FYI: Here's a link to an interview with Karen Armstrong, who wrote the shard of text we talked about today.
Here's a pretty good on-line summary of logos-pathos-ethos, with examples of each.
Here too is the biographical note in A History of God, the book in which said shard appears:
Karen Armstrong, one of the foremost commentators on religious affairs, is the bestselling author of A History of God (1993), The Battle for God (2000), Islam: A Short History (2000), and Buddha (2001), among many other books. Having spent seven years as a Roman Catholic nun, she left her order in 1969 and took a B.Litt. at Oxford, taught modern literature at the University of London, and headed the English department of a public girls' school. She became a freelance writer and broadcaster in 1982, and in 1983 she worked in the Middle East on a six-part documentary television series on the life and works of St. Paul. Her other television work has included "Varieties of Religious Experience" (1984) and "Tongues of Fire" (1985); the latter resulted in an anthology by that name on religious and poetic expression. In 1996 she participated in Bill Moyers's television series "Genesis." She teaches at the Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism and the Training of Rabbis and Teachers and was awarded the 1999 Muslim Public Affairs Council Media Award. She regularly contributes reviews and articles to newspapers and journals.
A follow-up question:
Bio notes are primarily "ethos" delivery devices. They seek to establish the authority of the author -- her qualifications to write the book in the first place. Armstrong's tries to establish her authority by citing several different qualifications. In the comments section to this post, please identify the three most compelling elements of the bio note and why you think they make you more inclined to grant Armstrong's authority or credibility.
Some follow-up observations/invitations:
1. One thing I want to impress upon you is that you make evaluations and decisions based on "logos" (reason), "pathos" (emotion), and "ethos" (the credibility of the person/entity trying to persuade you) everyday, in just about every human encounter. Often, these evaluations aren't at the conscious level.
2. I invite you to start thinking about them consciously, especially in relation to the media you consume. Does one of the modes tend to persuade you more than the others? Less?
3. I also invite you to start thinking about whether the media you consume tends to appeal to these three persuasive modes in a balanced way, or if one mode tends to get more (or less) "play" than the others.
And just to start it off, I'll point out a "qualification" that may or may not mean anything to you, but that means something to people who know who Bill Moyers is. Moyers is a well respected journalist and public figure who's produced noteworthy series and long-form journalism on PBS and CBS, particularly in the areas of religion and mythology. He also worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Thus "name-dropping" Bill Moyers in her bio note is trying to show that she's accepted by "the luminaries" in her field. If Bill Moyers trusts her, the logic goes, so should you...
ReplyDeleteKaren Armstrong defines herself as "one of the foremost commentators on religious affairs," so if I'm going to read a book about religious affairs I should buy one of hers. There are references to the massive amount of work she has produced, "many other books" and "regularly contributes reviews and articles." A lot of people have published her work so it must be good. She incorporates the various mediums she has succeeded in (literature, film, and television) and the books that are listed seem deliberately chosen to show the array of religions she writes about making her look knowledgeable and established in all aspects of her field.
ReplyDeleteSpending "seven years as a Roman Catholic nun" makes me think she knows quite a bit about "God". The idea that she "worked in the Middle East on a six-part documentary television series on the life and works of St. Paul" is something I find both impressive and exciting (the mental imagery i get of her experience feeds my pathos). All the mentions of teaching (Univ. of London, private girls' school, Leo Baeck College) also establish her in my mind as an instructor, someone who knows enough about what she is teaching to give lessons to someone else; I feel an automatic subservience to this, to take what she says as something to be learned and not disputed.
ReplyDeleteWhen she claims to be a "best selling author... among many other books" she is showing a record of experience that convinces the reader that she knows what she is talking about. She also mentions several television programs she was a part of.
ReplyDeleteWhen she explains that she was a nun for seven years she is explaining how she has personal experience within the church.
She also mention the several classes she has taught concerning religion. If she is smart enough to teach it, she must know what she is talking about.
She mentions several other qualifications, all aimed to gain the readers confidence about her writing. Overall, I would say she did an effective job.
