Welcome to the vidcasts of the OWL at Purdue,
where we deepen our knowledge of rhetoric, logic, invention, and communication.
Whether you want to know more about the ancient history of rhetoric,
or just get some advice on how to choose the best medium
for your message, the OWL vidcasts are here to guide you.
How important is a writer or speaker's credibility to her arguments?
How does credibility change in different rhetorical situations?
This vidcast defines and discusses the concept of ethos in writing and speaking today.
Paying attention to language choices, research experiences, and personal backgrounds
helps us understand why certain speakers gain credibility over others in particular situations
and what implications these choices or characteristics have for interpreting texts.
Enjoy the vidcast!
What if I were to tell you that the world was going to end in 10 days?
Would you believe me?
Probably not. But what if I were a world renowned astronomer who
studies asteroids in the Earth's atmosphere?
Would you believe me then?
You would be way more likely to accept my words as true if I had something about me
that seemed impressive or trustworthy.
In rhetoric, this idea is called ethos,
and it simply means that one way to persuade an audience
is to make them trust where you're coming from.
In other words, make an appeal based on your credibility.
So to really explore ethos, let's talk about what it means to all of us.
For me, ethos is something, a quality,
about the speaker or the writer that makes me believe what they say.
Yes, and that persuasive ethos quality can be many sorts of things:
the speaker's professional qualifications (whether she has a PhD or not, for instance)
or the speaker or writer's attitude towards the subject,
like if she feels the same way about a cause as I do.
Or the words the speaker uses.
I might be more likely to believe someone who speaks in complete sentences and uses big words
if he's supposed to be telling me about something really tough,
like a mathematical problem, for instance.
Having a big vocabulary would enhance their ethos-
the things about them that make me think they're telling the truth.
However, using big words may also undermine
a writer or speaker's credibility if the words are used incorrectly
or out of context, so it isn't just big words. It's words used correctly.
What's important to remember is that the qualities that make
a speaker persuasive can be very different depending
on the rhetorical situation or the circumstances surrounding the speech.
Put another way, a speaker or writer's ethos is not static.
It can, and should, change depending on the circumstances of the rhetorical situation.
With word choice, for example, if a speaker is telling you
all about her experience as a soldier in Iraq
she might be more persuasive if she doesn't use
big, technical words like "acceptable collateral damage"
or "primary objective," but sticks to words that are
more simple and emotional like "I helped people,"
or, "I saw a lot of suffering."
By using the same Iraq soldier example, think about
that person speaking in two different scenarios.
One, at a war protest rally, or two, giving a lecture or speech before congress.
How might that soldier change her appearance or word
choice in each situation to be more persuasive?
Yeah, but I don't know about all this talk about changing all the time.
I mean, can we really say that everything about ethos changes from situation to situation?
I mean, if the idea of ethos is worth learning, if it's worth
defining, the parts of it must be the same in all situations, right?
Yeah, in every rhetorical situation, ethos means a quality that makes the speaker believable.
That doesn't change.
What changes is the type of quality that works to persuade an audience.
Okay, so...I still don't get it.
Well, it's weird to think about it, but the truth is
that audiences are persuaded by different qualities in different situations.
For example, you think that the president of Purdue University is pretty smart, right?
Yeah, though I don't know her personally.
So if she said something about safety on campus in
the student newspaper, you would believe her, right?
Right, because she's the president of Purdue.
Right, but would you believe her if she said something to
you about your family life, who you should marry,
or what type of car you should buy?
Maybe not those.
Because she doesn't have qualifications in those areas that make her persuasive.
She doesn't know you.
Fair.
So that would mean that when a speaker addresses an
audience, I have to somehow let that audience know
that I have a quality that they can trust.
Or, I have to lead them to believe that I'm a reliable speaker or writer.
Yeah, and there are a lot of qualities you can draw on.
Your life experiences, qualifications, the way you speak, for example,
with your tone or word choice, or your appearance.
Okay, I'm starting to get it. But what if I don't have
a lot of life experience or some of those qualifications?
That's a good question, and the answer isn't as difficult as you might expect.
When you don't have the qualities you mentioned you would
need to search for ways to build your credibility
in the audience's eyes.
For example, when making an argument, you would want to use authoritative and persuasive sources.
In addition, you'd want to use a variety of sources so
as not to demonstrate a biased view on a subject.
You also develop credibility by using the correct document formatting
and using appropriate language choices for your audience.
Oh, okay. So ethos is a combination of appeals to different qualities or
sources that will make me a more credible speaker.
That's a very good way to put it,
and it's important to realize that ethos can be difficult to understand.
But the best way to really get it is to use it in your speaking and writing
and become comfortable with knowing and using the idea.