Rhetorical Analysis of “Wellbeing Index”

In his speech conveyed on Thursday 25^th November 2010 about well-being index, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, announced plans to introduce a wellbeing index from next year through the Office of National Statistics. He insisted that the actions a government takes could make people “feel better as well as worse.” Prime Minister illustrated that it was very time to recognize that GDP was an “incomplete way” of measuring the country’s progress. He argued that it was time for British government to measure not only economic growth but also well-being improvement and said that well-being index can take charge of it. He started his speech off by admitting that there are three main objections to his proposal and he tries to answer to those questions. The three main objections are: first, there is the worry that this is a distraction from the major, urgent economic tasks at hand. Second, there is the criticism that improving people’s wellbeing is beyond the realm of government, and third, there is a suspicion that the whole thing is a bit woolly a bit impractical. To these suspicions, he logically answers and challenges them.

The speaker, David William Donald Cameron, was born 9 October 1966 and is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Cameron studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University. He delivered the speech with the aim to introduce people the “wellbeing index” which will measure the United Kingdom’s progress as a country not just by economic growth but also by improving qualities of people’s lives. Furthermore, by giving his speech, he aims to persuade the British citizens who are concerned and suspicious that well-being index can work successfully and the British government can play a crucial role with it. His audience is supposedly the concerned British citizens. The organization of his speech is interesting and clear in that he juxtaposes three oppositions against him and addresses those suspicions one by one logically. Moreover, after the speech is delivered, there’s question and answer session in which he further clarifies his argument by answering those questions.

As stated above, his speech is clear and persuasive in that he addresses and rebuts oppositions against him and answers the questions that emerged after his speech was delivered. More specifically, David Cameron challenged those who suggested that a government could not affect how people felt, “or do very much to improve wellbeing” and said the measure as a result can open up a national debate about “how we can build a better life together.” Furthermore, the Prime Minister rejected claims that the initiative was “a bit woolly and impractical” as he insisted that finding out what could help people live “the good life” and acting on it was the “serious business of the government”. (Cameron, 2) He elaborates that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) would devise measures of progress and would lead a public debate about what mattered most to people. The information collected would give a general picture of how life was improving and help the country to re-evaluate its priorities. Additionally, he responded to the challenge saying that the government’s priority should be economic growth by rebutting that GDP is an incomplete way of measuring the growth of the country.

Cameron established his ethos in the speech by referring to several other intellectuals who are in line with his argument. His credibility as a speaker is strengthened by mentioning;

Now, of course, you can’t legislate for fulfillment or satisfaction,

       But I do believe that government has the power to help improve

wellbeing, and I’m not alone in that belief. We’ve got a whole

host of world-leading economists and social scientists, including

Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, who have

developed a new school of thought about government’s role

in improving people’s lives in the broadest sense.

Here with us today we have Lord Layard, Professor Helliwell,

Professor Felicia Huppert and academics from all over the world.

By mentioning other professionals, his argument that the government can play an important role in developing and improving people’s quality of life seems to be more credible and well-supported. Additionally, when he argues that GDP alone cannot represent either economic growth and improvement of quality of life, he quotes a famous speech by Robert Kennedy made during the 1968 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, in which he said that GDP did “not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play”.  Mentioning and referring to other significant people helped him establish the ethos pretty clearly. Also, his speech tone and fair eye contact make him look more confident and assuring which also lead to build up his credibility as a speaker.

   During his speech, he also appeals to the audience’s emotion in several ways. He focuses on family in his country. For instance, the Prime Minister said “Without a job that pays a decent wage, it is hard for people to look after their families in the way they want, whether that’s taking the children on holiday or making your home a more comfortable place.” This appeals emotionally to people especially who are parents. Additionally, he also puts emphasis on better life worth living, which also touches on people’s emotion. In the speech he delivers he said “ If your goal in politics is to help make a better life for people – which mine is- and if you know, both in your gut and from a huge body of evidence that prosperity alone can’t deliver a better life, then you’ve got to take practical steps to make sure government is properly focused on our quality of life as well as economic growth, and that is what we are trying to do.” He persuades people to be motivated to pursue a better happy life. Lastly, at the end of the speech he also articulated that “Parents need to know that the concerns they feel about the sort of country their children are growing up in are felt and acted on by their government too. That’s why anyone who cares about community, about civility, about making this country more family-friendly I think should welcome what the Office for National Statistics is doing.” As he closed up his speech, he made a lasting impression by appealing to parents’ emotion to consent with him about the inauguration of well-being index held by Office of National Statistics. He built his pathos effectively throughout his speech.

