A Date With Your Family (video): Appeals to Ethos

In the video "A Date With Your Family," the creator of the video uses limited appeals to ethos, or credibility, to reinforce the argument that happiness comes through being a member of a traditionally structured nuclear family.  While there aren't an abundance of distinct appeals to ethos, the way the video is fundamentally structured can actually be seen as one such appeal.

Possibly the omniscient narrator of this video?

The video is structured so that the audience watches characters move about, and listen to the narration of a regal sounding man.  The use of an omniscient, removed narrator is an appeal to ethos because it gives the narrator an almost God-like presence. With only a strong voice and no visual presence, the narrator takes on a mystical quality, and being the only source of words, he is the final judge on what the audience directly interprets from the video.  Without a narrator, the audience could make any number of interpretations of the images and interactions in the video.  However, with a narrator, his words become the first source of interpretation and meaning.  With this in mind, anything the narrator says has a special quality of importance and credibility.  Combine that quality with the narrator's use of the command form (e.g. "it is never good to allow telephone conversations to interfere with studies"), and the audience is directly swayed to his argument by a strong appeal to ethos.

A. Jacob Shapiro

A Date with your Family - visual and aural elements (video)

Since the text being analyzed is a video, there are bound to be visual and aural elements that are used to enhance the meaning of the rhetoric. In the beginning, the video is introduced with a very generic introductory song that leads into the video like it would any tv show at the time. This aural element is used to attract more families and children to watch it, because it sounds as if one of their favorite shows is going to come on any second. Another aural component to the video is the speakers voice. I have mentioned this before; However, the speakers voice is very serene and calm so that doesn't provide any feelings of urgency or uneasiness, it keeps the atmosphere very calm, which is good to help the families feel positive about what they just watched.


As well as having aural elements, there are visual elements in this video that have a hand in the rhetoric, as well. Since it is a video, the whole video itself is a visual element- However, if we dissect this piece by piece we can understand why it is brought together so well as a whole. First off, the family is dressed very nicely and cleanly which is easy on the eye. When one member of the family looked dirty he was encouraged to change in clean up. Since they all dressed nicely it was easier to think about what was actually going on with the dinner. Also, to support good actions at dinner, there was well set-up table, a clean kitchen, and a well set-up house. All of these things were pleasurable to the viewers eyes, which keeps it more likely for them to remember what happened. Lastly, all of the actors in this video have sort-of overdone their acting. When they smiled, they smiled very largely, when they were annoyed, they showed that emotion very well too. By doing all these things the video together accomplishes the goal of educating the public on good table manners and dinner etiquette.


-Krishna Shah

Raising Kids in Non-Nuclear Families (article)- Visual or Aural elements

In this article, there are not many aural elements to analyze. However, they do use visual elements to portray the different types of families. They use happy families with smiling faces to represent the idea of loving and successful relationships.

When audiences see various types of families all laughing together, they cling to the idea of happiness and will continue reading. The pictures also represent the main idea of the article well and show the outcome of what "your" family could look like if you read and follow the article.

Other than photographs, the authors specifically make the article in list form with bold words as headings and bullet format. This is done to appeal to all types of audiences and create a more diverse following. By organizing the facts of the article the audience is inclined to at least brush through and get the overall idea of the article. Though this is an article, the authors specific visual decisions impact the persuasiveness of the argument.

A Date With Your Family: Stasis Theory and Rhetorical Argument

In the video "A Date With Your Family," the video's creators make the argument that having a traditionally structured nuclear family, with traditional gender roles and expectations, is the key to happiness.  The video is dated to before the 1960s, when a revolution in the structure of the nuclear family began.  Therefore, if we can gain a good understanding of this video and the arguments it's trying to make, we can have a greater understanding of the trajectory of the revolution of nuclear families in America.  So, let's try to understand the video a little better.  Together, we will examine the conjecture, definition, quality, and policy of this video, together forming what's known as the "stasis theory."

Conjecture:

The conjecture, or facts, of this video are easily identifiable.  We can see that there is a "typical" American family, consisting of all white members, two parents (a man and a woman), and three children (two boys and one girl).  We can also recognize that the gender roles in the family are traditional, as the man and the boy focus on work/schoolwork, while the woman and girl focus on cooking and cleaning.  These facts coincide with the expectations and values of a "typical" American family before any revolution occurred.

