Rhetorical Happiness

“The Spoils of Happiness”, written by David Sosa of the New York Times, consists of a commentary on happiness: its attributes, and how to attain it. Digging deep into what causes happiness, Sosa concludes that happiness is not a state of mind, but rather depends on external influence. Happiness, a complex issue, can be very difficult to write about in an influential way; the irrational nature makes it very difficult to create any generalization about the issue. Sosa takes on this challenge by using strong rhetorical techniques such as a sympathetic tone, intellectual diction, powerful rhetorical questions, emotional analogies and insightful allusions to establish a strong ethos, pathos and logos: ultimately increasing the believability and overall strength of his complex claim, happiness is not a state of mind.

Happiness is a state of mind or feeling characterized by contentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy.^[1] A variety of biological, psychological, religious, and philosophical approaches have striven to define happiness and identify its sources.

Allusion: connecting with the reader

The article begins with a historical example based off an experiment done by Robert Nozick. Sosa describes this experiment as a machine that could give a person any experience desired by changing her perception of reality. After immersing the reader in this radical scenario, Sosa ends sharply with his thesis for the article. By suddenly concluding the opening paragraph with the claim “Happiness is not a state of mind.”, the reader, still unaware of where the article is going, feels inclined to read on, desiring to find out how this scenario pertains to happiness. Sosa’s initial use of this analogy plays as not only the base source for his argument, but as a subliminal device used to draw on the ignorance of the reader about the subject matter.

Sosa continues the article by alluding to things such as “The Matrix”, in order to better bring his claim down to the eyes of the reader. By contrasting the abstract experimental scenario to something as simple and popular as “The Matrix”, Sosa is able to first, draw on the reader’s ignorance--establishing ethos--to later bring his argument to a more emotional level that contains things more familiar and personnel to the reader. By placing both of these allusions right at the beginning of the article, he is able to depend heavily on early pathos and ethos in his claim, allowing him to get the most out of a powerful transition into the logos required to prove his abstract point.

The Opinion Shaping Rhetorical Question

Sosa begins his next paragraph with a strong, somewhat ambiguous question: “What is happiness?”. A strong ethos already established, he uses newly introduced questions to get the reader thinking. By specifically designing his questions to push towards a certain opinion, Sosa allows the reader to draw guided conclusions based upon questions the reader can answer in her mind (rather than giving an outright explanation of his hypothesis). The creative process incorporated by the reader, involving thinking up her own question-guided conclusion, helps further Sosa’s ethos as well as the argument’s pathos. The use of rhetorical questions allows the reader to feel as if, she, on her own, thought up the conclusion; this makes the issue much more personnel to the reader when Sosa seems to agree.

Likewise, Sosa also goes on to use rhetorical questions as a way to put pressure on the reader to make up her mind. By planting three complicated questions in a row, the reader feels pressure to have some sort of opinion formed on the issue. Immediately after placing new pressure on the reader, Sosa provides a common answer to the questions: one that parallels his claim. Sosa first flusters the reader into desiring her own, personnel, opinion then gives a common answer; he plays on the minds of readers who are, at the time, undecided on the issue. By providing a logical answer right after stirring up a need for a decision, most readers tend to follow the “common” opinion: the one expressed in the article. In turn, Sosa uses rhetorical questions to spark emotion in the reader, motivating her to make a conclusion about the issue. Relying heavily on his previously established ethos, Sosa uses the rhetorical question to further increase the pathos of the issue.

Simplifying Through Analogy

As the article continues, Sosa begins to introduce analogies in order to further the logos of the argument; the effectiveness of this new turn plays heavily on the already established pathos and ethos. The reader, after already feeling as if she is being taught by a superior, is hit yet again by a device that further simplifies the claim, better helping to bring the idea down to the reader’s level. Sosa plays on the simplistic logic of his analogies (such as in a fire saving your neighbor or your pencil, but not both) to highlight the seemingly rational aspect of his claim. As a result, the reader seems to disregard the irrationality of the subject when forming a, seemingly apparent, “logically sensical” opinion.

Sosa goes on to relate the difference between pleasure and happiness by comparing it to the life of a drug addict. By using an analogy with powerfully negative connotations, Sosa is able to play on the emotional and logical aspect of proving his point. Readers find it easier to agree with reasons to not act like a drug dealer than reasons to agree with the claim of the article, yet by bringing the same logic in through analogous terms, readers are much more inclined to sympathize with the writer. However, this strategy of analogous logic would not have worked had it not been for the effective ethos priorly established. Sosa relies on his stature and superior image to persuade the reader that his claim is, in essence, just as logical as any one of his analogies. In this article, the use of the analogy is the most important technique employed for establishing the magnitude of logos required to convince readers of this irrational, abstract claim.

Tone: The Relationship Between Writer and Reader

Furthermore, Sosa uses a sympathetic tone to better improve the audiences’ feelings towards the issue. He portrays his argument in a very relatable way by drawing on both the abstract nature of his argument, and the general connection human beings with desiring happiness. Since most readers have little actual qualification concerning the discussion of the true science behind happiness, Sosa is able to sacrifice some ethos by using a less formal, yet more relatable tone--hereby greatly increasing pathos. By continually guiding the reader to express unique personnel beliefs, not generalizing opinions, and using a style of language typical to an informal, relaxed conversation, Sosa is able to present his opinion in a way that makes an emotional impact without forcing ideas on people. The tone choice allows the article, as a whole, to feel as if it were a simple day-to-day conversation between people of equal stature and knowledge. This allows the reader to feel unintimidated by the speaker, and sympathetic to the authors ideas; the reader and the author seem to feel as if they are going through the same struggle to find happiness. The use of such sympathetic diction allows the reader to better connect to Sosa’s writing, increasing the likelihood the reader will want to believe the claim. By creating a positive association with the reader, Sosa is able to increase his rhetorical influence, further increasing the pathos of the argument.

A Perfect Balance is Not Always the Answer

Overall, Sosa constructed his claim and argument very well. Sosa chose to focus his tactics primarily on gaining pathos. Perhaps the biggest reason why he did this is the complexity of the claim made. Since happiness is an irrational feeling, it seems logical to play most heavily on readers’ emotions. Sosa also noticed the importance of establishing a good ethos. This came up as crucially important to make up for what little logos was established. Had Sosa maintained no ethos, the few logical reasons for his claim could easily have gone undermined, or disregarded. Logos lacked immensely in the argument, yet didn’t seem to change the effectiveness of the claim. Sosa’s style makes it evident that he believes the presence of such an irrational claim makes it difficult, and rather unnecessary to provide immense logical support. While not completely rounded, Sosa’s claim, through use of numerous obscure and powerful rhetorical devices, proves incredibly effective in establishing a good opinionated argument concerning a very complex and irrational claim: happiness is not a state of mind.