    Overall, his speech on well-being index was fairly persuasive as he refuted the oppositions one by one providing reasons for his argument. The way he delivered his speech was credible enough as he referred to several other professionals who share similar opinions with him and he appealed moderately to the audience’s emotion. Furthermore, as he answered concretely to the following questions after his speech was finished, it also made his speech look more solid.  

Works Cited

Cameron, David. “Wellbeing Index” 25 Nov 2010. British Prime Minister Policy Speech. [full transcript]

Rhetorical Analysis of "Manufacturing Depression"

Abbey Pennington

Professor Rosen

RHE 309

23 Feb 2012

Rhetorical Analysis of “Manufacturing depression: A journey into the economy of melancholy.”

Gary Greenburg, a practicing psychotherapist in Connecticut wrote this excerpt from Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease. He has written about the intersection of science, politics, and ethics for many well-known publications.  Greenburg uses a personal experience as an experiment for determining whether depression is manufactured in the mind or truly a neurological chemical imbalance.  He writes a detailed account of his trials, tribulations, deep thoughts, and noticeable progressions as he decides to register himself for an appointment to try and qualify for a medical research study on Minor Depression.  As he answers vague questions from doctors and questionnaires, he is instead classified as having slight Major Depression and is assigned to a study in which three groups of people are each given a different medication. They are not informed of which group they are part of or which medication they are taking. Greenburg writes of his thoughts and appointments as he takes his audience along for his experience as a case study experiment. This article could be for anyone who is trying to determine whether or not they are depressed, someone with many internal questions that seem rather dense or abnormal, or simply someone trying to learn more about depression and how the medical industry might be affecting our diagnoses.

 Writing this article in the form of a detailed and entertaining story, Gary takes us through his steps of a patient facing possible depression. The first consultation with Doctor George Papakostas makes Gary wonder if small things such as a “weedy garden, stalled writing projects, dwindling bank accounts, and the difficulties of parenthood,” are depression (34). He also admittedly wonders if common “disappointment of a middle-aged, middle-class American life” is normal (35). Were the “brute facts of life brought home by illnesses and deaths of people [he] loved”, “country taken over by thugs, or the “calamity of capitalism more apparent every day,” all contributors to his diagnosis of Major Depression (35)? However, Greenburg wondered, what makes us considered normal verses pessimistic? What counts as being tired as opposed to depressed? Is it normal for a human to never be content and strive for greater happiness, or is this considered depression?  These questions that he comes upon make him realize that he is not too familiar with his inner self, as many people in the world feel today. When faced the questionnaires asking questions such as if life seems “empty” or “worth living”, to “ daily activities often seem trivial and unimportant”(38), Gary finds himself questioning what that truly means, only to find himself become worried about the length of time he is spending on pondering the very questions.  This shows how deeply, as humans, we can think and often confuse ourselves about our feelings.  Greenberg travels through the depths of his own mind during his voluntary experience. He spends time “trying to figure out what’s going on in [his] head- in the gray, primordial ooze where thought and feeling… arise”(39).  By asking questions that millions wonder about themselves, he is creating the emotional appeal of pathos and relateability to the audience.  He uses this strategy to grab audience’s attention and entertain them into continuing to read the article until his final conclusion and argument: that while depression can be debilitating to some who are truly suffering deeply, it has also been largely manufactured by doctors and drug companies as a medical condition with a biological cause that can be treated with prescription medication. He realized that he is being treated like an object of study rather than a human being, being “moved around like a pork belly”, yet given medicine that was “treated with the reverence due a communion wafer” (39). These, and many other similes in the text, use comparisons to everyday life objects the audience may be familiar with to better paint a picture and help them understand the point he is trying to prove through his writing. Gary Greenburg notes that after the introduction of antidepressants, it’s become common to simply assume that our sadness can be explained in terms of a disease called depression rather than typical human emotions that everyone feels. He points out that at the site he attended for the appointments and follow-ups, “they’ve gotten ahold of a big [idea about who we are]. They have figured out how to use the gigantic apparatus of modern medicine to restore our hope”, therefore, the medical industry could simply be trying to manufacture these diseases in patient’s minds to create the need for purchasing medications.  When Greenburg showed “much improvement” over his participation in the study, he decided to get his pills sent to the lab and see what they actually were.  Did he need antidepressants? Were they simply fish oil? Neither.  He had been taking placebos that were filled with sugar.  The progression was all in his mind, and he believes this may be common for many other people as well.

