Affect (rhetoric)

This article is about the word as used in rhetoric. For psychological description of affect, see Affect (psychology). For other uses, see Affect (disambiguation).

Affect, as a term of rhetoric, is the responsive, emotional feeling (affect) that precedes cognition.[1] Affect differs from pathos as described by Aristotle as one of the modes of proof[2] and pathos as described by Jasinski as an emotional appeal[3] because it is “the response we have to things before we label that response with feelings or emotions.”[4]

In further exploring this term, scholars recognized affect’s rhetorical role in literature,[5] photography,[6][7] marketing[8] and memory.[9] In 2012, Rogers described how author W. E. B. Du Bois used the structure of his work, The Souls of Black Folk, to affect his audience into feeling shame.[10] In 2016, Brunner and Deluca proposed the term affective winds to describe “the force of images that moves people to engage and interact by exploring the affective potency of visual arguments.”[11] Affective winds were part of the rhetorical persuasiveness of images shared through social media. In a different sense, Harold described how the Target Corporation’s advertising used aura and affect to democratize the appearance of some products.[12] Affect has also been identified as a conduit through which rhetorical memories can be internalized.[13]

Drawing from philosophy, some[14][15] rhetorical studies of affect have followed Martin Heidegger's articulation of Dasein which posits "affect" as the ground of reason. Others[16] follow post-structuralist and post-Heideggerian insights to follow affect's influence on rhetorical canons and digital rhetoric.

  1. ^ Brunner, E., & Deluca, K. (2016). The argumentative force of image networks: Greenpeace's panmediated global detox campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(4), 281.
  2. ^ Aristotle (2001). Pathos. In Bizzell, P. & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
  3. ^ Jasinski, J. (2001). Pathos. Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
  4. ^ Harold, Christine. (2009). On target: Aura, affect, and the rhetoric of "design democracy". Public Culture, 21(3), 599.
  5. ^ Rogers, M. (2012). The people, rhetoric, and affect: On the political force of du bois's the souls of black folk. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 188-203.
  6. ^ Brunner, E., & Deluca, K. (2016). The argumentative force of image networks: Greenpeace's panmediated global detox campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(4), 281.
  7. ^ Murray, J. (2009). Nondiscursive rhetoric: Image and affect in multimodal composition. Ithaca, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
  8. ^ Harold, Christine. (2009). On target: Aura, affect, and the rhetoric of "design democracy". Public Culture, 21(3), 599.
  9. ^ Pruchnic, J., & Lacey, K. (2011). The future of forgetting: Rhetoric, memory, affect. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 41(5), 472-494.
  10. ^ Rogers, M. (2012). The people, rhetoric, and affect: On the political force of du bois's the souls of black folk. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 188-203.
  11. ^ Brunner, E., & Deluca, K. (2016). The argumentative force of image networks: Greenpeace's panmediated global detox campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(4), 281.
  12. ^ Harold, Christine. (2009). On target: Aura, affect, and the rhetoric of "design democracy". Public Culture, 21(3), 599.
  13. ^ Pruchnic, J., & Lacey, K. (2011). The future of forgetting: Rhetoric, memory, affect. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 41(5), 472-494.
  14. ^ Rickert, Thomas. (2013). Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being. U of Pittsburgh Press.
  15. ^ Gross, Daniel. (2006). The secret history of emotion: From Aristotle's Rhetoric to modern brain science. Berkeley: U of California Press.
  16. ^ Pruchnic, Jeff and Kim Lacey. "The Future of Forgetting: Rhetoric, Memory, Affect. "Rhetoric Society Quarterly" 41.4 (2011), 1-23.