Unconvincing Rhetoric

When I think of rhetoric, I think of an author or writer using rhetorical features for the purpose of persuading readers one way or another. After reading “Antisocial Networking?” (2010) by Hilary Stout, however, I realized that rhetoric can also be used in works that are intended simply to present facts and ideas. In her New York Times article, Stout explores multiple viewpoints on whether younger generations’ infatuation with technology will be beneficial or diminishing, especially in regards to childhood friendships and social skills. How does she illustrate that rhetoric can still be used in an objective (relatively objective, it seems like there might be a tiny bit of opinion poking through) article? Stout particularly focuses on the use of dialogue, ethos, and logos in her article to provoke her reader’s thoughts and to establish herself and her references as credible sources.

The dialogue at the beginning of the article is one excellent example of an author appealing to a reader via rhetoric. As I read, I was under the impression that I was listening in on an awkward, flirtatious, preteen conversation. I could visualize the awkward body language, and imagine the insecurity and excitement at the possibility of a new relationship. Then Stout took me by surprise, declaring that this conversation took place on Facebook. My outlook did a full 180 degree flop, as my original visions of face-to-face intimacy were contrasted with the cold, non-humanness of a text smiley and an informal, hurried “c ya.” Though this example is not particularly objective, it is still an excellent depiction of how a writer can use rhetoric to manipulate the opinion of readers, guiding their mindset and leading them towards an understanding of the point the writer is trying to make.

While Stout’s use of dialogue seems to be directed towards convincing others to see as she does, she also uses rhetoric in a more objective manner. Two arguments are presented in her article as she examines what effects technology can have on relationships and social interactions. One hypothesis suggests that technology will allow people, especially children, to remain more “connected (to) and supportive of their friends.” The other claims that the quality of children’s relationships will be “diminished” from the lack of “intimate . . . face-to-face time.” Stout appeals to both the reader’s ethos and logos by referencing highly credible and esteemed people as she provides details concerning each attitude. For example, to support the claim that the quality of relationships will diminish, she references multiple psychologists and researchers, and even has a direct quote from a neuroscientist.  Personally, these qualified references did two things for me. First, they built up a sense of credibility for her, as she had clearly done her research and was qualified to present these ideas. Second, it made both hypotheses seem plausible and valid because both have supporting details that were given by well-researched, scholarly sources.

While this doesn’t technically touch on issues of privacy, I found it interesting because it shows that rhetoric is not necessarily only present in works that are intended to persuade or convince. It can also be found in articles, like “Antisocial Networking,” that are simply comparing different viewpoints, and offering research and educated opinions to substantiate them. With technology on the rise the way it is, it’s important for people to see various viewpoints so that they may have more educated opinions regarding technology, especially to determine if change or improvement is necessary.