            His vivid story-telling skills, descriptions, and rhetorical devices such as similes and analogies made the story more enjoyable and lively as well as supported his argument. I believe this text could be likely to persuade the audience because he poses many questions that I had asked myself before, so I believe it could be relatable to other people as well. This text could also be persuasive to the audience who thinks manufacturing depression is how the medical economy works to help make some patients cause depression because, in the end, the placebo effect cured his mind.

Greenberg, Gary. Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.

Happiness!

"The Secret of Happiness," part of the WWW.TOSAY.IT project by Dopludo Collective.

Comment below on Matthieu Ricard's TED Talk, the Happy Planet Index website, and David Cameron's "Wellbeing Index" speech.

Rhetorical Analysis of The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression

Megan Smith

Professor Stephanie                   

RHE 309K

25 February 2012

 Rhetorical Analysis of The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression

             Andrew Solomon, born in the 60’s, graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and is now a writer on politics, culture, and psychology. He has written for The New York Times, The New Yorker, and other publications on a range of subjects, including depression, which is the basis of the first chapter of his novel, The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression (Wikipedia). In chapter one, Solomon dives into the pool of depression, using his own life experiences to highlight the ways in which this terribly sad disease can take over a person completely. He talks about his own fight with depression and how he continues to deal with it taking over his day to day life.

             The audience that Solomon intends to target with this piece is an older adult group; however, those who have experienced depression are more likely to feel a deeper connection to it. In his first chapter, “Depression,” his main argument is not so clearly stated; it is buried throughout the 30 pages of the chapter as a whole, which may pose as a difficulty for certain readers who are expecting it to be simply stated in the first few paragraphs. Solomon does, however, begin this chapter with an immense appeal to the emotions of the reader. Starting the chapter off with such strong pathos allows the author to pull his readers in from the beginning; thus, keeping them interested in what he has to say in the following 29 pages of text.           

As the chapter unfolds, Solomon’s main argument begins to come together. Simply put, Solomon does not agree with how depression has become defined in our world today. According to Solomon, popular culture, science, and the pharmaceutical companies define depression as something much more vague than it truly is, blindly deeming it a “single-effect illness” such as diabetes. He argues throughout this chapter that such reductionist explanations for this disease cannot begin to cover the vast complexity of what depression truly is, which may result in incorrect treatment methods. In this chapter, Solomon shows a wide-range of depression by examining it through personal, scientific, and cultural terms.

              It seems as if Solomon disagrees with what popular culture and science believes depression to be. He mentions how people in today’s society talk about depression being a vague emotion; they attach it to something—a feeling or a response—that is so incredibly vague, so much so that it degrades the emotion itself. In reality, it is so much more complex than a “single-effect illness,” as the pharmaceutical industry labels it. There are multiple ways in which depression can be treated but it all depends on the individual and the severity of their depression. “Depression is not the consequence of a reduced level of anything we can now measure” (10). Solomon concludes his argument against science and the pharmaceutical companies definition of depression by pointing out the differences between diabetes and depression. Finding that “this serotonin thing is part of modern neuromythology” and is a potent set of stories (McDowell 10).

Solomon rails against the use of terms such as “chemical” in discussions of causation of depression. Although he does recognize the potential of chemical manipulation to possibly reveal a way to locate, control, and eliminate depression, he states that such a reductionist terminology like the term “chemistry” is meaningless (30). Because of this, Solomon points out that “the language of science used in training doctors and, increasingly, in nonacademic writing and conversation, is strangely perverse” (9). He also argues by pointing out the fallacies in the use of mathematical formulas to measure the severity of depression. He shows the reader that this theory cannot possibly be accurate when something so nebulous as mood is being measured (9). An individuals’ mood changes from hour to hour, sometimes even more often than that. Depression, on the other hand, is much more of a constant. It is this constant emotion, this constant feeling of not being able to catch a breath. How does one go about defining that? Science is trying to define depression as something less than it is, teaching people that it is not something to be taken so seriously. But Solomon says there is much more going on. He emphasizes the importance of the need to view depression as a human condition that affects the mind as well as the brain and everything external has an affect on the internal.

