues) I would say that this is a rhetorical win.

Here's why: Aristotle says in book 1, chapter 2, "Let rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case to see the available means of persuasion. This is the function of no other art." The article on Jezebel is doing two things at once. One, it's persuading its viewers to see the ridiculousness of the Fox author's opinion and how outdated/close-minded/smug his opinions are. Two, it is also doing this through the use of very few words. I think this is a very smart technique because it requires the use of carefully selected clips of movies/tv (often no more than a few seconds) to portray what could be said in words. However, the choice of gifs makes the article that much funnier. It assumes the reader doesn't even need words to explain its choice of images.

Gifs kind of work as a universal language in the internet. I would argue that is transcends language to some extent and yet works so well with it. They used rhetoric in order to do this. In order for gifs to work as rhetoric, they have to come from well known scenes or convey meaning that the audience would readily latch on to. By that logic, they're sort of following Aristotle's second book when he details the different types of people and how to persuade them based on their personalities.  While Aristotle speaks a great deal on logic, I think these persuasive elements speak to a more "non-artistic" approach.

Images themselves can be interpreted in a vastly different manner depending on the viewer. But, the writer of this column has basically taken the Fox News Opinion article, chopped it up with gifs, and let the images speak for themselves and her critique about the writer. The main objective becomes this sense of mocking the original writer. The punchline comes at the end with the short line that the writer is a comedian followed swiftly by a gif of people laughing.

This sort of blending of mediums is what Jezebel does best, they adopt the rhetoric that the internet community uses and relies on to make a commentary about this rather smug article about this guy and his wife who waited until their honeymoon. His choice to write this opinion article speaks to the rhetoric of conversativism that Fox News consistently tries to create and Jezebel is the antithesis of that. When people usually hear abstinence talk, a disproportionate amount of responsibility is placed on a girl keeping her virginity. In fact, it can be down right creepy. Go ahead, google: purity balls.

Obviously, connecting someone's self worth to what is essentially a made up concept can be damaging and I think the point of this Jezebel article is to use the rhetoric of gifs (something considered fun and playful) to combat what can be a serious topic often bogged down by dogma.

Did they follow Aristotle's handbook to a tee? No, but they captured the key idea and that is to know one's audience.

The Pleasures of New Phones

Aristotle's Concept of Why People Do Wrong in On Rhetoric and the Pleasure Focused iPhone 5

Serendipitously, as I was reading Chapter 11 of Book 1 I overheard the Samsung Galaxy s3 commercial.



This commercial corresponds with Aristotle's Judicial Rhetoric and the notion of pleasure and wrong doing in two ways. The first is how his concept of revenge relates to the relationship between Apple and Samsung. The second is his point that there is pleasure in longing, as he states, "And everything is pleasurable for which there is longing; for longing is a desire for pleasure" (88). The Samsung commercial resembles this by the use of people waiting in line for the newest iPhone release.

Aristotle starts Chapter 10, Topics About Wrongdoing for Use in Judicial Rhetoric stating,

1. We should [next] speak of accusation [kategoria] and defense [apologia]: from how many and what sort of sources should their syllogisms be derived? 2. One should grasp three things: first, for what, and how many, purposes people do wrong; second, how these persons are [mentally] disposed; third, what kind of persons they wrong and what these persons are like. (83)

Aristotle goes further to state that longing is among the 7 reasons that people do everything that they do, yet it is an irrational desire (85).

Apple, the company, has capitalized on this irrational desire/longing for their products. It is this pleasure that people associate with buying the latest gadget, specifically the iPhone, that Apple relies on in selling their products. Aristotle notes the association of the memory of pleasure with getting things, "A kind of pleasure also follows most desires; for people enjoy a certain pleasure as they remember how they got something or as they hope they will get it" (89). The iPhone 5 release was targeted to this very pleasure. It seems reasonable that Apple would covet their designs and their ability to captivate a crowd of repetitive buyers, simply compelled to buy out of their desire through their memory of pleasure and the iPhone. Therefor, it would seem reasonable for Apple to sue Samsung for copying their designs as Samsung begun to build recognition for their quality touch screen phones.

As Aristotle claims, "To be revenged is pleasurable" (89). To be worth suing, Samsung must have been coming close to becoming a threat to Apple's customer base, which only gives the Samsung commercial further credence.

Apple's iPhone 5 official release trailer:

Aristotle Defends Robin Hood

In Book One of Aristotle’s On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse he covers three species of rhetoric – the deliberative, judicial, and epideictic. Near the end of Book One, Aristotle starts to cover Judicial Rhetoric more thoroughly. In Chapter 12, he focuses on wrongdoers and those wronged in judicial rhetoric. It was within this chapter that I first made the connection to Robin Hood. Aristotle explains that people do wrong “whenever they think that something [wrong] can be done and that it is possible for themselves to do it…[and] if detected…the penalty will be less than the profit to themselves or to those for whom they care.” (92-93, 1372a) In the many different versions of Robin Hood, Robin deliberatively steals and terrorizes rich. He understands that the poor themselves do not have the resources or ability to do these things and that only he can. Robin also understands the punishment if he were to be caught but he decides that helping the people and making the statement is more just.

