Why? Why do parents feel as though their word is final only because the words are being spoken by them? My idea is that parents feel entitled to this Ethos. But should it ever be questioned? I think so.
I believe the parents should explain their reasons for reprimanding their children instead of defaulting to this pseudo-entitlement to Ethos, the consequences for not explaining one's self can be detrimental to the child's development.
A movie I watched recently about a woman in her early twenties being pestered by her over bearing mother is another example. When her mother would encroach on her daughter's personal life and attempt to tell her daughter to make certain decisions, her daughter would ask her why she was being so intrusive, her mother would only respond with the phrase, "Because I said so." Her mother felt the same sense of entitlement to Ethos that thousands of adults in parenthood also feel they posses. Although this is an exaggerated example of the Parental Ethos, this still holds true in every day life.
Should parents feel this entitlement to Ethos? Should it be given and taken away at certain times or when the child reaches a certain age? Yes, I believe so.
Parental Ethos is an often abused tool. I believe it has its positive qualities such as when trying to impart certain morals and values within the child, to help them in the long term and future of their life- but even this can be disputed.
However, Parental Ethos also has a darker side. Parents often default to the phrase "Because I said so"- possibly out of laziness- and do not realize the consequences of this action. By simply telling the child those four words, the parents miss the multiple opportunities to teach the children an actual lesson and help them develop critical thinking, social skills, and the skills to help them determine right from wrong.
I believe this Parental Ethos should be...not completely disregarded, but diluted when the child begins growing older, this way the child can begin to form their own opinions and skills necessary for their all around wellness and quality of life.
Parental Ethos must be something heavily monitored, it can easily be abused. This tool must not be underestimated- by the good influence but also the damage it can leave.
So many good questions. I think more than anything else this idea speaks to the ubiquity of rhetoric in our daily personal and social life.
ReplyDeleteOftentimes, as a society, we question authority when ethos is jeopardized. Impeaching a president, for example, is fundamentally a result of this kind of questioning you frame in terms of the parent/child.
Now, I think some people might have somewhat different parental philosophies, which is an argument for a different time and place. However, and do further your insight, it seems like the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship parallels your thinking. Or morever, that different kinds of occupations in different social classes cater more do those raised by certain kind of parents.
In short, I'm assuming that the personal is political. The reading from Lakoff on metaphors referenced this same idea. He said that some countries speak to other countries as if they are misbehaving children.
Great post!
This might be because of my lack of experience and exposure to rhetoric, but I am more interested in the more intimate relations among people, whether it is friends or family, than the rhetoric of politicians and presidents. I understand the metaphor, and enjoy the insight I gain from it, but I personally am more interested in the more intimate relationships among people, and to me, politics seems so detached.
DeleteAlthough the father/child metaphor could close that rift of detachment and could open a new realm of the intimate with the father/child image. The idea of having someone make important decisions for the entire country and be the face of the government and the U.S. is an extremely intimate (or even invasive?) role; he has the weight of the entire U.S. on his shoulders. So I can see the possible development of that idea of intimacy.
I began with disagreeing, but I can see how this could easily be turned to offer an intimate insight of the political world. Rhetoric adds so many amazing facets of perspective.
Father’s make decisions for their children to protect them and/or to make decisions they don't yet have the mature capacity to make. But if the father/child metaphor is still in use and the children are the president's people. If the metaphor is still in place, and these questions are asked within that metaphor, what then? This raises the question (at least to me): are the children (people of America) incapable of making decisions? Although I see possible pitfalls in this already...
So many questions can be raised, you are right. This is my first semester taking a Rhetoric class, I am still a student and still have much to learn.
Going off of your statement of the rhetoric in daily personal and social life, I am beginning to see the rhetoric used by Baudrillard, Barthes and McLuhan everywhere; in commercials, books, TV, music, fashion, and the movie I mention in the blog above. (I saw Baudrillard's rhetoric in an episode of Doctor Who. But that's not too difficult) And as I see one rhetorical device in a media, I link it to another rhetorical device I see in another media.
Actually, I am working on a blog post now where I am trying to work out a few ideas and observations in my head. It'd be great to have a fresh perspective to enlighten, correct or (dare I say) agree.