             The authors’ ethos is strengthened automatically due to his first-hand experience with depression. His own statement, “Depression is a condition that is almost unimaginable to anyone who has not known it” given near the end of the chapter, is a reminder to the reader of the credibility of his piece (18). Solomon may not have a lot of evidence (or really any at all), but the fact that he has been through such hard times gives him enough credibility. Because his audience is not something of an elite group of doctors, it just works; he doesn’t need evidence. He just needs emotion. And he has plenty of that, and he expresses it so specifically and knows how to relate to others who have experienced or are experiencing the same things.

             Solomon uses a handful of metaphors and analogies that help strengthen his piece. For example, he uses the metaphor of a vine taking over an oak tree; the vines represent the depression that takes over his own body. He says, “My depression had grown on me as the vine had conquered the oak” (5). He then goes on to explain how it wraps itself around him, more alive than he himself.  This vine—this depression—has a life of its own. The use of the vine and tree as a metaphor for major depression was a critical part of Solomon’s rhetorical strategy. This chapter may have been, in a large part, composed of Solomon’s own opinions and experiences; however, he strengthens his argument by bringing in quotes from certain authoritative figures. Solomon is not himself a scientist or psychologist; his opinions, although emotionally appealing, lack something substantial. However, by bringing in these credible sources, he indirectly proves his own opinion and in turn strengthens his argument in the eyes of the reader.

             Another rhetorical strategy used by Solomon is this: First, at the beginning of each paragraph, he states a claim, and he then goes on to give reasons why this statement is in fact, true. For example, Solomon claims that the diagnosis of depression is as complex as the illness itself. The reader automatically is drawn to wonder how, then, do we define depression? Solomon shows that the DSM-IV “ineptly defines depression as the presence of five or more on a list of nine symptoms” (7). Solomon pokes holes in that argument, showing how arbitrary this definition is and proves that “the only way to find out whether you’re depressed is to listen to and watch yourself, to feel your feelings and then think about them” (7). He further strengthens the credibility of his character by bringing in examples of depression from certain geographical cultures. In this first chapter, he describes his experience with the Cambodian women who survived the horrible tragedies of the Khmer Rouge and uses their treatment of depression to further strengthen his credibility as a writer through pathos once again.

“Welcome this pain,” Ovid once wrote, “for you will learn from it” (30). Solomon believes depression is a necessity of life and the sadness and pain that accompanies it has a purpose larger than the intense, oftentimes unbearable emotions it produces. As much as human beings hate the thought of pain and suffering--especially going through it alone as in the case of depression--there is an upside to it all. It is what we eventually learn from the process. “I would live forever in the haze of sorrow rather than give up the capacity for pain” (30). Solomon doesn’t want to find a cure to eliminate the brain’s circuitry of suffering, because without suffering he would not know happiness. Through his detailed and vivid writing, Solomon has effectively described depression in a way that could not be found in a science or medical text book. With his metaphors and first-hand experience, his readers come to develop a sense of hope. He has shown that although depression is inevitable and in some cases everlasting, it is bearable, and along with medication and time it is something we can live with. Once a person is able to accept what life throws at them and can adopt the attitude that “even when it rains, the sun will eventually shine again,” life will not seem so bad after all.

Works Cited

Solomon, Andrew. "Andrew Solomon." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 26 Feb. 2012. Web.             

27 Feb. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Solomon>.

Solomon, Andrew. "Depression." The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression. New York:      

             Scribner, 2001. 1-30. Print.

Rhetoric Analysis of The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression

            Andrew Solomon is a highly recognized writer (“Andrew Solomon”). He has written essays, speeches, and novels that have received national attention. He has been a member of several councils in support of mental health awareness, gay and lesbian studies, and medical research.  Solomon has also recently entered the field of psychology at the University of Cambridge.  The Noonday Demon will attract readers that are interested in social or medical sciences, as well as people that have been affected by depression.  As a Pulitzer Prize finalist, The Noonday Demon will likely to gain attention from a wider audience. Solomon has given lectures on depression around the world. The Noonday Demon is yet another effort Solomon has made to increase our understanding of what depression is.

