Rhetorical Analysis: The Politics of Fear: How it Manipulates us to Tribalism

In “The Politics of Fear: How It Manipulates Us to Tribalism,” Arash Javanbakht (2019) explores the pervasive influence of fear on human behaviour and political structures. A psychiatrist and neuroscientist, Javanbakht, marshals his experience to make the case that fear is not only a deeply entrenched evolutionary survival mechanism but also a powerful political weapon used to fire up division and tribalism. By examining the historical context of fear, its psychological implications, and its role in shaping societal narratives, Javanbakht elucidates how fear can manipulate individuals into adopting an “us versus them” mentality. The following analysis will show how Javanbakht’s interesting use of rhetorical appeals, ethos, pathos, and logos helps him argue for the dangers of fear-driven tribalism.

Javanbakht starts his essay with a heartbreaking reminder of our ability to divide and destroy each other. Through the introduction, he positions the issue as urgent and relevant, which hooks his audience. His argument revolves around the thesis that since fear is a natural human thing, political leaders can discredit the public perception and provoke tribalism. Javanbakht sets the scene for a critical exploration of the impact of fear on social behaviour by framing his discussion in historical and contemporary terms.

A rhetorical strategy of appeal to ethos lends credibility to Javanbakht’s analysis, his insights into how fear works, and how to stop it. He states, “Demagogues have always used fear for intimidation of the subordinates or enemies, and shepherding the tribe by the leaders” (Javanbakht, 2019). His authority on the matter is established because he purports to know this and has the professional experience to back it up. Javanbakht does this by creating himself as a knowledgeable figure on the topic of fear and trauma and thus builds trust with his reader, which is crucial for persuading him that what he is telling him is accurate.

Javanbakht also does a great job employing pathos in his essay. He vividly illustrates the emotional weight of fear, stating that “fear is arguably as old as life” and “deeply ingrained in the living organisms” (Javanbakht, 2019). This visceral quality makes one want to talk about fear and what it does to someone. To increase his argument’s emotional resonance, he connects fear to universal human experiences. For instance, he talks about how fear can bring out the worst in us, such as phobias. His assertion that “fear bypasses logic” speaks to a common human experience, allowing readers to empathize with those who struggle with irrational fears. Believe it or not, this emotional connection helps the audience and supports his argument for why fear is bad and why we shouldn’t allow fear to dictate how we live our lives.

Javanbakht (2019) skillfully uses logos to lay out a logical path of ideas that help him build his thesis. He discusses how fear is learned and reinforced through socialization, stating, “We learn fear from tribe mates.” (Javanbakht, 2019, p. 58). This is supported by such evidence from cultural neuroscience of how our brains respond differently to individuals of different racial or cultural backgrounds. Javanbakht (2019) also supports the reader’s logic by providing empirical evidence and then convinces the reader to think about the effects of fear on social behaviour. Finally, his discussion of tribalism as an evolutionary advantage adds further evidence to his argument, walking out fear to create group cohesion and aggression against perceived outsiders. This fiasco of fear’s shadow is a testament to humans’ duality and a stronger door for the abuse of such duality by those who are accepted to have power over technologically advanced creatures.

In these contemporary political times, Javanbakht’s discussions on fear and tribalism take a new meaning. He notes that politicians often exploit fear to create divisions among groups, stating, “When building tribal boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ some politicians have managed very well to create virtual groups of people that do not communicate and hate without even knowing each other” (Javanbakht, 2019, p. 58). In today’s political climate, fear is widely wielded to rally support and vilify enemies. Javanbakht then strengthens the idea that fear can cause ideologies and fracture of society through historical examples like Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan. Not only does this historical context lend weight to his argument, but it also lets the reader know that he cautions against fear-driven narratives.

In addition, Javanbakht’s critique of media practice enriches his study of fear as a political tool. He refers to the media as “disaster pornographers,” suggesting that sensationalized coverage of violence and tragedy can exacerbate societal fear. The critique demonstrates the media’s function in shaping public viewpoint and amplifying fear-based stories. Javanbakht encourages readers to ask questions about the reasons for media portrayals, giving them tools to critically process the information they receive. This reinforces his bigger thesis: that people must be aware and understand the fear being used to manipulate us.

In conclusion, Arash Javanbakht employs rhetorical tactics to sufficiently show his audience and emphasize how to avoid the dangers of fear-ruling behaviour. Javanbakht uses his knowledge, experiences, and historical precedents to compose a mode argument that invites readers to take a close look at how fear plays a major part in their lives and the dominant culture overall. His essay is a powerful call to arms, reminding us that fear-driven narratives and fostering widespread understanding and unity are hugely important in a world beset by polarisation.

References

Javanbakht, A. (2019). The politics of fear: How it manipulates us to tribalism. https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Literature_and_Literacy/Poetry_Plays_Essays_and_other_Genres/88_Open_Essays_-_A_Reader_for_Students_of_Composition_and_Rhetoric_(Wangler_and_Ulrich)/Open_Essays/41%3A_The_Politics_of_Fear%3A_How_It_Manipulates_Us_to_Tribalism_(Javanbakht)

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Assignment: Using the provided attachment, create a rough draft in response to the following prompt:

Read the following articles:

1. “Constructions of Good and Evil in the Batman Movies of Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan” by Simon Philipp Born
2. “The Danger of a Single Story” by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
3. “Think You Love Your Valentine? What’s Beneath the Surface May Be More Complicated” by Vivian Zayas and Yuichi Shoda
4. “The Politics of Fear: How it Manipulates Us to Tribalism” by Arash Javanbakht (ATTACHED) – Selected Article

Next, select the article that you felt like you understood and connected with the most. Then, write a short essay (3-4 pages) analyzing the rhetorical effectiveness of the author throughout the text you selected.

For this assignment, I am not particularly concerned with whether you “liked” the text or not. A successful rhetorical analysis will identify the author, audience, purpose, and persuasive techniques (rhetorical appeals) used by the speaker.

Rhetorical Analysis: The Politics of Fear: How it Manipulates us to Tribalism

The successful rhetorical analysis should:

• focus on one of the strategies used by the writer: e.g., organization, content, or persuasive technique.
• analyze rather than summarize the essay. You are required to give a 2-4 sentence summary of the piece in your introduction, but the remaining essay should be analysis (not summary).
• contain a well-supported thesis and paragraphs that enable readers to follow your ideas
• have few, if any, errors in correctness. This paper must be edited thoroughly before final submission.