Argumentation by Self-Model: Missing Methods and Opportunities in the Personal Narratives of Popular Health Coaches

Abstract

This essay expands Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argumentation by model to bring more attention to the persuasive effects of using the self as a model. To illuminate this technique, I analyze the personal narratives of popular health coaches, who are championing a holistic health movement toward what I refer to as “do-it-yourself healthcare.” This case involves arguments regarding the efficacy of methods in evidence-based medicine and “alternative” or holistic health, as popular health coaches predicate their ability to heal themselves and others on abandoning traditional medicine. In brief, the purpose of this article is twofold: first, to characterize the rhetoric of the movement toward alternative or holistic health, and, second, to extend Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argumentation by model and address the implications of this expansion.

Keywords

rhetoric argumentation by model Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca personal narrative health coaches evidence-based medicine

In a 2012 talk entitled “Action Potential: Sparking the Change in Healthcare” delivered at KC Baker’s School of the Well-Spoken Woman, nutritionist Andrea Nakayama opened with a personal narrative. She explained how her husband’s battle with brain cancer, and his death when their son was still a baby, fueled her desire to understand how and why people succumb to illness. Nakayama, who both has her own practice and educates other practitioners in holistic healthcare, explained that her personal losses prompted her to turn to nutrition for the answers that medical doctors could not supply, which is how she discovered that “food is medicine” (Nakayama, 2012). The thrust of her argument, predicated on the importance of healthcare that is based in nutrition and tailored to the unique individual, is that the current health-care system is ineffective. Nakayama’s talk brings to light a fundamental tension between what used to be termed complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)—now typically called holistic or integrative health—and evidence-based medicine (EBM; Derkatch, 2012, 2008). Namely, holistic health considers patients as unique individuals who respond to treatments differently, whereas EBM treats patients based on their symptoms with evidence-based approaches that supposedly work for most, if not all, people (Cartwright, 2007; Devereaux &Yusuf, 2003). Nakayama’s rhetorical choice to use herself as a model is typical of holistic or integrative health coaches and practitioners; thus, attending to this technique can offer insight into how holistic health coaches attempt to establish themselves in a culture that privileges EBM.

Holistic and integrative health encompass a wide range of practices, from self-care, such as deep breathing and meditation, to professional care, such as acupuncture and chiropractic manipulation, many of which have been invalidated by the EBM community (Derkatch, 2012, pp. 218–219).¹ However, the profession of health and wellness coaching, which fits underneath the umbrella of holistic health, has flourished in recent years, perhaps in part because of the myriad health issues of U.S. citizens related to poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles. Companies and corporations are investing in wellness training for their employees in order to lower insurance costs (Binder, 2014). Andrea Nakayama, in the aforementioned example, has contributed to the popularization of what I am referring to as “do-it-yourself healthcare,” a movement championed by health and nutrition coaches who have gained a wide following through various social media channels. One of the main reasons that holistic healthcare is so appealing is that it empowers the ailing individual, as opposed to mainstream medical care in which patients are dependent upon doctors who operate within rigid time constraints. Holistic health and nutrition coaches share their own negative experiences with EBM and encourage their audiences to follow their lead by taking health matters into their own hands, hence the term “do-it-yourself healthcare.” Of course, much in line with the “self-help” genre, audiences must still rely on the coaches for guidance and subscribe to their methods and protocols (Woodstock, 2006).

Concurrent with the coherence of the do-it-yourself health-care movement is the EBM community’s realization that its gold-standard method, the randomized-controlled trial (RCT), on which it predicates its authority, is inadequate (Sniderman et al., 2013). Articles written by medical doctors, such as one appearing in 2013 in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, suggest that EBM is undergoing a significant change. In the Mayo Clinic Proceedings article, entitled “The Necessity for Clinical Reasoning in the Era of Evidence-Based Medicine,” the authors point to the same tension as Nakayama from the perspective of EBM rather than holistic health, but the two perspectives align in their agreement that patients must be treated as unique individuals. The concept of treating patients as unique, which is a given in holistic health, is termed clinical reasoning by the authors of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings article. This sea change in EBM arguably represents a kairotic moment for holistic health practitioners to elevate their “alternative” methods in society. The case of do-it-yourself-healthcare presents an opportunity for communicators to better understand the rhetoric surrounding the movement toward alternative or holistic health. Such an understanding can lead to improved communication in debates about the benefits of holistic health and EBM.

