Prop up that triangle with The Rhetorical Arch, Part 1: Kairos

The Rhetorical Triangle is a common representation of three rhetorical aspects identified by the Greek philosopher Aristotle: Ethos (Authority), Pathos (Audience Awareness), and Logos (Logic). These are universal: you always need authority for someone to listen, to tailor your words for your audience, and to make sure what you say makes sense. By paying attention to these you make sure your essays and arguments are well structured and make appropriate appeals. However, these appeals alone are limited: there are important things Rhetoric can do that aren't addressed by Ethos, Pathos, and Logos alone.

This is where the rhetorical appeals Kairos and Telos come in. Added to the original Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, we have 5 rhetorical appeals, and rather than going from Triangle to Pentagon, I prefer the image of an arch: Telos supported by Ethos, Pathos, Logos, and Kairos. 

Before explaining that and why Telos gets to sit on top, we need to discuss Kairos.

Kairos literally translates from Greek as “the opportune moment” and I like to think of it in terms of timeliness. Kairos asks us to consider the best time-frame for the argument. Not the timing within the argument, (the best place for a given paragraph or statement or quote), but the timing of the argument: the broader context asking what is the best time for the argument: why does an argument need to be made now, or at what time should it be made?

For example, let's say you're arguing over which sport team is better. When this argument happens will matter and will change the argument. If it's pre-season, the argument will involve speculation about the prospects of the other teams in the league, but if it's on the eve of a championship match, the argument will be more pertinent because of the pending match and won't involve the entire league, only relevant matches. But what if it's not during the season? At best, it would be poorly timed and awkward.

Here's another example. A fifteen year old is going to have much more luck arguing for driving lessons than an eleven year old because of the timing. The fifteen year old is much closer to legally driving, making it a more relevant issue, whereas the eleven year old is still a few years away, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the younger one to win this argument.

Kairos contextualizes. It reminds us we make our arguments at specific times and in tandem with outside influences, and to consider what makes this argument relevant for today. An argument, for example, about the use of crossbows would be out of place today, but in 1139 CE when Pope Innocent II reportedly banned the use of crossbows on Christians, it would have been much more pertinent. And looking to the future, Kairos shows that things need to be changed or done in a given time frame, at certain times for certain reasons, and not just “now” or “soon”. An argument could focus on how changes need to be made to a program, but that the changes need to be implemented over a series of weeks or months, or even that certain steps need to be fulfilled before others can be.

While Kairos does help round out our arguments, it isn't what tops the arch and gives it purpose: that's where Telos comes in.

Is It Worth Using? The Appropriateness of Sources and The Rhetorical Triangle

Not all sources are created equally. Some sources are better than others.

This post deals with research, but not how to use research. Rather, whether or not the sources are worth using. Unreliable or inappropriate sources can actually hurt your credibility because it suggests your research is insufficient, and if the information you are using to develop your argument is bad, then your argument will also be bad.

The hard part is in determining whether or not a source is reliable. Granted there are some indicators that will almost guarantee good sources – government web pages, peer reviewed journals, university publications – but these aren't the only reliable sources, and only deal with one aspect of reliability: who published it? While this can be a good start, it is important to evaluate a source from multiple angles. The angles I recommend evaluating from stem from the Rhetorical Triangle:

• Ethos: In a way, Ethos is how an author presents themselves in their writing: their ability to demonstrate their authority in the text itself. They may do this by referencing their own research or referencing their experience and work in the field, which is sometimes evident through their terminology and style. In short, whether or not the text presents itself authoritatively.
• Logos: If the source's conclusions don't make sense, or if they rely on logical fallacies to support their claims, then the source is not reliable. The source should move easily from topic to topic, without any jumps in logic, and should be in agreement with other sources on the same topic.
• Pathos: For whom was it written? This actually returns to the issue of publication; peer reviewed pieces will be written for experts. It is possible to identify the intended readership of a piece based on how detailed it is, or on the terminology used. A piece that appropriately uses specified vocabulary will be for a more educated audience than one that doesn't, and one that misuses terminology will be one to stay away from.

