Tommy Kelley

SPCH 2310 Human Communication Concepts

University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Summer 2017
As I walked into the back room of the bar, the 300 plus people in the crowd were
still screaming. The thirty-minute standup comedy routine that I had just
performed, not only went according to plan but it exceeded my expectations. It had
gone so well that when I walked past the headliner you could tell he didn’t want to
follow my performance. I wish I could say that this was the way every performance
went for me, but it’s just not the case. What made this night so spectacular? In this
paper, I plan to answer that question with the use of Aristotle’s teachings of rhetoric
and then follow with a critique of this teaching.
Literature Review
After studying the teachings of Aristotle, I found four main points to be highlighted
in this paper, (1) the use of rhetoric, (2) Logos, (3) Pathos, and (4) Ethos. Rhetoric
was one of the most important teachings of Aristotle in which he defined as,
“discovering all possible means of persuasion (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).”
The other three are artistic proofs that Aristotle taught are the internal proofs that a
speaker creates (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015). There are more aspects to
Aristotle’s teachings on rhetoric but these four best describe the reasons behind my
success in the bar that evening.
Rhetoric
One only has to hear the word “rhetoric” and many negative thoughts come to mind.
Usually when we are confronted with a person we think is trying to trick us, we add
another word and scream at them “mere rhetoric”, to let them know we see they are
hiding the truth behind fancy words. The textbook A First Look at Communication
Theory defines rhetoric as, “discovering all possible means of persuasion (Griffin,
Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).” This definition shows that by screaming the phrase
“mere rhetoric” we are using our own version of “mere rhetoric”. When we open
our eyes and look around we see that rhetoric is part of our everyday lives,
sometimes used for good and sometimes used for evil. In A First Look at
Communication Theory it says this about Aristotle, “He saw the tools of rhetoric as a
neutral means by which the orator could either accomplish noble ends or further
fraud (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).” When used properly rhetoric is a great
tool for motivation. However, when used improperly it can be a tool for destruction.
In the book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky said, “”The Revolution was effected
before the war commenced,” John Adams wrote. “The Revolution was in the hearts
and minds of the people…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments
and affections of the people was the real American Revolution (Alinsky, 1971).””
This hints at the fact that when we have been persuaded by rhetoric that it’s only
because of something we already believed in our hearts. In other words, rhetoric
only works when we already wanted to believe it in the first place or we will find
ourselves screaming “mere rhetoric”.
Logos
We as human beings have a need for things to make sense or in other words to be
logical. The textbook A First Look at Communication Theory defines Aristotle’s term
logos as, “Logical proof, which comes from the line of argument in a speech (Griffin,
Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).” Aristotle clearly saw the fact that people needed things
to make sense in order for them to believe your words. However, for a person to be
motivated these words not only have to make sense but they have to have meaning
in that person’s life. This doesn’t necessarily have to be the truth. According to the
book Thank You for Arguing, author Jay Heinrichs says, “For persuasive purposes,
the opinion of your audience is a good as what it knows, and what it thinks is true
counts the same as the truth (Heinrichs, 2013).” Therefore, as done in many
standup comedy routines, the stories told don’t have to be true they just need to be
about the truth. Unfortunately, working on what the audience thinks is true is how
people get conned. The Bible talks about this in the book of Proverbs when it says,
“the first person to speak always seems right until someone comes and asks the
right questions (Prov 18: 17, ERV).” This shows that we have to be careful to not
just listen for what “we want to hear”, because some people are good at telling us
exactly that. One example is the rhetoric heard when you buy a new car. This is
because, logos is a great tool when used properly to get your point across to your
audience.
Pathos
Pathos is defined as, “Emotional proof, which comes from the feelings the speech
draws out of those who hear it (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).” We all have an
emotional response when we hear someone speak. Sometimes these emotions are
greater than others, like when someone says something we find offensive. No
matter if the emotion is great or small, all words elicit some form of emotion from
us. Controlling these emotions is a powerful tool, whether that means controlling
how we feel about others words or how we use our words to control others. In the
book Thank You for Arguing it says, “As Aristotle observed, reality looks different
under different emotions; a change for the better, for example can look bad to a
depressed man (Heinrichs, 2013).” These emotions change the meaning of the
words we hear. This point is made in Proverbs in the Bible when it says, “Happiness