Definition:

The definition, or meaning/nature of the issue, can only be recognized when viewing this video in light of modern times and the revolution that occurred in the structure of the American nuclear family.  "A Date With Your Family" conveys the notion that the path to happiness is a traditional family structure with traditional gender roles.  Many modern families, who aren't viewed as traditionally structured, would take issue with this argument.  However, the video well represents the reality of its time period, and thus we can understand the great shift that occurred not only in the nuclear family structure, but in our society as a whole.

Quality:

The quality, or seriousness of the issue, is very high in this video.  Being a good representative of America's sentiments and beliefs at the time, the video reveals just how close minded and conservative American society was before the 1960s.  Every family was expected to be like the family portrayed in the video, no exceptions.  Many people fall under the scope of this issue; anyone living in America pre-1960s would be expected to have a family with the illustrated structure and expectations.

Policy:

The policy, or plan of action, doesn't come directly from this video but from its consequences.  The direct policy of the video is that one should take action to be a member of/maintain membership in a traditionally structured nuclear family.  However, from our perspective, and with our current knowledge and societal expectations, this policy can be taken oppositely in that we should be members of whatever type of family that makes us happy.


Thus, stases, or agreement on the information and conclusions of the video, is reached.

A. Jacob Shapiro

Raising Kids in Non-Nuclear Families Article-Pathos

Throughout the article, Emily Kreid and Lizzie Bartlett, the authors, uses tries to capture the audience emotionally to convey that family life has changed significantly since the 1960's. By giving specific examples, such as single parent, same sex, and multigenerational households, the author hopes to capture the attention of families that fall in that category. Also, the authors direct tone and use of "you," while giving advice makes the audience feel like they are being addressed personally. This allows them to be held personally accountable. Lastly, the authors have specifically italicized questions that act like the audiences consciousness. They are simple questions yet people probably have not taken the time to address them and evaluate their home life. This self reflection grabs the audience emotionally and compels them to continue reading further.

Logos of the Family date (video)

Previously, we discussed the kairos and the major rhetorical argument for the video "A Date with your Family". Now we will delve in to the video deeply to see piece by piece how the author executed the usage of rhetorical appeals.

The video operationalizes logos as one of the main rhetorical appeals for the video. The whole point of the video is to show children of the 60's how to properly act in the household. Thus the author uses logos by establishing the do's and don'ts of table manners and actions in the household. By throwing in the don'ts children logically think why acting in a "bad" way would cause a bad atmosphere in the whole home and abad attitudes between all the people. To avoid doing that, the author suggests that, children should just follow the rules and hold off on any controversial conversations with parents, especially during dinner time. Now no child wants to be yelled at by their parents so they will listen to what the nice man in the video has to say and stay quiet and put on a smile. As well as holding off on controversial conversation, no one should monopolize the conversation and make the evening all about them. By doing that, obviously, others around you will be bored. 

In the video, also, all of the characters had almost tangible emotions. As a reader, you can see exactly what the emotions are portraying. This appeals to logos because in that time period of the 60's this video was targeted to the children in nuclear families so naturally the child would relate the persons in the video to their own family. So whatever emotions that the actions of the children cause, in the video, would be directly related to the children watching the video. 

Logically, if the children followed what the man in the video said than they would have one big happy family.

                                                     -Krishna Shah

Raising Kids in Non Nuclear Families (article)- Ethos

The credentials of the author are never stated, so the audience does not have any extrinsic ethos to go off of, but intrinsic ethos definitely plays a role in this article.  The main way ethos is generated is the author gives his own advice on ways to overcome the negatives of single parent and homosexual households after pulling statistics from different studies. The ethics of the author seem to be clean as he does not seem to take a side on whether the traditional Nuclear Family is better or one of the newer structures.

The question is how a single parent can raise a child alone more successfully. The author recommends the parent to prioritize their own education so they can communicate more effectively with children since parents with higher education levels have healthier parenting styles. He also suggests the single parent to find a support network so there is a way to relieve stress and pressure. He draws from the famous saying, “it takes a village to raise achild” in order to make this piece of advice more relatable.

