Papal Authority and Ethos

Ethos is a term that Aristotle used to describe one of the modes of proof, or support for an argument. Ethos is most commonly and simply summarized as authority and credibility, or how well supported the argument is by the speaker, sources, situation, or position. In terms of ethos, the Pope has one of the most powerful appeals to ethos in the world. With over 1 billion Catholics in the world and support for his position coming directly from God, the Pope is an example of a single, infallible speaker with immense authority and control. Indeed, the Pope is considered a direct disciple of Saint Peter, meant to carry out God's will and speak for God on Earth. I expect most of this information is well-known and thus unnecessary, but I repeat it to emphasize the gravity of the next part of the post.

Following the traditional and literal approaches of Pope John Paul II and particularly Pope Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio began his papacy as Pope Francis I on March 13, 2013. Even only a few months into his papacy, he has already caused much stir over his non-traditional approaches to papal speech and behavior. He has forgone the papal "throne" and opted for a less adorned seat in addition to wearing only white.

Source: Pope Benedict XVI (left) and Pope Francis I (right)

He has also washed the feet of a Serbian Muslim woman and of prisoners instead of traditionally having his own feet washed after his appointment.

Source: Feet-washing by Pope Francis I

More recently, he was under media attention after carrying his own luggage on his trip to Brazil for World Youth Day.

Source: "Only Pope Francis would carry his own bags aboard the plane for Rio!"

But perhaps most important are the words that he has said about traditional Church positions that have prompted prominent members of the Church and the Vatican itself to issue correctives. I cannot emphasize the irony and importance of this statement enough: prominent Church leaders and the Vatican have corrected the appointed voice of God on Earth, the infallible and unerring. Pope Francis I said on his return from Brazil that he and others should not judge the calling of gays to the priesthood. For a Church who argues for the immorality of gay marriage, this is really only a small step for acceptance, but is revolutionary nonetheless. This statement, however, was rejected by prominent New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan in a statement confirming the Church's official position that still considers sexual relations outside of male/female marriage immoral.

Additionally, Pope Francis I made a statement regarding the morality of atheists. Even those without a belief in God, let alone a Catholic follower could still do good and "we'll find a meeting point." People have interpreted this to mean that good people, no matter their religious affiliation, could be allowed into heaven. After this statement, the Vatican issued a statement that anyone who rejects the Catholic Church "cannot be saved."

What does it mean for the ethos of the Pope to be challenged? Is the Church so tied to tradition and antiquity that it must reverse even the slightest hint of progressive, liberal, and welcoming rhetoric? What role does Pope Francis I play if his position as voice of God is subject to human correction? Can he be trusted and considered an authority by followers?

I do not believe that these small statements truly mean that Pope Francis I is a liberal or that the Church is anywhere close to changing its positions (considering the correctives). To say that finding a place for women in the Church is revolutionary is really to forget the fact that it is 2013. The implications of these statements should not be completely ignored, however. What these statements represent is a small, but meaningful step towards increased inclusion in the Catholic Church. These symbolic gestures, though rejected by others, might promote the increased openness of Catholics or at least temper Catholic backlash to liberal social issues. At least this is a positive step away from some of the past teachings that were highly restrictive and more concerned with pomp and circumstance than change.

Source

American Hegemony and Xenophobia

My first year of graduate school has taught me more than I could have thought possible in terms of research, education, communication, and the world in general. The most important lesson, perhaps, is not to overestimate the abilities of anyone, including yourself.

This sentiment is mirrored in my quantitative methods final project where I conducted a quasi-experimental survey to assess visual framing effects on opinions of international leaders. This is currently being revised for submission to a journal, but I feel that part of the study is of separate interest for inclusion here.

After exposure to an international leader (Kim Jong-il, Muammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden), participants were asked to complete Likert scales on their likelihood to agree with certain statements about the leader. There was also an open-ended question where survey-takers could justify their responses. Whereas the initial intention was to see if the image provided of the leader influenced responses, the answers to the open-ended questions showed many patterns in participant opinions.

The most startling responses and overall most frequent responses were the admission by the survey-taker that he or she did not know who the person whose image was shown was. Re-read the list above and think about college students in two prestigious undergraduate universities who are unaware of important and (in some ways) infamous world leaders. Each of these leaders were unknown to at least one person who took the survey (N=157) with the relative percentages listed below. These numbers reflect the percentage of people who did not know who the person was, even though they were given the leader's name, their image, and a brief description.

Saddam Hussein: .08% (1 person)

Osama bin Laden: 2.5% (4 people)

Kim Jong-il: 22.8% (36 people)

Muammar Gaddafi: 23.5% (37 people)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 43.6% (68 people)

Vladimir Putin: 47% (74 people)

Here is the element of overestimation: I assumed that college students at competitive universities would be aware of prominent world leaders. A wild assumption? Probably not, but an assumption nonetheless about my survey population that greatly affected the outcome of my survey.

Additionally, a pattern emerged regarding negative, slanderous, and crude remarks about the leaders. For example, Osama bin Laden received many descriptions such as "MONSTER!", "terrorist!", and "evil man" with similar, but not quite as aggressive comments towards Saddam Hussein, among other disparaging remarks about the other leaders. The emerging dichotomy became that participants either knew nothing or only knew that they were "evil". Very few respondents (20) answered the open-ended question section with any semblance of policy knowledge, global awareness, or political savvy. Although the survey was not meant to measure that, there was the assumption made that the population selected would be more knowledgeable about these world leaders.

