"The Ethos of Mark Driscoll: A Summary of an Undergraduate Thesis"
Benjamin SherickBenjamin Sherick graduated from the University of Calgary in 2015 with a Bachelor of Arts - Honours First Class in Communication Studies and a minor in Religious Studies. His academic interests include rhetoric, pop culture, music, and religion. He currently resides in Alberta with his wife.
Contents |
EthosEthos, as described by Aristotle in Rhetoric, is one of three modes of persuasion. Aristotle (c. 335/1984) wrote, “[The first mode of persuasion furnished by the spoken word] depends on the personal character of the speaker” (p. 24). While the other two modes, pathos and logos, focus on the audience’s emotion and the message’s logic respectively, ethos focuses on the speaker. Specifically, ethos is concerned with the character presented by the speaker. This is a strong appeal. Aristotle (c. 335/1984) stated, “[A speaker’s] character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses” (p. 25). Aristotle explained that ethos compels persuasion so strongly by indicating credibility. He writes, “Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others” (Aristotle, c. 335/1984, p. 25). When a rhetor presents a character that the audience interprets as appealing, they begin down the path towards persuasion. Intrinsic EthosIntrinsic ethos is the ethos presented by the speaker within the bounds of the rhetorical act. For Aristotle, ethos is the rhetor's portrayal of character in a speech. He wrote, “This kind of persuasion… should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of this character before he begins to speak” (Aristotle, c. 335/1984, p. 25). For Aristotle, prior reputation was not a factor in rhetoric. Ideally, the audience approaches the speech objectively, formulating judgment based on the speech alone. The concept of intrinsic ethos allowed me to objectively analyze Driscoll’s character in answering the research sub-question: how does a pastor construct and present intrinsic ethos within the bounds of a sermon? By examining Driscoll as he presents himself in the sermon, I was able to evaluate the type of character Driscoll presents, as well as the success of this ethos in the attempt at persuasion. In order to evaluate intrinsic ethos, I focused on Driscoll’s presentation of the three components of ethos described by Aristotle: knowledge, virtue, and goodwill. Braet (1992) argues that audiences attribute positive ethos to a rhetor when they recognize the presence of these three components in a rhetorical act: “True credibility results when the audience attributes three qualities to the speaker because of what is said; these virtues are good sense, virtue and goodwill” (p. 311). By searching for these elements in Driscoll’s sermon, I was able to determine 1) what kind of ethos Driscoll presents, and 2) whether he is successful at persuading his audience. Aristotle’s first concept is virtue. Smith (2004) explains, “Aristotle defines virtue as the ability to produce and preserve the good,” which is equated with happiness (p. 7). Further, Smith explains that Aristotle believed virtue was a character trait marked by the ability to make moral choices that would lead to preserving happiness (p. 7). In order to create positive ethos, a speaker must demonstrate that he or she has the capacity to determine and choose the path that will lead to the most good. However, the attribution of virtue is not reliant on the rhetor alone. Smith (2004) explains that audiences have different presuppositions about what constitutes virtuous behavior. It is up to the rhetor to discern this standard, and adjust accordingly (p. 7). Since the audience interprets the message, the speaker must demonstrate behavior that the audience deems honorable. Once the audience sees its own values reflected in the speaker, ethos is attributed and the audience can be persuaded. In the case of Driscoll, virtuous behavior is likely built upon the foundation of the Bible. Driscoll is a Christian pastor, preaching in a Christian church. The Christian worldview is primarily founded upon the teachings of the Bible. Further, “What Are the Scriptures?” is a sermon in which Driscoll attempts to convince his audience that the Bible is an authoritative text upon which to build one’s life. Unless Driscoll does not actually believe what he is preaching, it can be assumed that he would look to the Bible as a guideline for virtuous behavior. Analysis of Driscoll in “What Are the Scriptures?” required identifying instances where Driscoll demonstrated virtue. I sought to answer a number of virtue-related questions:
Aristotle’s second component of ethos is wisdom. This may also be interpreted as “good sense, practical wisdom, sagacity, expertise, [or] intelligence” (Smith, 2004, p. 10). Essentially, this component deals with the demonstration of what the speaker knows. Smith (2004) writes, “What is clear from early on in the Rhetoric is that a public speaker must know a great deal to be successful” (p. 10). Throughout a speech, speakers must establish themselves as knowledgeable. This is not a narrow knowledge, but a vast and broad knowledge. Smith elaborates, “Aristotle describes five ‘chief’ intellectual virtues: scientific knowledge, art, practical wisdom, intuitive reason, and philosophic wisdom” (p. 10). As one can see, there is a wide range of knowledge available to the speaker in order to demonstrate ethos. In conducting my analysis, I had to determine if and how Driscoll portrays himself as a knowledgeable speaker by posing the following questions:
Finally, Aristotle's third component of ethos is goodwill. Goodwill is similar to friendliness, with some notable differences. Smith (2004) writes, “Friendliness appears consistent with Aristotle’s brief description of goodwill: the speaker should share the best advice out of goodwill… as one would share the best advice for the sake of a friend” (p. 12). Goodwill is an attitude of the speaker towards others. Speakers that demonstrate goodwill show they have the audience’s best interests at heart. The main difference between goodwill and friendliness is reciprocity. Smith (2004) writes, “Aristotle begins by arguing that those who wish good for others have goodwill if they are not seeking reciprocation” (p. 12). He elaborates, “Goodwill is wishing good for others for their sake; it is the beginning of friendship” (p. 12). Reciprocity implies closeness with the audience that is not necessarily present in goodwill. Goodwill is a more distant, but still benevolent, relationship with and attitude towards the audience. To evaluate Driscoll’s goodwill, I asked the following questions:
In answering these questions about Driscoll’s virtue, knowledge, and goodwill, it was extremely important that I remained objective. Since Aristotle asserted ethos was confined to the bounds of the speech, I had to pay special attention so as not to let knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation interfere with my analysis. I had to temporarily suspend knowledge of the controversies of the summer of 2014 in order to remain objective. |