Affect (rhetoric) explained

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.

Notes and References

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.