Rhetorical Analysis of “Mindfulness Would Be Good For You.

If It
Weren’t So Selfish.”
In the article, “Mindfulness would be good for you. If it weren’t so selfish.”
Thomas Joiner discusses the use of mindfulness practices. Joiner begins the article by
describing how mindfulness is becoming a cultural trend. He gives several examples of
how the practice is being applied in the media and in other consumer products. The
author then explains his concern for the subject by mentioning his career as a
psychiatrist. He believes that the popularity and overall “cultural saturation” (Joiner,
2017) of mindfulness has diluted its meaning and turned it into a selfish practice. Joiner
defines authentic mindfulness as “the nonjudgmental awareness of the richness,
subtlety, and variety of the present moment — all of the present moment, not just the
self.” (Joiner, 2017) He argues that current mindfulness has become too focussed on
personal and monetary gain for it to be worthwhile. ​While Joiner uses pathos effectively,
his article is unsuccessful because it is unable to gain credibility or pinpoint a cohesive
argument.
The author’s use of ethos in the article is ineffective. This appeal is concentrated
almost entirely in the first few paragraphs. The author mentions his profession as a
psychiatrist as a way to introduce his involvement in the subject matter of mindfulness.
This could be an effective way to begin an ethos appeal, but the author never again
relates his experience as a psychiatrist to his arguments. The author biography states
that Joiner is a psychiatrist for Florida State University and that the article is adapted
from his book about the corruption of mindfulness (Joiner, 2017). This also could’ve
added ethos to the article if the author had related his career or writing experience to his
research or knowledge.
The author’s ethos in the specific context of the subject also doesn’t work well.
Joiner’s relationship to the subject of mindfulness is never fully detailed. The only
explanation of his personal research of mindfulness is stated as, “I soon found myself
immersed in the literature and practice — sitting shoes-off in a circle, focused on the
coolness of my breath as it hit the back of my throat.” (Joiner, 2017) This implies that
Joiner received first hand training in mindfulness, but Joiner doesn’t goes further. He
then immediately spells out in detail how true mindfulness differs from the
commercialized mindfulness that he is criticizing. In this instance, Joiner’s argument is
only backed up by his own word that he understands authentic mindfulness, a subject
that people devote their entire lives to studying. Luckily, Joiner’s other claims don’t rely
solely on his use of ethos.
The author’s greatest rhetorical appeal is his use of pathos. The author does a
great job of making popular mindfulness seem selfish. He accomplishes this with
anecdotes of where popular mindfulness has been diluted and hyped. An example of
this is included in paragraph three when an online reviewer suggested treating a
medical condition with mindfulness instead of a safer alternative. Other anecdotes
revolve around his concern with the commercialization of mindfulness. In the beginning
of the article, the author lists media and products that are making money off of the
trendiness of current mindfulness. He later mocks this mindfulness as an excuse for
people to indulge themselves in relaxing activities. The author also uses strong words to
portray mindfulness as an evil practice. He describes this mindfulness as “ersatz”,
“pernicious”, and “distorted” (Joiner, 2017). With these emotional appeals, the author
successfully paints trending mindfulness as selfish.
The overall use of pathos is not without flaws though. The author’s mockery is
mostly appropriate and effective, but it is laid on fairly thick at times. Joiner’s discussion
of selfishness can often come across as meanspirited. In this situation, the author puts
himself in danger of losing the favor of his audience. This could be mitigated with a
better ethos appeal. In the eyes of the audience, having good personal credibility in a
subject helps to justify a heavily emotional response. Joiner attempts this in the
beginning of the article by writing about how mindfulness has the potential to hurt his
field of psychology, but he still isn’t involved enough in mindfulness to justify his tone.
Joiner does however use lots of logos to prevent his claims from sounding too uncalled
for.
The article is full of logos appeals that do well in attacking the integrity of
mindfulness. The author refers to several different studies to call mindfulness into
question. For example, he criticized a parenting study on mindfulness. The study
involved a group of “mothers enrolled in treatment for opioid addiction who started with
a low level of parenting skills” (Joiner, 2017). The mothers attended an intervention for
several weeks where they were cared for in multiple ways, including addiction treatment
and mindfulness. The parenting of the mothers improved and the study was held up as
a benefit of mindfulness. Joiner, on the other hand, deemed this study inconclusive
because there was no control group to determine which treatment had the best result on
the mothers.
The author also referred to two studies that proved that mindfulness wasn’t
useful. One of those was a study about the use of mindfulness practices on pain
management. The author gives the study credibility by calling it “rigorous” and
“well-controlled” (Joiner, 2017). He then explains how the study proved that mindfulness
did not help patients improve their ability to control pain. The last study that the author
refers to was on the effects of mindfulness practices on major depressive disorders.
Joiner praises the study for its “impressiveness” and its use of a “large and
representative sample of adults” (Joiner, 2017). This is again a logical appeal that gives
weight to the study. Overall, the study shows that mindfulness is not more effective at
treating the disorder than regular treatments. Both of these studies lead the reader to
form the conclusion that mindfulness is not always a useful practice.
While the logos appeal does put mindfulness into question, it is not used
effectively in the article. The use of logos argues that mindfulness is not always
applicable in medical situations, but this does not support the author’s main argument.
As the title suggests, the article focuses on the commercial use and selfish aspects of
current mindfulness practices. His use of logos hurts the integrity of mindfulness, but
does not prove that it is overall selfish. Other parts of the article argue this, but they do
not use logos.
An example of this incohesiveness is clear in the final paragraphs. The author
quickly wraps up the article by saying, “Interestingly, in contrast to much of the
hyperbolic praise that is heaped on mindfulness, there is convincing evidence that the
repetition of some activities, such as aerobic walking, even if done quite mindlessly,
promotes health.” (Joiner, 2017) He then suggests that mere walking could be more
beneficial than mindfulness. This is a weak attempt at an appeal to logos, and perhaps
pathos, but it is blunt and doesn’t fit into the article well. Proving that there are better
alternatives to mindfulness doesn’t mean that mindfulness is selfish or even something
to avoid. The ending brought up a new argument when it should have been wrapping up
the article’s previous claims.
Overall, the article is only somewhat effective. The pathos is used well to make
current mindfulness seem ignorant and selfish. Though this argument is not well backed
up by either ethos or logos appeals. The ethos in the article is underdeveloped, while
the logos does not fit exactly into the author’s main argument. If the author had related
his credibility back to the text as well as used logos appeals for his main argument then
the article would have been much more convincing. Perhaps these appeals work better
in the book that this piece is adapted from, but not in this text. The article successfully
puts mindfulness into question, but is not congruent enough to make a persuasive
argument.

Word Count: 1333

 Works Cited
Joiner, T. (2017, August 25). Mindfulness would be good for you. If it weren't so selfish.
Retrieved October 8, 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/mindfulness-would-be-good-for-you-if-it
-werent-all-just-hype/2017/08/24/b97d0220-76e2-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_stor
y.html.