Evaluating sources is a matter of looking for textual evidence showing the author's appropriate use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. For a classic example, I turn to Wikipedia. Wikipedia gets a bad rap because it is collaborative - anyone and everyone can go and make changes to it and it is frequently shot down on that basis alone. However, like I said before, that’s only looking at it from one perspective: it’s important to consider it from multiple angles:

• Ethos: Despite the collaborative, anyone-can-do-it nature of Wikipedia, most Wikipedia pages have references lists and citations, like any decent piece of research. These pages are also checked and double checked by users who make sure that the information is correct and accurately presented. Whatever few bad vandals there are, there are many more that make sure the information is good.
• Logos: The information on Wikipedia tends to make sense: it's logical, and users can keep the information straight. With this in mind though, it's a good idea to go back and double check Wikipedia pages in case there was faulty information. So, it could not be reliable on this basis, but it isn't the nail in the coffin for this resource.
• Pathos: It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are designed to be neutral and provide readily understandable information for people who have even a superficial understanding. This means the information on Wikipedia, while likely trustworthy, will not go into any substantial depth. The information is cursory; superficial. It's basic information that someone doing serious research should already know.

In short, Wikipedia is a reliable source – but it is not an appropriate one. It’s information is accurate, but superficial. You can do better.

Once we stop and understand that just because something is reliable does not mean it is appropriate, we can look at our research differently. It's like when I have students who count fact sheets as resources: lists of dates, figures, and sometimes fancy info-graphics without any serious analysis. The information may be perfectly reliable, but if you are committed to doing serious research, leave the sundries aside and focus on the sources that explore the concepts in detail.

The Rhetorical Triangle

Once, I invited a friend to give a brief presentation to my Freshman composition students. I had attended his presentation at a conference; I had attended for moral support. He presented on an engineering topic. It took about three minutes for me to be lost.

After my friend presented to my students, he repeated it in layman’s terms. He refrained from his complex formulas and terminology, and simplified his methodology. My friend didn't adapt his subject or findings, but rather his rhetoric.

Rhetoric refers to the forms and techniques writers and speakers use, and helps us better understand who is writing, for whom it is being written, and what is being written. This concept dates back to Aristotle, from whom we have the corresponding terms Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, which make up what is commonly called the Rhetorical Triangle. By identifying and focusing on each of these individually and in relationship to one another, it is possible to make sure our writing has a purpose and, rather than simply being an amalgamation of words, it can achieve that purpose.

Ethos – Who does the writing; authority. This refers to the author and, by extension, their authority. 

This is not as simple as the author identifying their credentials, but is done by their handling of the information and their research. It would be awkward in most pieces for an author to flaunt their training, experience, degrees, certifications, etc. Instead, a stronger use of Ethos comes from demonstrating an understanding of what is going on in the field. A surgeon who brags about how many lives they've saved, but is unfamiliar with recent advances in surgical practice isn't the best surgeon. It would be better to go to someone who stays on top of their field and deftly uses current and reasonable information.

Pathos – The writing is written for whom; audience awareness: how the piece is written for its audience.

Using Pathos involves appealing to the interests and concerns of the target audience, as well as considering their own level of expertise. This can range from the language used to the amount of detail: the more expert the audience, the more technical the language and the more detailed the information. Good Pathos will consider, and even involve researching, the intended audience so their specific concerns are addressed. Bad Pathos will either make something too complicated, too simple, or not make it relevant enough for the audience; it can alienate your audience, or worse, disrespect them.

Logos – What is written; logic. Refers to the logic of the piece of writing – the arguments and ideas being put forward in the writing. 

In its purest sense, logic is If A, then B, or If A and B, then C. Therefore, logos is how well the essay itself articulates the important aspects of its topic and draws them together into a conclusion. Logos will manifest itself primarily in the content, thesis, and organization of an essay; and in how all three interact. An essay with weak transitions (an organization issue) likely has a weak thesis as well, because the arguments presented in the essay are not clearly going from topic to topic and building towards a solid conclusion. The essay may say if A and B then C, but if the essay does not make it clear how the combination of A and B yield C, then the audience will be lost and confused.

Conclusion

Different situations and genres will call for different approaches to the rhetorical appeals, but this does not mean they are never present. Each genre and situation will require a different approach. A research essay will employ Ethos differently than a personal essay, and a piece intended for amateurs will need to present its logic differently than one for experts. Rhetoric helps writers assess their entire situation by considering knowledge, the communication itself, and the intended recipients. Different situations will require different appeals, even if Ethos, Pathos, and Logos will always be used. While it is important to consider each of these rhetorical appeals, it is more important to keep them appropriate for your context and purposes.