Nakayama uses a technique that can best be described as argumentation by self-model, and it is ubiquitous in the arena of popular health coaching. I argue that this technique can be considered an extension or elaboration of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s (1969) concept of argumentation by model in The New Rhetoric. Thus, this article intends to complicate an established rhetorical technique as well as to further our understanding of the kinds of communication that can influence perceptions of modern healthcare and potentially create change. In what follows, I review the relevant literature on holistic health and EBM and I then elaborate on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argumentation by model. Argumentation by self-model not only has significance for argumentation and rhetoric but also for professional and technical communication. In communicating about health matters, popular health coaches present themselves rhetorically as authoritative and self-healing. Then, drawing on their status as miraculously healed, they extend that authority to their audiences, opening up the possibility for them to heal as well. Thus, the way in which popular health coaches utilize argumentation by self-model in their personal narratives has consequences for how citizens judge the merits of holistic health and may influence their decision on whether to abandon traditional medical care or not. Despite differences in professional background, intended audience, and area of expertise, popular health coaches practice the same technique and, due to their reach through social media channels, are in a position to incite social change. In the discussion, I offer recommendations for proponents of both holistic health and traditional medicine to improve their communication with knowledge of the technique of argumentation by self-model, including its limitations. Lastly, I address some wider implications of the technique that make it applicable to contexts beyond health communication.

Evidence-Based Medicine and Holistic Health

In 1998, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a special issue on CAM in which the editors state plainly, “There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data, or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking” (Fontanarosa & Lundberg, 1998, p.1618). EBM became the gold standard of medical care in the 1990s, and the RCT quickly became touted as the most rigorous method for determining the efficacy of treatment plans (Derkatch, 2008). For perspective, in the late 1980s, only 5,000 RCTs were published per year, but by 1998, 12,000 were published per year (Devereaux and Yusuf, 2003, p.105). The RCT is prized for its ability to “eliminate bias in the choice of treatment assignments and provide the only means to control for unknown prognostic factors” (Devereaux &Yusuf, 2003, p. 107, emphasis added). Scholars of medical discourse and practice have noted that there are several issues with relying upon RCTs to determine standards of medical care. For example, selection criteria for RCTs are often constrained and trial populations are homogenous, making them clinically inappropriate (Cartwright, 2007, pp. 18–19; Derkatch, 2008, p. 380). Likewise, the “efficacy” of a particular treatment has nothing to do with its performance in real-life scenarios and everything to do with its performance in ideal circumstances (Derkatch, 2008, p. 381). Lastly, there are some protocols that are not conducive to RCTs (Derkatch, 2008, pp. 375–376). Despite the shortcomings of RCTs, scholars interested in the boundary-making practices of EBM have found that the EBM community’s arguments against integrative and holistic practices almost always invoke method. In particular, Derkatch (2008) argues that “in boundary disputes, method can be invoked rhetorically to position a given health practice or study within or beyond the borders of science” (p. 378). This is the case in the special issue of Journal of the American Medical Association mentioned earlier. Derkatch (2008) argues that EBM’s own methods are problematic, and that the study of boundary-making practices can shed light on issues within the modern medical system (pp. 374, 384).

