Language shapes our interpretation of messages.
If I call a person a freak, weirdo, or idiot, I have created an unflattering picture with negative connotations. Contrasting that, if I call that same person different, unique, or eccentric, I have created a picture that characterizes but does not necessarily belittle the individual. Regardless of what words I use, I am somehow influencing the message that is received.
I mention the above because I--like most of us in this country--am still trying to understand just what the hell is going on with the current immigration debate. Any time I am perplexed about an issue, I typically revert to my knowledge of fundamentals. While I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I am quite confident in my ability to break down issues to their barest form, the fundamentals. Thus, as I try to make sense of what has occurred in the past few months, I find myself reviewing what I teach in my Walsh University English 102 classes: the basics of rhetoric. Having said that, please come along with me for a quick reminder of the fundamentals of persuasion as I lead into my mindset of trying to understand this significant immigration issue!
First, it is always essential to understand the simplest definitions of key terms; in this case, the following must be understood:
*Rhetoric (Rhetorical Situations): Language (verbal and nonverbal) that is being used to persuade;
*Logos: Logic, strategies, and evidence that are being used to shape an argument;
*Pathos: Emotion that is being used to help influence an argument;
*Ethos: Credibility and trustworthiness of the person(s) presenting the argument.
Here is the situation, as most anyone who follows the news understands:
We have a serious immigration issue in our country; this cannot be disputed, regardless of whether various news reports downplay its severity or heighten its intensity. The problem exists. One needs to look no further than this summer's ICE arrests in our neighboring Stark County to recognize that illegal immigration is affecting Ohio. Even closer, one look at the Dover City Schools will attest that the school system is currently seeking answers--both academic and financial--of how to effectively manage the blending of ESL (English as a Second Language) students into the system without disrupting the quality of education and the taxpayers' pocketbooks. Make no mistake: the problem is here and apparently appears to be growing significantly by the month.
Nearly two months ago, a zero tolerance policy preventing parents (or guardians) from bringing their children into the United States was implemented by the President Trump administration (although the semantics of whether it was a law or a policy, begun by President Obama or President Trump remain subject of discussion for many). From that implementation, a significant citizen pushback ultimately led to a reversal of that zero policy (although many dispute that the pushback was the true reason for the reversal). So, as it stands today, families are painstakingly being reunited--somewhat successfully--as both parents and children are methodically being traced so reunification can occur. However, despite whatever has occurred, the problem of illegal immigration into our country remains. Little has been solved.
Understanding this predicament is heartwrenching, of that we cannot argue. However, looking at the situation from a rhetorical perspective, perhaps we can have a more solid understanding of why I have labeled the immigration issue a "cluster."
Logos: This is the heart and soul of any argument--what logic, evidence, statistics, personal anecdotes, case history, . . . can be provided to support the persuaders' points? While I have clearly stated that I am not an ardent supporter of our President's character (to be explored under Ethos), I must admire him for having the tenacity to attack this problem. Despite many people's anger toward the family separation, I am still eagerly awaiting a feasible solution to the problem. What can we do to stop the overrunning influence of illegal immigrants? Yes, our country needs immigration; so many of the immigrants/refugees are hardworking, productive people who simply want to make a living and escape the dread their previous lives have presented. So, the argument of painting all of them "with the same brush" is foolish and is merely an example of hyperbole (exaggeration for effect) designed to stir the masses with anger and agreement with our country's leader. That exaggeration is simply ignored by me. I am confident that Case Farms, for example, would cease to be the business that it is without the immigrant labor. Of course, we like to think that such businesses are taking the jobs of homegrown Americans . . . truly laughable to me. So many of our American unemployed are that way because they simply have chosen not to work; therefore, this immigration argument must also present the side that immigration labor is essential to so much of our country, of which I have provided only a snapshot. However, the economic truth is that our country cannot afford the escalating costs of maintaining unfettered immigration. Simply put, our country's claim of welcoming diversity is being put to the test--something must be done because without a reasonable and fair alternative, our country as we know it could be bankrupted beyond our current beliefs. The logic clearly indicates that something must be done and done soon; without a fix, we are in deep trouble.