Talking about God is something that a lot of people claim to be good at. It's also something that a lot of people can spend a very long amount of time doing. Think about how many churches or temples (insert your house of worship here) there are just in our great city. There are a few people in each of those that talks about god every Sunday (for Christianity, at least). I remember my mom telling me one day that more people in Alabama worked in a church than almost any other job in the state. She was surprised by this, but it seems like it has to be true, based on the sheer number of places that have need of someone to talk about God for a while.
ReplyDeleteNow, back to the point.
Karen Armstrong is one of those people who likes to talk about God, or religion. She is also pretty good at it, having published several books on religion and even getting on TV. Based on the shard of text we read, I think I wouldn't be abloe to humor her for an entire book. But many people have, we know, because she's a bestselling author. She's good at what she does, even if I can't read a whole book filled with her work. She knows what she's talking about, and for that she has my respect.
Karen Armstrong’s credibility lies in her personal and professional experience with religion. Her years as a nun, her bestselling books, and her status as the head of an English department are blunt displays of “trust me, I know what I’m doing.” And because she can market herself with past experience, her work automatically gets at consumers through logos and pathos: why not trust someone with an Oxford education? Why not trust someone who left a nunnery to get it, especially in terms of religion?
ReplyDeleteKaren Armstrong appeals to "ethos" when she mentions that she was a nun for several years. This gives her credibility when she talks about God and Christianity. She devoted her life to God at one point, so I would assume she knows something about religion.
ReplyDeleteAlso she mentions she "made a number of television programs" about Christianity. This gives her further credibility as if someone is allowing her to film multiple shows on the subject, I would hope she knows it well.
I think that ethos (emotion) is one of the most easily used ways to influence people. In the blog post, I just wrote, I commented on how people buy into a product(such as Product(RED) or "going green") because it is popular, not because it is beneficial. I believe that the media I consume leans havily on ethos with a dash of logos. Product(RED) saps the customer into buying an overpriced shirt or some other product with the (RED) logo on it and then customers logically convince themselves that they need that product. "I came to GAP to buy a shirt and this shirt is only $15 more, but I am helping fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, so that makes it all worth it." The preceding statement might be logical to a person lured into the Product(RED) farce by their ethos.
ReplyDeleteSimply to start off, in the very first sentence she calls herself "one of the foremost commentators on religious affairs." That sounds like someone who knows what they're doing, no doesn't it? Also, she sites her bestsellers. To become a bestselling author, either you need to be a good writer or you make some very important statements in your books. So the 4 book list of bestsellers further accentuates her credibility. On last thing that I would like to touch on is that she dropped out of her nunnery. I don't know about anyone else, but that alone would sell me onto the book. To do something of that much commitment takes a large amount of thinking, as well as a large dose of, chutzpa, shall we say. To be brave enough to drop out from a nunnery inspires a lot of respect, and that she is so calm in the way she conveys that is an astounding way to get people to think of you as a, if not credible, at least strong source.
ReplyDeleteAs a person who pulls more towards logos, I found that Armstrong's use of pathos had a minute effect on persuading me to read her book. However, the topic she writes about does grab my attention and her use of logos and ethos(she was a nun for many years) are enough to persuade me to read one of her many books about religion. Her credibility on the subject will be very insightful because she has the experience. I think my dad has a copy of "A History of God" and I plan to read it soon.
ReplyDeletePart of Karen Armstrong's pathos comes from the fact that she says she doesn't know for certain. In her introduction she shows how much work she's done to reach the conclusion that god doesn't exist, but she also says that there are certain things she can't account for. This eases tension between her and her readers and opens her work up to a slightly wider audience.
ReplyDeleteHer bio shows her credibility in several ways. Firstly, she is a "bestselling author" of several books. Second of all, I notice that she seems to be well rounded because she has written books on Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism, not to mention the fact that she was a nun for seven years. Most of all, her bio note places emphasis in the fact that she is open-minded. I am more likely to trust the opinion of someone who is open to learning about all religions, than of someone who is a hard-core Christian.
ReplyDelete