Children of Parents who Smoke, Get to Heaven Earlier

Smoke Halo: Children of Parents who Smoke, Get to Heaven Earlier

In recent years, cigarette smoking has become the focus for many non-profit and healthcare organizations. Anti-smoking advertisements flood websites, the walls of public buildings, and the pages of magazines. Many may not realize it but when looking at these images a visual argument is presented. Exigence, rhetor, audience, and constraints are tools used to analyze these images and their purpose in “Backpacks vs. Briefcases” and“Rhetorical Situations and their Constituents.”

 In the process of a rhetorical analysis, Grant-Davie explains that it is necessary to identify the exigence, audience, rhetors, and constraints (Grant-Davie). The obvious audience in this advertisement would be parents who are smokers. However, I think it is important to think about other people that may be affected by the content of the argument and could possibly achieve rhetorical objectives. For example, this ad may also have an effect on any adult who smokes, whether they have children or not. This is because most adults are around children at one point or another. If a friend or family member of a current smoker sees this ad they may pressure that person to quit the habit by informing them of the bad effects smoking has not only on their own personal health, but also the well being of others. Another possible audience of this visual argument may be the children of parents who smoke. If a child sees this advertisement it would more than likely scare them. This may cause that child to pressure an adult in their life to quit smoking.

Rhetoric is “the way we use language and images to persuade,” explained by Carroll in”Backpacks vs. Briefcases” (3). The people or institutions involved in the way the rhetoric is portrayed are rhetors. Rhetors are people, real or imagined, responsible for the discourse and its authorial voice (Grant-Davie). In this campaign there is a rhetorical team that works together to create the discourse. The rhetors may be the corporation that sponsored the making of the ad and similar ads, the advertising agency hired by that corporation that designed the advertisement, the creative director of the campaign, the photographer of the image, the little girl modeling, in addition to many other or many other things. In the right hand corner you can see that the campaign if funded by the Child Health Foundation. This organization is be one of the rhetors. All of these people act as a rhetorical team that is trying to reach their goal of reducing the amount of cigarette smokers in America. Together, they create the discourse of the advertisement.

This visual argument arises because of the health risks second hand smoking causes – especially for children. According to Bitzer, who is quoted by Grant-Davie in “Rhetorical Situations and their Constituents,” the rhetorical exigence is “some kind of need or problem that can be addressed and solved through rhetorical discourse” (105). In this visual argument the exigence is the harmful effects of smoking. This answers the question “Why is this discourse needed?” The discourse is needed in order to reduce the amount of smokers, which will in turn reduce the effects of second hand smoke on children. This advertisement clearly states the problem that prompts the visual argument in plain text by saying “Children of parents who smoke, get to heaven earlier.” Grant-Davie, however, goes into more detail about the exigence of an argument. First, he asks what the discourse is about (106). The discourse in this ad is about the danger of smoking around children and the harmful effects of second hand smoke. Next, he asks why the discourse is needed, in this situation the discourse is needed to make adults aware that smoking around children is dangerous and can lead to illnesses that may ultimately lead to death (107). Finally, Grant-Davie asks what the discourse is trying to accomplish in the process. In this anti-smoking advertisement the discourse is attempting to lessen the amount of smokers in America, especially those with children or those who are commonly around children (108). The specific argument that the rhetorical team is trying to make pertains to the dangerous effects of smoking. They want the audience to believe that smoking around children is harmful. There is also an aspect of the article that might make the audience think that it is unfair for parents to subject their children to second hand smoke because it will have harmful effects on them that they cannot control. A beneficial affect that the rhetors may hope for in the discourse of this argument is to simply get people talking about the problem with second hand smoke. The advertisement, above all else, appeals to the readers emotions. Many people care about the well being of children. After reading this visual argument someone may feel obligated to get others to stop smoking or inform others of its destructive effects. After examining this visual argument, the rhetorical team ultimately wants smokers to quit the habit.

            Grant-Davie describes constraints as “factors in the situations context that may affect the achievement of the rhetorical objectives,” (Grant-Davie). A constraint of any advertisement could be how well it’s marketed and who actually sees it. However, there are still some constraints that are specific to this campaign. Some of these may be that it mainly targets smokers and their affects on children. Also, if the rhetors are trying to target children as well as adults, the campaign may be constrained by children being too young to read the text. A constraint could also be pure ignorance is its audience. Many people who smoke may not truly believe that second hand smoke is bad for the health of non-smokers.           

            The rhetorical team utilizes some artistic appeals in order to persuade the reader that second hand smoke is harmful. Like I have previously stated, this visual argument focuses mostly on appealing to the reader’s emotions through the use of pathos. The purpose of using pathos is to evoke an emotional response of sympathy or empathy. Whenever you accept a claim based on how it makes you feel without fully analyzing the rationale behind the claim, you are acting on pathos. This advertisement does exactly this. It uses emotionally loaded language and vivid descriptions in order to appeal to the reader. Nowhere in the ad does it state any statistics about the detrimental effects of smoking around children, however, the image of the halo around the little girl along with the powerful language in the sentence beside it attempt to cause the reader to be saddened about children dying because of smokers.

Another appeal used in this advertisement is ethos. When appealing to ones ethos, the author aims to demonstrate their reliability, competence, and respect for the audience’s ideas and values through reliable and appropriate use of support and general accuracy. The use of the Child Health Foundation logo at the bottom of the advertisement adds ethos to the visual argument because it demonstrates reliability, assuming that the Child Health Foundation is a credible organization. Although there is only one short sentence in the ad, it still uses correct grammar and vocabulary that can be understood by the audience, which helps to develop ethos within the campaign.

            In my opinion the advertisement is very successful in trying to appeal to the readers’ emotions. When I first saw the ad I immediately felt saddened. I was reminded about how dangerous smoking is and I felt compelled to remind people I know who smoke to stop. I believe that outside of its constraints this advertisement is achieving exactly what it aims to. This said, I think that the advertisement would be more successful with the use of logos. Even just one statistic would add to the argument without taking away its simplicity. This ad appeals to its audience fairly well and overall I believe it was successful.

References:

Carroll, Laura Bolin. “Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps Toward Rhetorical Analysis.” Writing Spaces: Reading on Writing. Vol. 1. Parlor Press. 2010. Pg 45-58. Web. 5 February 2012.

Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents." Writing about Writing. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011.119.

"Children of Parents who Smoke, Get to Heaven Earlier" http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/nonsmokingcampaign_smoke_ring