Another question the author provides some insight on is how to ensure children with homosexual parents have a normal development. His advice is to maintain a good relationship with your kids and he draws from the statistic that children with a positive relationship with parents show fewer signs of depression and feel more connected in school. He also advises to be upfront about the sexuality of the parent because in a 1989 study when daughters learned about the sexuality of their parent at a younger age they had higher self-esteems.

Based off of different statistics, the author uses his expertise to guide struggling parents. The combination of logos and ethos together builds up the author’s reliability. By the end of the article the exigence is clear that the most important thing is for a child to grow up healthy and in a good environment, it is just what kind of households will provide this. 

-Priyal Patel

Raising Kids in Non Nuclear Families (article) - Logos

            There is a lot of logos present in this article in order to set the basis of the argument, which is if the Nuclear Family type of household back in the sixties were more beneficial than the common currently types of households consisting of single parents, single sex parents, and single generations. The primary method logos is applied is through different case studies and their findings.

            The first type of household is single parenthood, and the author begins by stating 29.5% of American households were of single family. This is a two percent increase from 2000, and this article was written in 2013. 84.1% of the single parent households were also headed by the mother as opposed to the father at 15.9%. A nuclear household in the sixties had two parents and divorce was not common. Studies unanimously support traditional two parent households, mainly because of the financial security. The double parenting in turn leads to higher achievement inschool, lower levels of psychological distress, and later sexual activity. The logos mentioned for single parenting suggest that the Nuclear Family structured household was more beneficial to children.

            Most Nuclear Families also had a significant influence from grandparents. The author mentions one in twenty children in the United States grow up in a multigenerational household today, and these kinds of households have “more consistently positive outcomes.” One case study mentioned is of African American children and grades being higher in multigenerational families. Another case study from 1996 mentioned is about healthy habits and that kids are more likely to not smoke and drink if they’re raised in a home with grandparents. Again, these facts the author mentions propose the Nuclear Family structure from the sixties was more beneficial to children’s development.

            Homosexual parenting is another common type of household that is rapidly emerging today that did not exist in the sixties, as homosexuality was not deemed acceptable. Today however, one to nine million children has at least one gay parent. The author mentions common concerns about this type of structure such as the child will grow up sexually confused, socially inept, or not fully developed. Case studies the author mentions reveals that same sex parenting has no influence on psychological conditions of the child like depression or anxiety and does not have any correlation with drug use and bad behavior. Unlike the other two types of present day households, the logos the author mentions in this type of structure does not seem to be negative.

            The logos the author used was key in presenting the purpose of the article, which was comparing and contrasting different types of households found today and whether or not they are beneficial to the development of children. The statistics stated about single parents and non multigenerational households portrayed them in a bad light whereas the opposite occurred for homosexual households, as they seemed to have no effect on the children. By stating hard facts from case studies, the author maintains a professional and unbiased stance on the topic.

-Priyal Patel

Raising Kids in Non-Nuclear Families- Stasis Theory

The typical family dynamic today is significantly different than that of the 1960's. Since we are becoming more tolerant of different practices such as same sex marriages and divorce, families and family structures have changed and evolved. Emily Kreid and Lizzie Bartlett, the authors of this article focus on the changes seen commonly in households and also critique the impact it has on the children.  

The authors present their argument by first stating the facts which show how there has been a significant increase in single parent, multigenerational, and same sex homes. When compared to the 1960's, modern day households are much different which raises the question of how these changes are impacting the homes themselves. The fact is that it does have an impact and through this article they evaluate how much of an impact. 

The root cause of all these changes lies in our ability to accept changes in the family structure and challenge the social norm of "family." Since same sex marriage is legal in most states and has been accepted widely, we are able question if there is a difference between the homes. Likewise, many couples are challenging the idea of marriage at 26 or 27 and decide to get married earlier. This leads to early pregnancies and divorce, which creates multigenerational households or a split home. With all the changes in society there are many questions as to how it will impact a traditional family setting. 

In terms of evaluation, many people can see that there is a change in how children are being raised and how families interact over time. However, the debate starts when deciding whether the change has impacted positively or negatively. The authors evaluate the change but also give advice on how to live a modern lifestyle but retain the genuine family aspect of house in the 1960’s. The advice leads to action that a family can take to manage their home. Before any rhetorical analysis has begun, the author and audience go through a series of quick checks to determine whether this is worth making an argument on or not. In this case, the authors highlighted the reason for changes in the household by stating facts and ended with advice that promotes action.