            In “Depression”, the book’s first chapter, the reader learns about what depression is through explanations of how it is categorized, diagnosed, and described by both pharmaceutical science and Solomon, someone who has been afflicted by depression.  Solomon aims to persuade the reader of his view of depression, a complex mental disease, and dismiss the perspective taken by pharmaceutical science, a state of chemical imbalance in the brain. Solomon relies heavily on the use of rhetorical strategies such as metaphors, analogy, and repetition, to express his argument: depression is a complex mental disease that is a “personal” and “social phenomenon” (Solomon 29), therefore it cannot be overcome with the sole use of pharmaceutical drugs. Solomon advises society, the people affected by depression and those who are not, to take an active role in treatment and prevention in order to eliminate it.

            Solomon begins the chapter by introducing love, pain, and anger as human passions which make us conscious of ourselves. The author uses the abstract diction in order to point out to the reader of the limitation of pharmaceutical science to that which is intangible- our emotions. With this claim, Solomon is able to make the logical argument that medicine can therefore only “contain” depression (2).

            Solomon’s first description of depression is that of an “emotional pain that forces itself on us against our will, and then breaks free of its externals” (2)like a “tumbleweed distress that thrives on thin air, growing despite its detachment from the nourishing earth”. Later, Solomon relates the depression that was “asphyxiating the life out of [him]” (5) to a vine that has completely wrapped itself around an oak tree.  Another analogy used to describe the feeling of depression is the uneasiness and naseau felt when “drawing too close to the edge”(17) of an abyss. By his consistent use of analogies to describe depression as a debilitating illness, Solomon can make the reader conform to the idea that depression is complex in that it is not easy to diagnose due to the varying ways in which he and other  patients may describe their depression. Although Solomon describes the difference between major and minor depression as psychiatrists would categorize them, Solomon keeps true to his claim at the beginning of the chapter, that depression can only be described by the use of figurative language. Solomon’s use of imagery is another tool used to describe how depression is a process of decay. Minor depression begins as a “soul of iron” (3) that begins to collapse with the onset of major depression. “This section collapses, knocks that section, shifts the balances in a dramatic way” (4), Solomon describes. Unlike the rusting iron structure that weakens and collapses, science describes depression as a “chemical” imbalance (8), a description that Solomon criticizes for being overly reductionist and simplistic. Solomon points out that every process can be thought of as chemical , from reading books to remembering, and that the “brain’s chemical effect are not well understood” to lead to the logical conclusion that a singular chemical basis for depression is not  what makes up depression. Solomon gives evidence for a more complex basis for depression than simple chemistry and genetic basis. In doing so, Solomon establishes ethos in his writing by supporting his argument with quoted statements. Steven Hyman, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health states, “There is no such thing as a mood gene. It’s just short hand for very complex gene-environment interactions” (11). An academic at Columbia University also states, “ The serotonin thing is part of a modern neuromythology (10)”.

            The diagnosis of depression by the medical profession as a score determined by a formula given by the Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry is also something Solomon detests. The sarcasm behind his inclusion of the “helpful” (9) mathematical formula sways the reader to believe that assigning a score to a patient to determine their diagnosis cannot be helpful because what is needing to be quantified, varying subjective feelings described by metaphors, is subjective and vague. Solomon critiques the diagnosis of depression as an arbitrary set of symptoms. He leads the reader to think that the diagnosis of depression in this way is logically arbitrary with the counter argument that two severe symptoms can be worse than five minor symptoms, yet the severity of the symptoms is not taken into consideration in diagnosis, something Solomon obviously believes is important diagnosis.

            Depression cannot be treated with the simple use of SSRIs, the drug prescribed by psychiatrists for treatment of depression. As Solomon says it, “once help is provided [to the depressive patient], it must also be accepted [by the patient]” (19). The patient has a part in the treatment of their depression. Solomon uses repetition to communicate what the depressive patient must do to “help”(19). “Listen”, “Believe”, “Seek”, “Be brave” (19) are among the few things depressives must do to fight against their depression. For Solomon it was talking and appreciating love which helped him rebuild himself against his depression.  Solomon gives an entire paragraph filled with the use of the word “love”(20) to demonstrate his appreciation of the passion that has helped him continue drug treatment. For Solomon, his SSRIs and appreciation of love is what kept him moving forward in treatment.

