The Ancients and the GMO’s.
When I flip
through a magazine, too often I am bombarded by advertisements that make me
regret reading or seeing them because they make me feel more stupid or less
intelligent. It’s not that they are complex, but the ads are senseless.
On the other hand, I do understand the impact of a great marketing scheme,
like, the got milk advertisements, and do I dare say it, the gap ads and commercials.
I suppose these ads are so effective because they rely heavily on visual
images and not written text, which is a style of advertising.
Within an advertisement that does contain text or an
explanation of the visual image that is being used to sell the product, the
text has a style in itself separate from the ad as a whole. In an essay
about ancient rhetoricians devotion to the unusual uses or arrangements of
words, the authors, Sharon Crowley and Debrae Hawhee, give the definition
of style as “persuasive or extraordinary uses of language” that “can be distinguished
from grammar, which is the study of ordinary uses of language”(Crowley &
Hawhee 229). Ancient authors have agreed that good style contains correctness,
clearness, appropriateness, and ornament. With ads, it is interesting
to see how appropriateness and ornament are applied. Appropriateness
can be defined as “meaning to say or do whatever is fitting in a given situation,”
or “seizing the right moment to speak, the moment when listeners are ready
to hear”(Crowley&Hawee 232). Ornament can be defined as “uses of
language that were unusual or extraordinary”(Crowley&Hawhee 235).
Ornament is divided into different categories like figures of speech and figures
of thought.
In applying ancient style rules, the ad that I chose to examine, found in
the June 2001 Mother Jones, stood out because it does not belittle the reading
and intellectual capabilities of the average person. The advertisement is
not really selling a product but an idea. This ad utilizes both
an image and substantial amount of text to sell the idea. It is
written by an environmental organization called Patagonia, which can be considered
the title of the ad. In a small synopsis, Patagonia raises questions
and awareness about genetically modified organisms and asks the reader to
question whether GMO’s are really something they want in their everyday life.
This text is placed to the right of an enlarge image of a butterfly, not
in color, but black and white.
Both the ancient and contemporary reader would say the purpose of the ad,
“Patagonia”, is to raise emotion about how genetically modified organisms
effect the world. Looking through the lens of the ancients’ standards,
the text is successful in terms of style because of the appropriateness and
various ornamentation characteristics applied to the advertisement.
The ad is also successful to the contemporary reader because a well written
thought provoking text is juxtaposed with a lasting image.
The Patagonia ad is appropriate in the sense that kairos,
“the nature of the subject matter, the general attitudes and backgrounds of
the audience,” is prevalent(Crowley&Hawhee233). The subject of
the ad is the consequences of GMO’s. The author of the ad makes
the assumption that its reader may have some background in genetic engineering.
The attitudes of the audience can be either they know what genetic engineering
is but take somewhat of an apathetic view because they don’t fully understand
the effects of GMO’s, or the audience takes a stand against GMO’s , so the
ad gives the audience a place to find out more information and a place to
take action, like the Patagonia website. The ad is being neither pretentious
nor patronizing, which is a good middle area to stand.
The level of style used in the ad can be considered as,
like the way the ad deals with its audience and subject matter, the middle.
There are three levels of style which are called grand, middle , and plain.
The middle style is described as not using ordinary “prose but …is more
relaxed than the grand style…,[and] develops arguments in leisurely fashion
and as fully as possible”(Crowley&Hawhee234). The different ornaments
of style are appropriate in this level. The ornaments are used to raise
emotion and ethos which are definitely present in the Patagonia ad.
Since raising a consciousness about GMO’s is so important
in the Patagonia ad, I will examine those ornaments that do evoke emotion
and raise ethos within the ad. Because there are endless amounts of
ornaments used in the ad that can be considered worthwhile for its purpose,
I’ll narrow it down by figurative language where an example of repetition
is used and figures of thought where rhetorical questions and accumulation
are used.
Figurative language can be described as “variations on
the use and arrangements of the basic parts of the (sentence)”(Crowley&Hawhee240).
The Patagonia ad uses repetition which is considered a figure of language
because it repeats words and structures to enhance the argument. The
essay describes repetition as “a means of calling attention to words and ideas
that are important”(Crowley&Hawhee243). An example of repetition
in the ad is the repeated use of “and”. It states, “And much more
permanent…And because genetically modified organisms reproduce themselves…And
you may be eating it,” which gives the sense that not only is this going to
be a cycle of GMO’s and humans/animals battling it out, but raises an emotion
of helplessness towards GMO’s and perhaps change our opinion of genetically
modified organisms.
This can be considered as successful in the eyes of an
ancient rhetoric because the repeated phrases using “and” is an important
addition to Patagonia’s argument. It reiterates the point the ad is trying
to make. With the contemporary reader, the repetition is successful
in the sense that it is clear what exactly the ad is trying to say.
With this clear thought or image of the GMO’s waging war on humans and animals,
the image of the colorless limp butterfly gives a visual stimulation to this
thought provoking idea. Figures of thought
seem to be the most important ornament pertaining to the Patagonia ad.
Figures of thought are described that “they can enhance a rhetor’s ethos or
appeal to an audience’s emotions”(Crowley&Hawhee248). One way the
ad enhances ethos and appeals to emotions is the use of a rhetorical question,
which is a question proposed by the author who is not expecting an answer
but to draw attention to a certain point. The question the ad asks
is “Shouldn’t we find out the risks before we turn genetically modified organisms
loose on the world, or eat them in our food?” Because the question
is placed at the end of the explanation of the effects that GMO’s have on
the world around us, the figure is successful. The emotion of concern
is raised in the beginning through a listing of “Unintended Consequences”
then the reader is left with the question of whether this is something worth
learning or taking action about. Since the author of the ad is asking
the question “Shouldn’t we…,” it bridges a gap, or raises ethos, between
them and the audience; for example, like mentioned before, it brings a common
ground to those who completely know about GMO’s and those who vaguely do.
This can also be a common ground where ancient and contemporary readers meet
because the rhetorical question is so effective and it provokes a thought
when looking at the butterfly next to the text. In a modern perspective,
this image gives a tangibility to the argument proposed by Patagonia.
The next figure of thought to deal with is accumulation,
which is defined where the rhetor “gathers together points that are scattered
about and lists them all together” (Crowley&Hawhee255). The
ad starts off with this figure. The beginning states, “Unintended Consequences”
then goes on to list several examples of these consequences. In each
of these consequences an image is created of GMO’s doing bodily harm against
nature. The fact that they are listed together like that gives the effect
of the list going on and on and will keep continuing. This figure is
successful in ancient terms because the arrangement of the sentence is utilized
to help move or begin the argument. In contemporary terms, this
figure helps define what exactly the ad is going to tell us about. Within
the ad, accumulation and rhetorical questions have a dueling role with eachother.
Without the listing of the consequences being first, the question at the
end loses it’s strong effect.
I can’t speak for an ancient rhetoric, only show how
an ancient would perhaps view the ad, but as a contemporary reader the ad
is successful. The only fault or struggling issue in the Patagonia ad
(which an ancient rhetoric would agree) is that the author doesn’t give any
insight to those who support genetic engineering. If the Patagonia mentioned
the opposing view point, the ad would have been even more moving and stronger.
It is amusing, though, the fight between those who oppose genetic engineering
and those who support it fits so nicely within the debate of the modern vs.
the ancients.
Works Cited
Crowley, Sharon and Debrae
Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. Second edition.
Boston: Allyn &Bacon, 1999.
“Patagonia.” Mother Jones June 2001: 1-2