is good medicine, but sorrow is a disease (Prov 17: 22, ERV).” Positive emotions
give us a completely different view of the world than do negative emotions.
Ethos
In the textbook, A First Look at Communication Theory, it defines ethos as,
“Perceived credibility, which comes from the speaker’s intelligence, character, and
goodwill toward the audience, as these personal characteristics are revealed
through the message (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).” The three qualities of ethos,
intelligence, character, and goodwill are defined in the book Thank You for Arguing
but Heinrichs calls them, virtue, practical wisdom, and disinterest. Heinrichs
defines them this way, “Virtue- the audience believes you share their values.
Practical wisdom- you appear to know the right thing to do on every occasion.
Disinterest- this means not lack of interest but lack of bias, you seem to be impartial,
caring only about the audience’s interests rather than your own (Heinrichs, 2013).”
Through viewing these three qualities of a person, we decide whether we trust them
or not. If we trust them, then their words will have a profound affect on us but if we
don’t trust them their words will be meaningless. The Bible says, “Good people
leave memories that bless us, but the wicked are soon forgotten (Prov 10: 7, ERV).”
Therefore, if people don’t believe we are honest then our words will not persuade
them to our way of thinking and will not make a lasting impact on them.
Application
The results of my performance that night can be explained by the use of rhetoric,
logos, pathos, and ethos. In order to fully explain the situation, I first need to give
some background about the evening. The show was set up in a country bar and I
perform country comedy. The crowd was mainly country people and gave me the
advantage mentioned in the book Rules for Radicals where Saul Alinsky quoted John
Adams saying, “The Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people (Alinsky,
1971).” Though what I was saying wasn’t revolutionary, it was a form of rhetoric to
which the crowd related. The jokes I told shined a good light on the country life and
this crowd had country life in their “hearts and minds”.
The crowd that night could also relate to my logos. The words that I said that night
were logical to the crowd because I talked about things that they did in their lives.
This allowed them to not only relate to me but they could place themselves in the
situations that were covered in my jokes. This is what Jay Heinrichs meant in his
book Thank You for Arguing when he talked about how what the audience thinks is
true counts the same as the truth (Heinrichs, 2013). The stories I told that night
didn’t have to be true because they talked about true situations in which the crowd
could relate.
Pathos comes easy during a show like I had that night. The nature of comedy is to
elicit emotions from people. In the book Comedy Writing Secrets, the author Mel
Helitzer says, “There must be a buildup of anticipation in the audience. This is really
nothing more than the writer’s skill in using emotion to produce tension and anxiety
(Helitzer, 2005).” Without the build up of emotion there is nothing to laugh at in a
joke. As a standup comedian, it’s your job to use emotion to trick your audience into
thinking one way so you can surprise them with the punch line.
On this particular night ethos was the main reason the show went so well. At the
bar that night the crowd was able to relate to me on a personal level. While I was on
stage, the people in the audience saw one of their own in front of them and in that
way they were able to connect with me. First of all they believed that I had the same
values as them (Heinrichs, 2013). In order for a crowd to trust your character they
must believe you value the same things. Next, they could tell that I knew what I was
talking about. Nobody wants to hear someone speak who is fake, and just trying to
pretend to be someone they are not. This was definitely not the case that night
because the crowd and I had lots of things in common. This leads to the conclusion
that the main reason I did so well that night was because the crowd and I were so
much alike. I was able to make this discovery only by the use of Aristotle’s rhetoric,
logos, pathos, and ethos.
Limitations
Although Aristotle’s work was able to help me find out what happened that night,
there are some limitations. That wasn’t the first night I had ever performed at a
country bar and it wasn’t even the first night I had performed at that particular bar.
Aristotle’s work shows us that when we connect to a crowd with our persuasion,
logic, emotion, and character that we should form a bond. I have learned through
performing that sometimes that bond can be broken. Some nights the crowd you
feel you should connect with, rather connects with another comedian that is
perhaps the opposite of them. The mood of the crowd can change because of the
weather, the seasons, or the amount of beer drank that night. Even though
Aristotle’s work is truly brilliant and a must to consider before stepping on stage,
sometimes we just have to chalk up a good night’s performance as just being your
night.

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals- a pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York, NY: Vintage
Books

Heinrichs, J. (2007). Thank you for arguing. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press

Helitzer, M., Shatz, M. (2005). Comedy writing secrets (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Writer’s Digest Books