Kairos
kai·ros noun
the opportune time and/or place, the right or appropriate time to say or do the right or appropriate thing
When analyzing the kairos of the documentary Blackfish, it is important to become familiarized with the term and to understand its meaning in order to fully comprehend its relation to the documentary at a fundamental level. Kairos, by definition from the Inventing Arguments textbook, is the exigency, timeliness, or urgency of an issue. This definition is somewhat adequate, but to fully incorporate it into the argument that Blackfish makes, we will mainly use it in the context of what it represents. Kairos represents the issue's appropriateness for the time in which it is being discussed and the feeling of urgency that the issue brings to both its supporters and deniers. If an issue has no kairos, then the issue has no relevance to the people surrounding it and has no importance either. However, an argument with kairos will bring urgency to the topic and will energize its supporters and its opposition to take a stand on the issue. Kairos is critical to an argument's creation and the movement or change that it hopes to create.
Now that we have discussed kairos and the concepts that it envelopes, we can bring it into context in regards to the documentary Blackfish. The documentary focuses on two issues: the insufficient and unnatural environment that killer whales are kept in and the deaths of trainers and other innocent people that have been a result of these dangerous captive animals. These two issues bring a decent amount of kairos to the documentary and they are the main reason that the documentary has become popular and has gained a good amount of supporters. Going along with these issues, the documentary makes the claim that all killer whales in captivity should be set free for both the health and well-being of the themselves, and the safety of their trainers and innocent audience members. In context to this claim, we will analyze the kairos that the documentary uses as its fuel.
The media attention that initially catalyzed the kairos for the issue stemmed from the death of Dawn Brancheau, a 40 year-old veteran trainer that was brutally killed by the killer whale Tilikum at the end of a show. The news of Dawn's death brought much scrutiny to SeaWorld, the location that the tragedy occurred, and the release of the killer whales gained a lot of support from this event. Ms. Brancheau became somewhat of a martyr for the movement and the issue's kairos shifted from the well-being of the whales to the safety of the people involved with them. The death of a person brought on by a whale in captivity is something that no one enjoys hearing about, but the fact of the matter is that most people see it as inevitable. If a powerful wild animal is kept in a small enclosure with little to no contact with other whales for the majority of its life, it is not hard to imagine that their frustration and aggression has a tipping point. Most people will see the death of Dawn Brancheau as the result of an angry killer whale that wants to be set free. The kairos of the issue in regards to Dawn's death is now defined because when people are allowed to be in an angry killer whales environment, they are naturally going to be in danger. Since the time of Dawn's passing, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has required all trainers of killer whales to stand behind a barrier separating them from the whales. This policy has solved the problem of trainer safety, but that is only one half of the argument, and the issue's kairos in context to human safety has been extinguished.
The well-bring of the killer whales is the side of the issue that has a varying degree of kairos for the variety of people involved. The people that are concerned with animal rights and the treatment of animals in captivity have strong reason to support the release of killer whales, but the people that are not concerned with animal rights have little reason to support the whales' freedom. Now that the issue of trainer safety has been put to rest by OSHA, supporters of whale freedom have only the well-being of the whales to argue for, instead of having the death of trainers to support their claim. This makes the issue very difficult to argue for because their argument must now become one of animal freedom as a whole. If they argue for orca freedom specifically, why do they not argue for the freedom of all animals in captivity? Why should the orcas have freedom when their are animals in similar confinement all across the country in zoos and other places of animal entertainment? So now instead of having kairos for the whales, the supporters must find kairos for all animals in captivity which is a much more monumental task.
As a whole, the documentary Blackfish makes a good argument for the freedom of killer whales, but what it lacks is a good argument for the freedom of all animals. Blackfish's kairos comes mainly from the death of a trainer, but without kairos for the freedom of whales for the people that have no problem with animal captivity, the documentary's claim of freeing the orcas becomes a claim that falls under its own weight.
Now that we have discussed kairos and the concepts that it envelopes, we can bring it into context in regards to the documentary Blackfish. The documentary focuses on two issues: the insufficient and unnatural environment that killer whales are kept in and the deaths of trainers and other innocent people that have been a result of these dangerous captive animals. These two issues bring a decent amount of kairos to the documentary and they are the main reason that the documentary has become popular and has gained a good amount of supporters. Going along with these issues, the documentary makes the claim that all killer whales in captivity should be set free for both the health and well-being of the themselves, and the safety of their trainers and innocent audience members. In context to this claim, we will analyze the kairos that the documentary uses as its fuel.