These patterns of ignorance, limited knowledge, and negative descriptions reinforce stereotypes of the "dumb, navel-gazing American" who has no interest in global study and is not involved in the political system. I previously discussed the current problems in voter skepticism and lack of participation, which is only exacerbated by a lack of information. Without knowledge about world politics, people are less likely to be involved or interested in domestic politics, creating an uninformed electorate that is unwilling to be involved. Take, as an example, one survey response that echoes this withdrawal from political participation: "I don't care about politics. I believe governments are corrupt and I don't care to talk about them." Silencing discussion, purposefully blocking out new information and insights is damaging to a healthy public sphere that can hold representatives accountable and lead to meaningful actions.

Who is at fault? The dissolving of social networks in favor of individualism? Obstacles to voting and registration? The growing wealth gap? The failing education system? Waiting for Superman is a documentary film that addresses the educational system as leading to increased high school drop-outs who are 50% less likely to vote.

Waiting for Superman Trailer, available on Netflix

In the survey responses, I found cynicism, skepticism, ignorance, and a failure in American democracy to produce and cultivate passionate and informed citizens. There was, however, one survey response that made me dare to hope for a brighter tomorrow and a new generation of Americans that will reinvent the xenophobic, egotistical stereotype of the country. One respondent wrote, "sorry, but I feel really bad that I don't know enough about these leaders, even when I consider myself relatively more aware about social issues, and I think I will learn more." My survey may have brought to light the lack of information this person had about world leaders and has inspired him or her to learn more. Perhaps with more education, in a regulated school system or personally acquired, American democracy can be strengthened.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Five Evil Faces

Looking at the TIME Magazine archive, there is much to learn about the changing of cover images over the years. A comparison between images, especially of political figures, can lend themselves to historical analyses of the time period in which the magazine was published and what the main article’s view is on the topic or conflict in question. For this blog post, I will analyze similarities between five images of five world leaders regarded as “negative” or “evil” world leaders at the time of publication of the TIME Magazine cover (and arguably before and after). The ideas I will highlight are the similarities: faces, shadowing, layering, and angle and discuss the implications for further research about one of the lleaders that strayed drastically from the other four. The five leaders are Gaddafi, Hussein, Khomeini, Jong, and Ahmadinejad.

Chronologically, the first image is one of the Ayatullah Khomeini during the Iran hostage crisis published in 1979. The image of Khomeini is a cartoon drawing with heavy shading, a large black turban, sinister yellowed eyes, and a three-quarter profile. What’s noticeable about the angle of Khomeini’s face is that although the face is directed away from the viewer, the eyes are looking directly at the viewer. This depiction is a created one, so this small decision was still a decision made by the artist to express some type of peripheral awareness and slyness on the part of Khomeini. An additional artistic choice was to place a smaller photograph (not cartoon drawing) of Jimmy Carter, who was president during the crisis to the side, on Khomeini’s cheek. Carter’s angle mimics that of Khomeini’s, but his eyes are directed away from the viewer, possibly looking at Khomeini as a sign of aggression or imminent confrontation. 

The second image is one of Saddam Hussein in 1997. The similarities between this image and the Khomeini image are the direct gaze of Hussein into the viewer, the placement of a competing figure blocking part of the face, and shadowing that discolors the face. The person in front of Hussein is Bill Clinton, president during the time when Hussein was kicking weapons inspectors out of Iraq, in a “showdown” of power struggle. Again, the image of the “evil” dictator is much larger than the US counterpart, and the US counterpart is not looking threateningly at the viewer, but at their nemesis.

The third image is of Kim Jong Il in 2003 at the beginnings of the 6 party talks about disarming North Korea’s nuclear program. This time, instead of having a US counterpart blocking the face, there are missiles (in some ways replacing an enemy with an ally) that block portions of his face and dominate the picture by being much larger in scale and number. The similar angle of the face is differentiated by a look away from the viewer. This variation may occur for many reasons, possibly because there was no direct “showdown” imminent as in the other situations with clear allies, but simply an overarching threat to many people, hence the multitude of weapons to symbolize the importance of the threat to people who may not think of him to be so.

The fourth image is the one that detracts most from the other similarities, the image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2006.  Although there is a bit a text calling for a war, there is no US counterpart image, such as of George W. Bush, blocking the face of Ahmadinejad.  Additionally, the top of Ahmadinejad’s head cuts off the word “TIME” which no other image does (except for the missiles in Kim Jong Il’s image) and he is an obvious focal point with no competing images, people, or words on the cover. Even the text in the corner is of a different shade of red than the background red that fades marginally into the background. The gaze of Ahmadinejad is towards the front, but up and over the viewer, giving the entire image a tone of reverence to the leader as opposed to direct conflict, although the cover calls for a description of what a war with this man would look like for America. The implications are as the text indicates, that war is not inevitable and that this man should not be seen as an enemy quite yet.

The final image is from 2011 and is an image of Gaddafi after he was removed from power in Libya.  Although the gaze is not present in this image due to the dissolving of Gaddafi’s face, the face is directed forward and it is implied that the gaze would be forward as well, indicating a disappearing enemy and risk to the viewer. Like the Ahmadinejad image, there is little competing with Gaddafi’s image, but in this circumstance, Gaddafi’s face is not given importance in the sense that it only half appears, implying that what was once an enemy is now no longer a threat, emphasized by the empty space surrounding the image.

Each of these images share different representations of leaders and dictators considered enemies of the US in a national American magazine over the span of 30 years. Additional research should be done concerning these archival images to include other leaders represented on Time Magazine covers, an analysis of even more similarities and differences (too extensive to list in an essay of this size), and the additional background (such as the articles within the magazine themselves) to determine the exact points and view and purpose of each of the images. Especially considering some of the stark differences between leaders, there may be some insight through further research into why some images are similar and others deviate strongly from the others.