-Aparna Jayaram 

A Date With Your Family: Pathos

In the video "A Date With the Family," the audience is instructed on the protocol and expectations of a family dinner.  Through this instructive video, a portrait of the typical American family is painted.  Its members are white, two parents are present (a man and a woman), and there are three kids (two boys and one girl). The women are shown doing housework and preparing dinner, and the men are shown working on school work and coming back from a job.

Not only is this family portrayed to be "normal," but the creator of the video also uses the pathos rhetorical technique to portray them as being happy and content.  Throughout the movie, the characters are smiling and carefree.  The older son and daughter are described as being "quite content with life," because they are looking forward to dinner with their stereotypical family.  After the family sits down for dinner, the narrator says, "the dinner date has started, and they're all happy about it."  By using positive language and showing the family looking jovial and lively, the creator of the video appeals to the audience's emotional desire for happiness.  Coupling the happiness with the portrayal of a typical nuclear family, the video's creator is establishing the notion that having this type of family structure will lead to happiness.  It is interesting to consider that, while the expectation of a happy family in 1950s and 60s brings to mind the family shown in this video, a happy family today could be of any color, origin, sexual orientation, or structure.  A happy family today could have two dads, two moms, one parent, parents of different races, adopted children, or a number of other variations of the "traditional" family structure.  Clearly a revolution in the structure of the nuclear family has occurred from the 1960s to now.

A. Jacob Shapiro

An example of what a 21st century family could look like

Raising Kids in Non-Nuclear Families (article)- Kairos and The Rhetorical Situation

The stereotypical family in the 1950’s comprised of a mother, father, two kids, and a dog. This image has significantly changed as the world becomes more approving of things like gay marriage and divorce. The author of this article focuses on three different structures of family and questions how each one impacts the upbringing of children in comparison to the traditional structure.

            The author may feel compelled to speak out about how different types of households affect children, academic wise for example, because he or she sees how the lack of grandparents in the household, or the lack of two parents raising a child, negatively impacts a kid. Other reasoning could be they were raised in the typical nuclear family in the fifties, and is eager to share how different family life was back then compared to today. Many things that were frowned upon years ago are becoming socially acceptable, like gay marriage.

The method the author chooses to address the audience is by going into detail about single parenthood, multigenerational households, and single sex parents by giving statistics and then giving their respective advantages and disadvantages. Throughout the article the author maintains a neutral tone, not leaning towards either side- the nuclear family in 1950 or the different types of familial households present today. This consistent tone is effective as it leaves the audience to think whether the changes in “social norm” are beneficial or if they are harming children and their development.

The author does not seem to be addressing any one group of people specifically, but perhaps it may hit harder to people who are raising children so they can compare their household to one of the types mentioned. The Kairos is interesting because this article was written during a time where some of these changes from the Nuclear Family have happened for quite some time, like single parenting, but other changes are still not totally accustomed to, like gay marriage. This allows for some debate whether all these different types of households are beneficial or not. 

-Priyal Patel

A Date with the Family (video): Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation

The 1960's were the first time that there was a social revolution sparking in the american public. Not only was there the civil rights movement but there were also a lot of changes happening to the "nuclear family", children were not upholding the values provided to them and were starting to become more rebellious.

What a "normal" family looked like in the 1950's 

This video was set in a "normal" family home in the 1950's. At this particular point in the day, the family is getting ready for their dinner-one of the most important parts of their day. The author sounds like an elderly gentleman that has a lot to share on something that he is knowledgable in. The father has just arrived, the boys are cleaning up, and the ladies of the household are setting up the table and cooking the food. This video is directed towards children to show them what it should be like during dinner as opposed to what was beginning to happen in that time period. Again, this was the first time that the country was experiencing this much change and boy was it a shock. In response there were shot films like this that tried to divert the attention of children growing up and put them back on "track". 

Why is there so much pressure placed on having a sound and "faked" dinner where everyone is happy-even if it is all a show? For this family, and many  in this time period and the periods before, family was the most important thing they had-aside god of course. This all seems weird to us because in this generation we aren't used to this much unity and authority of parents. However, we take for granted all that is happening now-a-days. This was not always the case and we have now learned that by watching this video. 

-Krishna Shah