Pathos: The images that were presented on our nightly news, on our newspapers' front pages, on our magazines' covers, and on our social media websites are the reason the zero tolerance policy(?) was stopped. Any opportunity to tug at the heartstrings of people is an effective rhetorical device. Seeing and hearing small children and infants influence us, oftentimes in a way that allows us to forget the logic and focus on the emotion. As other examples, why do telethons invariably highlight a child confined to a wheelchair, news programs feature crying mothers sobbing over the loss of their children, or charity events call for increased financial contributions because "after all, it is for the kids"? All are designed to use emotion and vivid imagery to provoke a desired reaction. I clearly understand the power of visuals to persuade an argument, but the strength of an argument is not found in those strategies if the audience recognizes that the power of an argument is in the logic, not the emotion. On a simpler note, parents should imagine if we responded only to the pathos presented by our kids' logic rather than our more mature logic--the kids would get whatever they want whenever they want. Repeating my point, I am convinced that--in the public's eyes--the zero tolerance issue was tossed due to pathos, not necessarily logos.
Ethos: This point is central to any argument: if the person delivering the message cannot be trusted, is not seen as reliable and honorable, and has a track history of lying and bullying, why should we buy into the message? Of course, I can assume that most readers will understand that I am referencing our current President. As stated in a previous blog, I despise his character. Thus, his message gets garbled with me. Yes, I get the logic and I understand pathos's role, but the persistent changing of the President's mind, the documented history of lying, and the general lack of trust I have in him undermines his credibility. When he makes a statement, I simply cannot buy in--like the boy who cries wolf, the President has dragged me this direction before only to disappoint me (need I provide examples?). This is the crux of my dilemma: I recognize we are facing a serious problem, but I simply am shaken by the man leading the crusade. Please forget the Democratic vs. Republican drama that many fight . . . I am not involved in that catfight. This issue supersedes any of that nonsense--this drama is about solving a problem, one that presents a serious threat to our economy on so many levels. Allow me to go a step further; our media--many sources of which I do trust--have also done their share of undermining progress by choosing words such as "ripped the child from the mom's arms" instead of saying "removed the child from the mom's arms." Please recognize that certain agendas are being advanced depending on which source is being referenced. Again, the news source's credibility can be shaken by the implied bias that often surfaces--was the child ripped or removed from the mom? Yes, the word choice does make a difference, the source that reports it makes a significant difference, but nothing is as influential as the person delivering the message.
One other point I must address in this lengthy blog today is a fallacy known as confirmation bias--reading and believing only that information supporting one's points of view. Most of us--including me--are guilty of this to a certain degree. As I have stated many times in previous blogs, to see a situation rationally requires us to look beyond our own perspectives and biases and attempt to develop an understanding of both sides of an issue. If all we see is our perspective, we are pigeonholing ourselves, and any open mindness is gone. Recently, I read a book recommended to me by a longtime friend. Through the book Secret Empires, I was challenged to see the Presidency and our country's legislators from the perspective of persistent corruption. I mention this only to make a point: I need to continually be exposed to thinking that forces me to develop a more thorough understanding.
Put it all together, my friends, and here is what I am seeing from my seat: To understand persuasion at any level and in any form, we must understand how language works and how arguments are manipulated. Merely listening to a loud voice is seldom an indicator of open-minded thinking; if we force ourselves to rationalize, to understand others' perspectives, and to recognize the power of language, we can intelligently understand what a sound argument looks like. Understanding divisive situations such as immigration demands that we educate ourselves beyond the simplistic.
Without close reading, listening, and thinking, we can often fall for anything.
Previous blog entries can be found at michaelagunther.blogspot.com.
