The Catholic Internet discussion on cloning A study in cognitive rhetoric Jussi E. Niemelä The Catholic Internet discussion on cloning A study in cognitive rhetoric Jussi E. Niemelä Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Helsinki in Small Hall on the 24th of November, 2007 at 10 o’clock. Helsinki 2007 © Jussi Niemelä 2007 ISBN 978-952-92-2803-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-4220-1 (PDF) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi Layout: Jussi E. Niemelä Cover: Elisa Järnefelt and Jussi E. Niemelä Printed by Yliopistopaino Helsinki 2007 Contents Abstract Foreword 1. Introduction 1 Part I: What is being studied and how 2. The Catholic Internet discussion as a subject of study 6 2.1. The methods used for finding and classifying Internet materials 6 2.2. The virtual context: the Internet and virtual ethnography 11 2.3. The bioscientific context: genes, genetics and cloning 21 2.4. The Catholic community 27 2.5. The theological context 37 2.6. Bioethics and Catholic bioethics 52 2.7. The contexts of the discussion – a summary 57 3. Theory: The tools of the trade 60 3.1. Rhetoric – a brief history 60 3.2. Cognitive science – a brief history 71 3.3. A small cognitive toolbox: domain-specificity and intuitive ontology 80 3.4. Folk-theoretical thought 85 3.5. Aristotelian inventio – the methodological trinity 100 3.5.1. Logos – the power of inference 100 The classical view of logos 100 Logos in the new rhetoric 103 Cognitive aspects of logos 113 3.5.2. Pathos – the appeal of emotion 117 The classical view of pathos 117 Pathos in the new rhetoric 119 Cognitive aspects of pathos 124 3.5.3. Ethos – the art of appearance 133 The classical view of ethos 133 Ethos in the new rhetoric 136 Cognitive aspects of ethos 143 3.6. The toolbox summarized 149 Part II: The analysis 4. The dominant Official Catholic voices 156 4.1. Human Dignity 156 4.1.1. The logos of Human Dignity 156 4.1.2. The pathos of Human Dignity 160 4.1.3. The ethos of Human Dignity 163 4.1.4. Cognitive view of Human Dignity 166 4.2. The Sacred Family 174 4.2.1. The logos of Sacred Family 174 4.2.2. The pathos of Sacred Family 178 4.2.3. The ethos of Sacred Family 181 4.2.4. Cognitive view of Sacred Family 184 4.3. Exploitation / Dehumanization 190 4.3.1. The logos of Exploitation / Dehumanization 190 4.3.2. The pathos of Exploitation / Dehumanization 194 4.3.3. The ethos of Exploitation /Dehumanization 197 4.3.4. Cognitive view of Exploitation / Dehumanization 200 5. The dominant Professional Catholic voices 208 5.1. Playing God 208 5.1.1. The logos of Playing God 208 5.1.2. The pathos of Playing God 212 5.1.3. The ethos of Playing God 215 5.1.4. Cognitive view of Playing God 219 5.2. Monsters and Horror Scenarios 225 5.2.1. The logos of Monsters and Horror Scenarios 225 5.2.2. The pathos of Monsters and Horror Scenarios 229 5.2.3. The ethos of Monsters and Horror Scenarios 232 5.2.4. Cognitive view of Monsters and Horror Scenarios 236 6. The dominant Lay Catholic voices 242 6.1. Ensoulment 242 6.1.1. The logos of Ensoulment 242 6.1.2. The pathos of Ensoulment 247 6.1.3. The ethos of Ensoulment 252 6.1.4. Cognitive view of Ensoulment 259 Part III: Conclusions and comparisons 7. Conclusions concerning Catholic argumentative strategies 272 7.1. The Official voices 273 7.2. The Professional voices 281 7.3. The Lay voices 287 8. Summary and reflections 292 8.1. Comparisons: strategies and mechanisms 292 8.2. General reflections on the theory 298 Sources and Bibliography 302 Abstract Jussi E. Niemelä, University of Helsinki, Finland The Catholic Internet discussion on cloning. A study in cognitive rhetoric. This work combines the cognitive theory of folk-theoretical thought with the classical Aristotelian theory of artistic proof in rhetoric. The first half of the work discusses the common ground shared by the elements of artistic proof (logos, pathos, ethos) and the elements of folk-theoretical thought (naïve physics, folk biology, folk psychology, naïve sociology). Combining rhetoric with the cognitive theory of folk-theoretical thought creates a new point of view for argumentation analysis. The logos of an argument can be understood as the inferential relations established between the different parts of an argument. Consequently, within this study the analysis of logos is to be viewed as the analysis of the inferential folk-theoretical elements that make the suggested factual states-of-things appear plausible within given argumentative structures. The pathos of an argumentative structure can be understood as determining the “quality” of the argumentation in question in the sense that emotive elements play a great part in what can be called a distinction between “good” and “deceptive” rhetoric. In the context of this study the analysis of pathos is to be viewed as the analysis of the emotive content of argumentative structures and of whether they aim at facilitating surface- or deep cognitive elaboration of the suggested matters. The ethos of an argumentative structure means both the speaker-presentation and audience-construct that can be discerned within a body of argumentation. In the context of this study, the analysis of ethos is to be understood as the analysis of mutually manifest cognitive environments in the context of argumentation. The theory is used to analyse Catholic Internet discussion concerning cloning. The discussion is divided into six themes: Human Dignity, Sacred Family, Exploitation / Dehumanisation, Playing God, Monsters and Horror Scenarios and Ensoulment. Each theme is analysed for both the rhetorical and the cognitive elements that can be seen creating persuasive force within the argumentative structures presented. It is apparent that the Catholic voices on the Internet extensively oppose cloning. The voices utilise rhetoric that is aggressive and pejorative more often than not. Furthermore, deceptive rhetoric (in the sense presented above) plays a great part in argumentative structures of the Catholic voices. The theory of folk-theoretical thought can be seen as a useful tool for analysing the possible reasons why the Catholic speakers think about cloning and choose to present cloning in their argumentation as they do. The logos utilized in the argumentative structures presented can usually be viewed as based on folk- theoretical inference concerning biology and psychology. The structures of pathos utilized generally appear to aim at generating fear appeal in the assumed audiences, often incorporating counter-intuitive elements. The ethos utilised in the arguments generally revolves around Christian mythology and issues of social responsibility. These structures can also be viewed from the point of view of folk psychology and naïve sociological assumptions. Foreword Of all the possible metaphors used to describe a scientific research project, the imagery of a journey is certainly among the more often used ones. When a given research is described in terms of a journey, there are usually several different parts in the story: it is described how the traveller takes up the journey in the first place, the different parts of the journey are detailed, and finally, the story ends with the arrival to the destination. My research can not really be described through the metaphor of a journey – or rather, the journey described is an untypical one. Concerning my research the most suitable metaphor akin to a journey I have come up with is a plane crash with no casualties. Let me elaborate this a bit further. There are several things that make the metaphor of a plane crash particularly suitable for describing my research. Starting a journey by boarding an airplane is a very typical way of commencing one’s holiday or business trip. Flying can also be considered one of the most comfortable ways of travelling: it is quick and safe. However, in the unlikely event when an airplane crash-lands in unknown territory, far from civilization, the nature of the journey is dramatically changed – the journeyman is suddenly cast in an unforeseeable situation. Since there are no casualties in the crash, the situation is really not that tragic, it’s just a new type of an adventure. After the crash the metaphor of a journey proceeds differently: the journeyman faces new situations, problems and challenges, and has to get by the best he is able to. Eventually, (at least in this metaphor) the journeyman is saved from the wilds through cunning, help and some luck. The journey ends by returning from the wilds back to civilization, but not exactly to the place the journeyman was originally trying to reach. This type of a metaphor would describe the course of my study pretty accurately. For those who don’t enjoy metaphors suffice it to say that my original idea was to make an unproblematic thesis with as little trouble as possible. I finished with a thesis that combines two different theoretical worlds in a way that has not been done before and tests this combination on a large corpus of virtual-ethnographical material concerning a very complex issue. Looking at this setting the only thing I can think of is that I must have been unconsciously looking for trouble. Consequently, during my research I encountered many unforeseen problems, both in the theoretical worlds I chose to examine and in my personal qualities as a researcher. The process turned out to be quite different from what I originally signed up for when commencing my doctoral studies.