In the “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” version, Robin Hood, played by Kevin Costner, declares that, “For every harm he [the sheriff] does these people, I will visit it back on him ten-fold.” Aristotle explains that this kind of wronging can seem justified. He states:

“And [they wrong] those who have done many wrongs to others or the [same] kind of wrongs [as are] being done to them; for it almost seems to be no wrong when some one is wronged in the way he himself is in the habit of wronging others. And [they wrong] those who have done bad things [to the person who now reciprocates] or wanted to or want to now or are going to; for this is both pleasurable and honorable and seems almost no wrong.” (95, 1373a)

                This statement helps to explain why Robin’s actions seem so justified. The Sheriff raises taxes, punishes, and impoverishes his people. Robin then wrongs the Sheriff in a corresponding way. Robin steals from the Sheriff. He takes the money and items that were confiscated for taxes and gives it back to the people. Robin’s actions do not even seem to be wrong because he is hurting the Sheriff in the same way that the Sheriff hurts the people. Also, in the “Prince of Thieves” version, the Sheriff murders Robin’s father, destroys his home, and removes his title and possessions. According to Aristotle, it “is both pleasurable and honorable and seems almost no wrong” for Robin to wrong the Sheriff in return. (95, 1373a)

                After the chapter on wrongdoing, Aristotle moves to topics on justice and injustice. He explains that there are unwritten laws that are held in common. “Fairness, for example, seems to be just; but fairness is justice that goes beyond the written law.” (99, 1374a) He believes that it is fair “to look not to the action but to the deliberate purpose…[and] to remember the good things one has experienced [because of him].” (100, 1374b) When judging the actions of Robin Hood, the audience often feels that his actions are justified and fair. That even though he is breaking the law that his purpose is noble and that he benefits the lives of the many instead of the wealthy few. Aristotle believes that if a just person acts against the law then one must use common law and arguments based on fairness as being more just.” (103, 1375a) He would suggest that unwritten laws are more important in cases of fairness than written laws since they were created in a more general sense. If defending Robin Hood, Aristotle would have the speaker appeal to his fairness, the reasons behind his wronging and his kindliness.

                The clip below is from “Robin Hood: Prince of Theives.” It shows how Robin Hood appeals to the people, strikes at the rich and the Sheriff, and gives back to the poor.

Revenge and The Kingdom

“…those who have been wronged or think they have been wronged…they are always watching for an opportunity [for revenge].” (Aristotle 1382b) The Kingdom (2007) can be tied to On Rhetoric in many ways, one of the most prominent themes being revenge.

The Kingdom begins at a military base in Riad, Saudi Arabia where American families have gathered together at a softball game. Terrorists infiltrate the base using police uniforms and begin shooting the families. A man walks into the center of the field, claiming to be a friend but opens his vest, and blows up the compound. In response, a US FBI agent calls his closest friend in the US and asks him to come help with the devastation. As the call ends another explosion rips through the compound, killing the emergency workers and the survivors of the previous blast. When  a close-knit team of FBI agents learn of their comrade’s death  Agent Janet Mayes is overcome by emotion. “Let anger be [defined as] desire, accompanied by [mental and physical] distress, for apparent retaliation because of an apparent slight that was directed, without justification, against oneself or those near to one.” (p116) She is quickly reassured by the lead agent, who whispers in her ear.  In order to investigate the death of their friend they petition the US government to go to Saudi Arabia through much difficulty they convince the “princes” of the nation to allow them entrance. Once in the country they are met with constant hostility and constraint. The movie explores the complexity of the issue of western and eastern stereotypes with a helpful Saudi police captain aiding the team throughout the movie in the harsh contrast of an otherwise hostile culture. At the apex of the movie the team is scrambling to rescue a member of the team who is kidnapped. In this struggle many Saudi Arabians are killed, among them a younger boy and a grandfather. As the movie closes and the team is returning to the US one agent turns to the main character, Jaimie Foxx, and asked what he had whispered to the agent most affected by the death of the agent in the bombing at the beginning of the movie;  “I told her we’re going to kill them all.” Simultaneously the screen pans to the survivors of the FBI agents’ raid on the bomber, and the young grandson of the killed man and brother to the fallen youth whose mother asks him to tell her what his grandfather whispered to him before he died, the boy responds, “Don’t fear them, my child. We are going to kill them all.” As said by Aristotle, ”there must be some hope of being save from the cause of agony. And there is a sign of this: fear makes people inclined to deliberation, while no one deliberates about hopeless things.” (p130)

This movie explicitly demonstrates the sides of revenge described by Aristotle:  “they [wrong] those who have done many wrongs to others or the [same] kind of wrongs [as are] being done to them; for it almost seems to be no wrong when someone is wronged in the way he himself is in the habit of wronging others.” (p95). As the movie progresses, the viewer is led to feel that the actions of the FBI agents are justified, “he had to do some few unjust things in order to do many just ones.”;  “and a kind of pleasure follows all experience of anger from the hope of getting retaliation.”; “[people are calm] when they think that [their victims] will not perceive who is the cause of their suffering and that it is retribution for what they have suffered; anger is a personal thing…” (pp 96, 116, 123) The ending scene is a startling revelation that while the viewer had vilified the bomber and believed violence was a proper response to the terrorist’s violence, perhaps the bomber’s motives were  as justified; and that the actions of one generation breed the actions of the next, “for through love of honor” the next generation, “cannot put up with being belittle but become indignant if they think they are done a wrong.” (p149) “Foolish he who after killing the father leaves behind the son.” (Clement of Alexandria p105)

Works Cited:

The Kingdom. Dir. Peter Berg. Perf. Jamie Foxx, Ashraf Barhom, Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Kyle Chandler, Richard Jenkins, Jeremy Piven, Ali Suliman. Universal Pictures, 2007. DVD.

Aristotle, and George Alexander Kennedy. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.