Nayyar 1

Nikhil Nayyar

Dr. Lyn Freymiller

CAS 137H

11 October 2016

An Analysis of Text and Context Used by the British Army in Enlistment Campaigns

Sun Tzu, the Chinese military philosopher, wrote in The Art of War, Know the enemy

and know yourself: in a hundred battles you will never be in peril (Griffith 84). He says that, for

a country to succeed in war, it must understand the nature and the will of its people. The two

propaganda artifacts analyzed in this essay provide a perfect example of how this self-knowledge

plays an important role in determining the success of a battle. The battle for the British military

is the fight for influence each artifact seeks to make on its audience. In this instance, the military

struggles to understand its audience over a period of time. This analysis serves as a lesson that

sheds light on the relationship between argument and audience. It is a lesson important for

everyone to understand.

The nature of warfare has drastically changed over the 20 th century. What once was

considered an honorable calling was directly challenged by a surge in blood and violence that

resulted from advances in modern technology. As the very nature of warfare changed, so too did

the publics perception on the matter. This evolution led to the mistake Britain made in its

modern enlistment campaign. Both of the artifacts developed by the British army use the same

textual appeals in order to influence its audience to enlist, yet differ in rhetorical success due to

changes in the contextual appeal of warfare over the one-hundred-year span between the two

campaigns. The artifacts appeal to the ethos and pathos of family life and imply a sense of
 Nayyar 2

Kairos in enlistment for its textual approach. The difference in contextual appeals for the two

campaigns, meanwhile, is the result of a change in commonplaces concerning the nature of war.

The first argument for the artifacts textual similarity is that they both appeal to the ethos

and pathos associated with family themes and imagery. In the WWI artifact, the daughter holds a

certain amount of ethos in asking the question to her father. From the understanding of family

life during that era, the father feels obligated to serve as some moral compass to his daughter.

Masculine self-respect certainly demanded that a man provide for his family, and great shame

was attached to one who failed. (Tosh 14) The fathers expression then implies that he did not

serve in the army. It is an expression of a guilt, of a shame that comes from the father failing to

provide for his family. The daughter serves as the instigator for the pathos that follows.

That expression of shame and guilt on the fathers face is experienced by the audience.

The audience of the era does not want to feel these same negative emotions of shame and guilt

and are led to the conclusion that, by enlisting in the army, they will be able to successfully avoid

them. Thus, the artifact is able to influence the audience to enlist from this pathos based appeal.

And, this appeal, started with the ethos of the daughter asking a question arouses the pathos of its

middle class, early 20th century audience by using this family imagery.

The Modern artifact uses the same pathos appeal as that of the WWI poster. The ad is

trying to influence the teenagers of its audience to enlist, not the father. However, due to the

modern commonplaces the artifact tries to fight (something addressed more in the third main

point), an appeal is also made towards the parents to influence them to allow enlistment in the

first place. For the young adult audience, the pathos appeal is blatantly seen in the fathers

eventual muted yet accepting smile that also reveals just a hint of pride. The young adult, in

wanting to feel these emotions, associates enlistment with winning their parental approval. The
 Nayyar 3

commercial also uses pathos to appeal to the parental figures. The father holds an expression of

shame and guilt that stems from the sons ethos appeal. This ad implies that the father of the ad,

is preventing meaningful growth for his son by forbidding enlistment. The adult audience then

comes to the conclusion that they can avoid the feelings of shame and guilt by allowing their

sons and daughters to enlist, thus encouraging enlistment all together. This pathos appeal to the

parents is also generated by the ethos in the young adults confrontation.

The second argument for the artifacts textual similarities is that both artifacts imply a

sense of Kairos in influencing the audience into enlisting into the army. The WWI artifact makes

this Kairotic appeal by underlining the fleeting nature of WWI. From the syntax of the question

in the poster, it becomes understood that the scene takes place after the war. The aforementioned

expression of shame and guilt on the father indicate that he did not serve in the war. The

audience comes to the conclusion that by enlisting, then, they will avoid feelings of shame and

guilt. Already riled up from the pathos appeal, the audience is actively looking for an outlet

avoid these feelings. To add to this, the poster has neglected to inform the audience when exactly

the time to enlist will run out. Now, to avoid these negative emotions, the audience will actively

seek out enlistment. They do not want to be too late, for if they are, they will experience those

very same emotions manifested on the face of the father.

The Kairotic appeal of the Modern artifact is centered around the importance of

development into adulthood. This is immediately apparent from the tag line of the commercial

campaign: BECOME A BETTER YOU. As this commercial is directed more toward the young

adult, it emphasizes the need to mature. The son vigorously states, Dont do what...Dont stand

on my two feet dont realize I can do more than I thought. These lines are meant to feed on

the ambitions and goals of this younger audience. The added statement connecting the sons
 Nayyar 4

goals to the fathers expectations add more to the pathos based appeal. But, it also indicates to

the audience, the young adults, that it is the crucial time in which you can make your parents

proud. It is the time to claim your independence and set yourself up for a lifetime of

responsibility. This further influences the young adults to enlist by appealing to their desire for

independence. The ad also implies that this chance for independence may disappear as time

progresses. It is through this way, that both artifacts instill a sense of Kairos to strengthen the

pathos appeal and influence the artifacts respective audiences to enlist.

