Smith and Hyde: sinners altogether or just one sinner?

Smith and Hyde have a very in-depth and compelling reading of Aristotle's argument about emotions and also Heidegger's idea of "Dasein." I think, for the most part, I agree with both of what they say about Aristotle and the importance of emotions and how to appeal to the pathe within an audience, as well as Heidegger's arguments that there is no "alone" without a "Being-with-one-another." Smith and Hyde's argument, it seems, is to say that the two ideas of Aristotle (emotion is fundamental to the human's sensibility) and Heidegger (the idea that all people are in some way connected to a group, or "the public") are connected with one another. That is, a rhetor can more easily appeal to the pathe within an audience if he can appeal to the mindset of the "public" as opposed to just a single individual.

In order to show this, Smith and Hyde give the example of Jonathan Edward's famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." They establish that Edwards used the rhetorical tool of identification to get the audience, his congregation, to identify with the mass of people that Edwards was directing his sermon to, that they are all in the same boat. Edwards basically says that not one of the people in the congregation is far from the fury of God's wrath. Then, after establishing them as the "public" or the mass, he can use imagery and appeal to Aristotle's pathe to instill fear, misery, hopelessness, and eventually move them to action. Smith and Hyde say that this appeal to the pathe is more effective because Edwards was able to get the individuals in the audience to all identify as one body or situation.

Though it may be true that in some cases, having the empathy of many other people is a powerful tool in evoking emotions, I'm not sure if this is always the case. I can think of many cases where evoking the emotions in a single individual may be more efficient than using the power of identification to make the person feel that he must do it as a part of the public. Take the example of sinners repenting to an angry God, for instance. Using Aristotle's criteria to evoke emotions, I could possibly be more effective in establishing an individual's sinfulness and evoking those same emotions simply by using Aristotle's criteria and knowing the circumstances from which the person would come. A drug addict may feel guilty about his drug use, and therefore be more compelled to change than from some generic sermon addressed at a congregation of other non-drug users. The same goes for the adulterer or thief or cheater. In these cases, appealing to the pathe in the circumstances of an individual would seem more effective than a generic address towards a public.

Now, I may be understanding Smith and Hyde's argument wrong, or perhaps they are not making as bold a claim as to say that evoking the emotions in a public is always more effective, but I think it's worthwhile to think about the individual appeal to someone's emotions than just the public. Edwards, however, was able to establish to his entire congregation that they were on the brink of Hell, and therefore a great change came about from his speech. Perhaps if the rhetor is able to make the congregation feel a certain emotion to an intense enough level, there will be a great empathy and unification of emotion. That is, most likely, when great and profound movements begin from the words of a powerful rhetor.