As it turns out, the EBM community has begun to agree with these critiques of its methods, as evidenced by articles such as the Mayo Clinic Proceedings’ “The Necessity for Clinical Reasoning in the Era of Evidence-Based Medicine,” mentioned in the introduction to this paper. A collaborative piece written by two MDs, one MA, and one MD/PhD, the article delves into the current problems with EBM in great detail. The authors, Sniderman et al. (2013), begin by arguing that RCTs are problematic because “the evidence RCTs provide is too often incomplete, inconclusive, absent, or outdated,” and, furthermore, the results of a trial do not account for how individual patients will actually respond to treatment (p. 1109). Sniderman et al. explain how RCTs became the most trusted source of information, but were often written in inaccessible language, leading to a “guidelines process” being instated that culled evidence from multiple RCTs to present the “best” evidence available to doctors (p. 1108). Moreover, they explain that the results of RCTs are not generalizable to diverse populations (p.1110).

Most significantly, the authors directly state the link between the fallibility of RCTs and the limitations of EBM on the whole: “We contend that limitations in the evidence are a major limitation of EBM. For many clinical problems, there is simply no RCT evidence to apply” (Sniderman et al., 2013, p. 1109). The solution, Sniderman et al. argue, is employing clinical reasoning, which, as they define it, is “the disciplined, analytical, scientific approach that integrates all the relevant information in the search for the best approach to diagnosis and therapy for individual patients” (p. 1111). Thus, clinical reasoning is akin to holistic health principles in that it is entirely dependent upon each unique patient.

As explained by the American Holistic Health Association, “The healthcare professionals using the holistic approach work in partnership with their patients. They recommend treatments that support the body’s natural healing system and consider the whole person and the whole situation” (Walter, n.d.). Holistic health practitioners like Nakayama characterize their methods as predicated on having a “passion for the puzzle of biology and biochemistry” and taking the time to help each unique individual solve that puzzle (Nakayama, 2012). For example, in her talk on “Sparking the Change in Healthcare,” Nakayama gives an example of two women presenting similar symptoms but having very different root causes for those symptoms: One had hormonal imbalances and the other suffered from chronic inflammation. The women saw Nakayama after failing to heal with the advice of traditional medical doctors. Nakayama says of traditional medical doctors, “They mean well—really, they do—but they’re missing the point.” Nakayama’s point is that people require different treatments despite having similar symptoms, and they deserve to have health-care providers who are willing to treat the root causes of their symptoms. Nakayama’s description of her methods is, in essence, clinical reasoning.

Although clinical reasoning is touted in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings article as the saving grace of EBM, it is not a part of the medical school curriculum. Rather, Sniderman et al. (2013) argue that it ought to be:

Clinical reasoning is essential to integrate the knowledge from RCTs into a specific clinical context. We need to acknowledge this and value and teach clinical reasoning if we are to appropriately value ourselves as caregivers and meet our responsibilities to patients who have placed their trust in us. (p. 1113)

Ostensibly, those at the forefront of the do-it-yourself health-care movement are in a position to benefit from EBM’s endorsement of clinical reasoning, a practice that is already intrinsic to holistic health. It stands to reason that, in order to capitalize on the kairotic moment in EBM, holistic health and wellness coaches could demonstrate that their methods exemplify clinical reasoning by upholding holistic health principles, like Nakayama does. Doing so might have the effect of elevating the status of holistic health vis-à-vis EBM. However, many popular health coaches have focused instead on the technique of argumentation by self-model, indicating that it has persuasive power in communication involving health and wellness.

Argumentation by Self-Model and Narratives of Personal Transformation

Within the field of technical and professional communication, rhetoric is one of many methodological approaches, and within the realm of health communication, there are tensions between rhetorical approaches and critical-interpretive or critical-cultural approaches (Lynch & Zoller, 2015). In a special issue of Communication Quarterly, Lynch and Zoller highlight these tensions but argue that scholars stop “perpetuating needless disciplinary boundaries” (p. 501) and instead engage with different disciplinary approaches, as “drawing from an array of research methods can build stronger theories and result in complex findings” (p. 502). Rhetorical analysis can be employed for the purposes of improving technical communication (see, e.g., Kuehl & Anderson, 2015) and for advancing pedagogical approaches to technical and professional communication (see, e.g., Landau & Thornton, 2015). Analyzing health communication using Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s (1969) concepts can illuminate concerns regarding power and control in a troubled health-care system as well as prompt consideration of how such communication could be improved.