            In order to promote awareness for the treatment that is needed by depressive patients, Solomon again uses an analogy. He uses the environmental movement as a metaphor for what is lacking in our society today-a movement that aims to reduce the of “social emotional pollution” created by “modernity” (21). Solomon relies on the use of statistics which show that only 1 to 2 percent of the population of depressed patients is getting proper treatment. He further claims that we should be “terrified” (22) by them and purposes the role that society needs to take in order to reduce the occurrence of depression in the population. He uses repetition, once again, to cry out to society, just as he did to depressive patients. “ We must look for faith in anything”, “We must practice the business of love”, “We must hold out against violence,” (22) are a few of the recommendations Solomon to society.  What Solomon proposes will best treat depression will come from efforts made by the depressive patient, society, and pharmaceutical science in combination. 

            Solomon dedicates the last few pages to tell the story of Phaly Nuon, a Cambodian woman that lived through horrific consequences of the Pol Pot Revolution. The details shared by Nuon of physical and sexual abuse endured by her family and herself is sure to capture any reserved emotions from the reader. Following the traumatic details of Nuon’s experience, Solomon includes the details of how Phaly Nuon has recovered from the experience and what she does to help other Cambodian women to overcome their depression. Once again, the reader learns of how depression can be successfully treated with compassion and friendship. For Phaly Nuon, overcoming depression is about practicing ‘forgetting, working , and loving’ (28), a treatment that is similar to the rebuilding process that Solomon advocates (19-20) as what must be practiced by those taking Prozac, a drug prescribed to treat depression.

            “Depression” increases the reader’s understanding of mental disease through the personal accounts given by Solomon and Phaly Nuon. This first chapter includes the use of metaphors, analogies, repetition, and other rhetorical strategies in order to gain the reader’s empathy from the start of the novel. Solomon will likely depend on the use of metaphors and analogy throughout the novel. 

Works Cited

“Andrew Solomon.” The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression. n.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb.                          2012

Solomon, Andrew. The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression. New York: Simon &                                Schuster, 2001. Print.

Depression

Image from "Adventures in Depression" at Hyperbole and a Half.

Comment below on Gary Greenberg's article, "Manufacturing Depression," or Andrew Soloman's chapter, "Depression," from the book The Noonday Demon.