The media attention that initially catalyzed the kairos for the issue stemmed from the death of Dawn Brancheau, a 40 year-old veteran trainer that was brutally killed by the killer whale Tilikum at the end of a show. The news of Dawn's death brought much scrutiny to SeaWorld, the location that the tragedy occurred, and the release of the killer whales gained a lot of support from this event. Ms. Brancheau became somewhat of a martyr for the movement and the issue's kairos shifted from the well-being of the whales to the safety of the people involved with them. The death of a person brought on by a whale in captivity is something that no one enjoys hearing about, but the fact of the matter is that most people see it as inevitable. If a powerful wild animal is kept in a small enclosure with little to no contact with other whales for the majority of its life, it is not hard to imagine that their frustration and aggression has a tipping point. Most people will see the death of Dawn Brancheau as the result of an angry killer whale that wants to be set free. The kairos of the issue in regards to Dawn's death is now defined because when people are allowed to be in an angry killer whales environment, they are naturally going to be in danger. Since the time of Dawn's passing, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has required all trainers of killer whales to stand behind a barrier separating them from the whales. This policy has solved the problem of trainer safety, but that is only one half of the argument, and the issue's kairos in context to human safety has been extinguished.
The well-bring of the killer whales is the side of the issue that has a varying degree of kairos for the variety of people involved. The people that are concerned with animal rights and the treatment of animals in captivity have strong reason to support the release of killer whales, but the people that are not concerned with animal rights have little reason to support the whales' freedom. Now that the issue of trainer safety has been put to rest by OSHA, supporters of whale freedom have only the well-being of the whales to argue for, instead of having the death of trainers to support their claim. This makes the issue very difficult to argue for because their argument must now become one of animal freedom as a whole. If they argue for orca freedom specifically, why do they not argue for the freedom of all animals in captivity? Why should the orcas have freedom when their are animals in similar confinement all across the country in zoos and other places of animal entertainment? So now instead of having kairos for the whales, the supporters must find kairos for all animals in captivity which is a much more monumental task.
As a whole, the documentary Blackfish makes a good argument for the freedom of killer whales, but what it lacks is a good argument for the freedom of all animals. Blackfish's kairos comes mainly from the death of a trainer, but without kairos for the freedom of whales for the people that have no problem with animal captivity, the documentary's claim of freeing the orcas becomes a claim that falls under its own weight.
Constraints
con·straint noun
A limitation or restriction
Constraints, as defined by the Inventing Arguments textbook, are the stabilizing factors that inhibit some effect of an author's message from occurring. These effects usually pertain to the message's audience and are inhibited by the audience's inability to understand or appreciate what the author is trying to say. The reason that a certain effect does not take place in an audience can range from inexperience, ignorance, or from a lack of education on the subject. In context to Blackfish, there are a few constraints that the author had to deal with. The main constraint was the fact that some people simply do not care about the captivity of killer whales and see their confinement as acceptable. These "audience members" probably didn't even watch the documentary and thus, they did not lend their support to the argument one way or another. Another possibility is that some audience members could not understand the documentary because of language barrier issues. If they could not find a version of the documentary that was understandable to them, they were left unaware of the matter. A final constraint in regards to the documentary Blackfish is the fact that most audience members are not educated in animal science and do not possess the knowledge needed to understand certain scientific facts or reasoning that could have been used as strong numerical evidence to support the documentary's claim. For this reason, some scientific evidence may have been left out of the documentary. Constraints play a role in the success of an argument and if the the constraints are strong enough, they can be the cause of an argument's failure. For the most part, the director and editors of Blackfish did a good job in keeping the constraints to a minimum and maximizing the audience's ability to understand the points they were trying to make. By focusing on emotional and logical appeals throughout the documentary, they were able to sidestep some constraints and reach their audience in a way that was convincing and appealing. By keeping the argument emotional and logical, the constraints of understanding higher thinking were avoided and their message was received in a way that everyone could understand.