The concept of argumentation by model merits further expansion and elaboration to account for the distinct types of models available to rhetors. First, a bit of background on the concept. Whereas both argument by example and argument by illustration appear in classical rhetorical manuals, argumentation by model is a term introduced in The New Rhetoric. In Discourse on the Move, Biber et al. (2007) explain,

Another “new” subtype of argument developed by Perelman was the argument of Model. According to Perelman, this type of argument can be employed when the speaker tries to persuade the audience through presenting a specific case as a model to be imitated. Thus, Perelman, led by the necessities of contemporary discourse of argumentation, used Aristotelian theory of persuasion to develop his theory of “new” rhetoric. (p.123)

In The New Rhetoric, argumentation by model is grouped with argumentation by example and illustration in the category concerned with establishing the structure of reality. In contrast to using a specific case to establish or illustrate a general rule, a rhetor who employs argumentation by model takes a specific case, according to Gross and Dearin (2003), “neither to establish nor to illustrate a general rule, but to set before the audience a model to be imitated” (p. 72). As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) put it, “A model shows what behavior to follow, and also serves as a guarantee for an adopted behavior” (p. 364). Such strong language—”serves as a guarantee”—indicates that this is a technique that would be successful at inciting audiences to action.

In The New Rhetoric, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca focus mainly on historical figures and perfect beings as models, and, for the most part, so do current perspectives. For example, van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Johnson, Plantin, and Willard (2013) explain, “A model may consist of an idealized contemporary, but may also be a historical figure or a being represented as perfect” (p. 116). Foss, Foss, and Trapp (2014) offer a slight expansion in their characterization of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept by mentioning legal precedents as models, considering events as models, in addition to people (p. 100). Argumentation by self-model, however, is given thorough consideration neither in The New Rhetoric nor in more current perspectives on the treatise. The closest consideration of the self as model is Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s mentioning, in passing, that “Descartes offers himself as model unto his readers” (p. 364). Similarly, in their depiction of argumentation by model, Gross and Dearin (2003) use a biblical example of the apostle Paul advising his followers to imitate him in Corinthians, but it is merely a passing reference (p. 72). The use of the self as model merits more consideration, as it is becoming ever more relevant in the digital age—not only socially, in an era of selfies and Facebook, but also professionally, in a climate of entrepreneurship and free-lance work. Holding oneself up as a model, in other words, could be the basis for one’s livelihood.

Argumentation by self-model differs markedly from its cognates (e.g., historical figures, perfect beings) in that it is more intertwined with the rhetor’s ethos.² The use of the self as model intensifies the dependence of the argument on the rhetor’s ethos to the extent that it can overshadow, or even stand in for, the evidence for the claims being made. In the case of health communication examined here, the popular health coaches choose to elaborate on their experiences, such that the technique of argumentation by self-model takes on the form of a personal narrative. Narratives are pervasive, and, because of their tendency to pass as mere stories in the mainstream, they have the potential to be a particularly stealthy means of delivering an argument. For example, the fact that Nakayama’s story about her husband’s cancer diagnosis was a calculated persuasive technique may have gone unnoticed by untrained audience members; even Nakayama herself may have been unaware of her rhetorical choices. Scholars from across disciplinary boundaries have considered how and why narratives influence public perceptions and attitudes. As Fisher (1987) asserted, human beings are storytellers by nature—we are, as he puts it, homo narrans. Fisher’s narrative paradigm (elaborated in a monograph and series of articles in the 1980s) prompted widespread debate and led to the development of several rhetorical theories about narrative (see, e.g., Fisher, 1984, 1985, 1987).