Amanda Herzer
Professor Stephanie Rosen
RHE 309K
22 February 2012

Consciousness and What is Unconscious
Sigmund Freud was born in May of 1856 in Freiberg, Moravia, Austrian Empire, and died in London September of 1939. Freud was a thinker. He was the founder of psychoanalysis, a neuropsychologist, physiologist and a medical doctor. Most of Freud’s ethos comes from his experience in the medical world, and the concepts and theories he developed regarding the mind. Much of the developments in psychoanalysis can be traced back to Freud’s work. Sigmund Freud’s book from 1923, The Ego and the Id, (or Das Ich und das Es) discusses the conscious (ego) and unconscious (id) aspects of the mind. In particular, the first chapter of the book titled, “Consciousness and What is Unconscious,” introduces the two terms in essence of the psychical and to begin the further exploration of the id and ego.
        Sigmund Freud acknowledges his audience within the first page of his chapter. He states, “I could suppose that everyone interested in psychology would read this book,” but “some of my readers would already stop short and would go no further” (Freud 3). Freud already knows that the readers see his argument as absurd and illogical, damaging his logos as an author. By addressing the problems, he is able to encourage the reader to take part in studying the phenomena so that they will be able to understand this part of psychoanalysis. He continues to explain the psychical aspect and says the “psycho-analysis [sic] cannot situate the essence of the psychical in consciousness, but is obliged to regard consciousness as a quality of the psychical” (Freud 3). Sigmund Freud wants to open the eyes of the readers to the consciousness and the unconsciousness, and for people to recognize the complexity of the division and these qualities of the mind, which may or may not be present.
        Sigmund Freud knows there is a preexisting conversation about consciousness and unconsciousness when he says “there is nothing new to be said and it will not be possible to avoid repeating what has often been said before” (3). Since there is already a discussion, Freud attempts to present his argument. He argues, “The division of the psychical into what is conscious and what is unconscious is the fundamental premiss [sic] of psycho-analysis [sic]; and it alone makes it possible… to understand the pathological processes in mental life… and to find a place for them in the framework of science” (Freud 3). The division of consciousness and unconscious is important to the study of psychoanalysis in essence of understanding the mind and how ideas can be repressed or hidden until something triggers the idea to become conscious. With consciousness, it is seen as a characteristic of the psychical, and the psychical is relevant with the phenomena of hypnosis and dreams (Freud 3). Sigmund Freud views the mind as a complex energy system, which leads him to see a relation between the psychical, the phenomena of dreams, and the mind (Thornton). In other words, the conscious and unconscious are psychical experiences of ideas in the mind.
As the argument is presented, Freud explains the terms of “’being conscious’” as descriptive and a “perception of the most immediate and certain character,” whereas “’unconscious’ coincides with ‘latent and capable of becoming conscious’” (Freud 4). He further describes these terms and mentions one more term involving the psyche. First, consciousness is transitory, meaning “an idea that is conscious now is no longer a moment later” (Freud 4). Second, the preconscious is latent or hidden, and lastly, the unconsciousness is repressed and able to become conscious. After separating these terms from one another, he begins to “play about comfortably” to show the dynamics of these experiences in the mind (Freud 6). This dynamic demonstrates there is a spectrum, ranging from unconscious to conscious, and on this spectrum there is a mental life where the conscious, preconscious and unconscious become involved. Freud introduces the concept that “very powerful mental processes or ideas exist… which can produce all the effects in mental life that ordinary ideas do (including effects that can in their turn become conscious as ideas), though they themselves do not become conscious” (5). From this affect, the preconscious is recognized in these mental processes and is an important factor in psychoanalysis. Without the preconscious, an idea wouldn’t be hidden, and there wouldn’t be an interest for the idea to become conscious after being unconscious.
Throughout Sigmund Freud’s argument, he reminds the reader to “not forget that in the descriptive sense there are two kinds of unconscious, but in the dynamic sense only one” (6). Freud doesn’t want the reader to confuse the dynamic sense with the descriptive sense since there is an issue on what is psychical and what is not to some philosophers. Since one term is used in a way to explain the phenomena of ideas becoming conscious after being unconscious in the dynamic sense, the other term can cover the two unconscious terms when describing the phenomena to maintain simplicity. If a psychoanalyst has to explain to a patient what is occurring in their mind when they dream and how it effects their mental life, one term to describe the unconscious will only be necessary so that the patient will not become confused.
Ambiguity is found pertaining to the distinction between the dynamic and descriptive sense. Freud discusses that “the distinction between conscious and unconscious is in the last resort a question of perception… and the act of perception itself tells us nothing of the reason why a thing is or is not perceived” (7). This ambiguity further reminds the readers that there is a high level of complexity in these processes. He adds on to say “these distinctions have proved to be inadequate and, for practical purposes, insufficient” (Freud 8). Sigmund Freud begins to bring in the concept of the ego to the context, in which consciousness is correlated. Since it is the first chapter of his book on the ego and the id and everything related, Freud sees an opportunity to begin the connection of the ego with the psychical. With this chapter, Freud is able to introduce the background of the conscious and unconscious before digging deeper into the mind.
        Sigmund Freud’s style is more educational for those who are interested in philosophy and psychology, and adds perspective to how the mind works with ideas. He explains everything that might be confusing, and breaks down the structure of the psychical. With this type of organization, Freud is able to connect to the audience and present his argument in a convincing manner since he discusses issues. He doesn’t seem afraid to mention ambiguities or doubts. However, the original text was written in a different language other than English and there could have been misinterpretations or translation errors. Also, a slightly different audience might have been the focus, but only geographically. Doctors or other philosophers and psychoanalysts can still use Sigmund Freud’s concepts when looking at the psyche of a patient or experimenting. In the end, the audience would be persuaded that some distinctions in division are necessary, while others are not, just as ideas are either conscious or not.


Works Cited

Freud, Sigmund. “Consciousness and what is Unconscious.” The Ego and the Id. 1923. Trans. James Strachey. New York: Norton, 1960. 3-10. Print.

Library of Congress. Conflict Freud & Culture. 23 July 2010. Web. 21 Feb 2012<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/freud/ex/73a.html>

Thornton, Stephen P.  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 16 Apr. 2001. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/freud/>

Biography Channel. "Sigmund Freud Biography." Biography.com. 2011. Web. 21 Feb 2012. <http://www.biography.com/people/sigmund-freud-9302400>