Files
Abstract
In this dissertation, I employ a biosymbolic pathos method of rhetorical criticism in order to answer a series of questions about the political efficacy of non-governmental organizations appeals to emotion in response to substantial policy shifts. In each case study, I begin with an analysis of how key provisions of the Affordable Care Actthe Individual Mandate, the Pre-Existing Conditions Clause, and the Essential Health Benefits Provisionand the Obama Administrations justifications for each provision require or enable certain constituencies to interact with the insurance industry and the federal government in new ways. This assessment of the effects of each provision on particular groups is followed by an examination of the strategies used by those constituents representative organizations to respond to those changes. Through my analyses, I find that successful advocacy campaigns, first, match the affective tenor and volume of the public debate their campaign seeks to influence and, second, premise the type and form of the emotional appeal used on the affiliations and action tendencies that each emotion encourages. Furthermore, I argue that rhetorical critics analyzing and advocates constructing these campaigns would benefit from performing a method of pathos criticism that integrates rhetorical theories of emotion with social scientific studies of specific emotions, especially with regard to a given emotions cognitive appraisals and a given emotions action tendencies. Such an approach enhances the likelihood of effectively discerning the affective tenor of the rhetorical situation they aim to enter as well as the type and form of potentially effective emotional response to that situation.