Postscript - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 282

and use of the technology produces the best consequences all things considered
(“Consequence”) (Myers 1997). Given that these three frameworks cut across cul-
tural differences and that any explicit or implicit regulatory frameworks that fall out
of their consideration must speak across national boundaries, we could also speak—
as Giordano has suggested—of a fourth “C,” namely, Context. I see this not neces-
sarily as being a separate axis of normative evaluation, but rather as a procedural
demand that we constantly seek objectivity in our articulation of norms so that they
are not parochial and can be discussed usefully and potentially be agreed upon in
international fora (Rhodes 2009).
AN EXAMPLE: STRATEGIC RHETORIC, NEUROBIOLOGY,
AND NORMATIVE EVALUATION
For an example of this framework in action, consider phases zero, one, and two of
conflict. Shaping, influencing, and deterring involve in part as acts of communica-
tion, and acts of communication are often most effective if they are couched in terms
of narratives or stories. If I am, for example, to successfully communicate my inten-
tion to provide disaster relief during a humanitarian operation that could involve the
use of force (so as to reassure the victims that aid is on the way, and so as to deter
organizations such as violent nonstate actors from attacking the forces provisioning
relief), I will need to tell an effective story regarding our forces' involvement in an
area. This is an aspect of narrative strategy. In practice, effective narrative strategies
will require understanding the components and content of the story being told so we
can predict how they will influence the action of a target audience. In other words,
we need a sophisticated understanding of “strategic rhetoric.” This is difficult to
come by. Nonetheless, even well-worn and simple models of this process, such as
that offered by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle in his On Rhetoric , can be
very useful for structuring our thinking (Kennedy 1991).
Aristotle would have us evaluate three components of a narrative relative to a tar-
get audience: (1) what is the ethos of the speaker/deliverer? (2) what is the logos of
the message being delivered? and (3) does the message contain appropriate appeals
to pathos ? Consideration of ethos would emphasize the need for us to establish
credible channels of communication, fronted by actors who have the character and
reputation required to ensure receipt and belief of the message. “You have bad
ethos” in this context is merely another way of saying “You won't be believed by
the target audience because they don't think you are believable .” Consideration of
logos involves the rational elements of the narrative: is it logical? Is it consistent
enough to be believed? Does it contain (from the target's perspective) nonsequi-
turs and forms of reasoning not normally used day-to-day? Finally, pathos deals
with the emotional content of the story. Does the story cue appropriate affective
and emotive systems in the human brain? Does it appeal to emotion in a way that
engages the whole person and that increases the chances the story will actually
motivate action? Understanding these processes is in part a matter for neurobi-
ologists (see, e.g., the recent work of Greg Berns, Jorge Barraza, Emile Brueau,
Antonio Damasio, Jonas Kaplan, Ken Kishida, Lucas Parra, Rebecca Saxe, and
Paul Zak).