For all intents and purposes the artifacts should yield similar enlistment figures.

However, the real results of the campaign reveal something vastly different than what is

expected. Approximately two and a half million men voluntarily enlisted as a result of the WWI

campaign (Simkins). Meanwhile, as of the publication of this paper, the Modern commercial

holds a ratio on YouTube, one of the platforms used to distribute the ad, of seven hundred and

twenty-one dislikes to only one hundred and thirty-two likes (ARMYjobs). Further, Karmarama,

boasts on its website that the commercial has altered the view of the army of 14% of British

young adults (Karmarama). Even if the agency is exaggerating the numbers to inflate their own

accomplishments, this low statistic further highlights the lack of influence the commercial has.

The reason for this difference in rhetorical success is the third and final point of this

analysis. It explains the reason for the magnitude in difference of success. The two interact with

vastly different commonplaces regarding the nature of war from their respective audiences.

At the time of the WWI posters publication, a commonplace associating war with honor

and honor existed in England (Simmonds 42). So, the appeals of ethos, pathos, and Kairos that

were built on the ideas of shame and guilt were compelling to the audience at the time. The

audience already had innate ideas formed of associating shame and guilt to those who did not
 Nayyar 5

serve. Thus, the WWI poster is effective because it works with the already preconceived notions

of its audience.

Meanwhile, the Modern commercial, which uses the same textual appeals of ethos,

pathos, and Kairos, has been brutally dismissed by the audience to which it is directed. The

reason for this is that the understanding of military service has drastically changed in the last one

hundred years. This trend is reflected in how English civilian interest for military actions in the

Middle East favors withdrawal of troops or non-involvement (Gribble, Wessley, Klein,

Alexander, Dandeker, and Fear).

The advances in technology over this past century have changed the way war is fought.

War is no longer viewed as something that is honorable for all in involved or as something to

prove ones civic duty. No, it is too deadly for that. Now, the modern commonplaces associate

war with death and violence and as something to avoided all together. This is reflected by the

aforementioned English hesitance to fight. It is these perceptions that the Modern ad is trying to

dismiss. This explains the need to target the parents in the audience as mentioned in the first

main point. It also explains why the commercial fails to influence others in the added light of

context. Put bluntly, the same rhetorical appeal does not target the modern audiences concerns.

Shame is no longer are effective arguments to convince people to enlist. The audience has a

commonplace of war that completely separates guilt from non-enlistment. And, as a result, the

modern artifacts fails its objective in the rhetorical situations to encourage people to enlist.

One now has to ask themselves if the British military truly understands the people which

it tries to influence. The British army uses the exact same textual appeals in both the WWI poster

and the modern ad. The ethos and pathos of family life and the Kairos of enlistment are both

used to influence the audience to enlist. Yet, in making the Modern commercial, the British army
 Nayyar 6

neglects to address the context of changed commonplaces about war in its rhetorical appeal.

There is an important lesson to be learned from the results of these two campaigns. The influence

of an artifact is based on how strong its arguments are. This is true. However, underlying all of

its arguments is the audience itself. The artifact must structure its arguments in a way that

appeals to the audience. The WWI poster did just this. And for whatever reason, be it laziness, a

false understanding of correlation, or ignorance of the audience, the British army tried to readapt

a rhetorical process verbatim without considering the context of its argument. This is why the

poster is successful and the commercial is not. In the case of the modern artifact, the British

army did not have the knowledge of itself. Thus, it only makes sense that they should meet the

defeat Sun Tzu predicted for this rhetorical battle. The British army thus perils in this modern

rhetorical situation because, in a sense, they do not know themselves.

 Nayyar 7

Works Cited

ARMYjobs. ARMY TV AD 2016 BECOME A BETTER YOU. Online video clip. YouTube,

30 Jan. 2016. Web. 5 Oct. 2016.

Gribble, Rachel, Simon Wessley, Susan Klein, David Alexander, Christopher Dandeker, and

Nicola T. Fear. "British Public Opinion after a Decade of War: Attitudes to Iraq and

Afghanistan." Politics 35.2 (2014): 128-50. June 2015. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

Griffith, Samuel, trans. Sun Tzu: The Art of War. London: Oxford U, 1971. Print.

Karmarama.com. Karmarama, n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

Simmonds, Alan G. V. Britain and World War One. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Simkins, Peter. Voluntary recruiting in Britain, 1914-1915. British Library: World War 1.

British Library Board, n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

Tosh, John. A Mans Place: Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England. New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. Print.