Although it is impossible to do justice to these theories here,³ a few narrative concepts are pertinent to this discussion of argumentation by self-model and need to be mentioned: fostering identification (McClure, 2009), inciting audiences to action (Lucaites & Condit, 1985), and creating a rhetoric of possibility (Kirkwood, 1992). First, taking issue with Fisher’s concept of rationality in narratives, McClure emphasizes the necessity of Burkean identification to narrative persuasion in “Resurrecting the Narrative Paradigm” (2009), arguing that “identification is the prime mechanism through which acceptance of an argument or story works or does not” (p. 200). Second, in “Re-constructing Narrative Theory” (1985), Lucaites and Condit argue that “the primary goal of a rhetorical narrative is to advocate something beyond itself” (p. 99). In other words, a rhetorical narrative is aimed at enlisting its audience members to participate or to take action (Lucaites & Condit, 1985, p. 100). Lastly, Kirkwood (1992) explains how the concept of “a rhetoric of possibility” is central to the functions of narratives, particularly in terms of inciting audiences to action. According to Kirkwood, “a rhetoric of possibility must explain how rhetors can evoke possibilities that exist beyond the context in which they first arise, and it must show how rhetors can convince people that these possibilities are within their grasp” (p. 33). Kirkwood’s narrative rhetoric of possibility is predicated on a communicator’s ability to present “the capacity for certain states of mind” and to “create a compelling need” for these possibilities (p. 44). In addition, a study that has a great deal of significance to the do-it-yourself health-care movement is Woodstock’s “All About Me, I Mean, You” (2006), in which she explains that certain techniques remained remarkably consistent in self-help literature between the 19th and 21st centuries, one of them being the authors’ predication of their ethos or authority on their own personal transformations.

Even going as far as to invoke argumentation by model, perhaps unwittingly, Woodstock (2006) explains that self-help authors use their personal transformations “to encourage others to model their own life story on the author’s” (p. 330). As Woodstock puts it, “personal experience, based on successful personal transformation, is the most central of the self-help authors’ claims to knowledge and ability to help others” (p. 328). The narrative concepts mentioned here are essential to expanding Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s argumentation by model to include the use of the self as model, so long as the communicator chooses to use a personal narrative, as opposed to a brief nod to their achievements. Argumentation by self-model is the predominant technique in the personal narratives of popular health coaches, who have to prove that they are at the pinnacle of health and wellness and are therefore worth imitating. But, by zeroing in on personal achievements, these coaches overlook the larger social movement toward do-it-yourself healthcare of which they are a part. Thus, I argue that argumentation by self-model is effective, and even necessary, in the realm of popular health coaching, but that the technique requires reinforcement to incite meaningful changes in healthcare.

Argumentation by Self-Model in the Do-It-Yourself Healthcare Movement

The wellness coaches and practitioners mentioned in this article have achieved wide recognition through social media channels, best-selling books, podcasts, and TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talks, and they have developed wellness-oriented businesses out of their personal and professional endeavors. Whatever the source(s) of initial recognition and fame, podcasting is the primary means of maintaining a prospective client base; free information provided on podcasts typically connects interested listeners to protocols and methods that are not free. Those who have podcasts typically feature interviews with other holistic practitioners and coaches, or they feature the advice of experts in relevant fields, such as psychology and spirituality, to strengthen the burgeoning wellness community’s ethos.⁴ Based on their social visibility in various digital spaces, I submit the examples here as representative of personal narratives in the field of “do-it-yourself healthcare” in its emerging and formative stage. The narrative strategies of these do-it-yourself health-care proponents become clear when we look at the wide range of backgrounds from which these holistic health experts hail: (a) a “biohacker,” (b) a fitness guru, and (c) a celebrity-chef-turned-functional-nutritionist.⁵

Below are snapshots of these three health coaches’ personal narratives that illuminate the technique of argumentation by self-model. The coaches all make two major moves to carry out this technique: First, they claim to be able to help audience members, and they give the impression that their personal situations were, at the start, similar to that of their audience members, which fosters identification. Second, the coaches present their own transformations as possible for their audience members (creating a rhetoric of possibility), thereby inspiring them to subscribe to their protocols (i.e., take action). A paraphrase of the overall argument is, “If you follow my lead, you can heal as I did,” which is an example of eductive reasoning. In Rhetorical Style (2011), Fahnestock explains that eduction is distinct from induction in that it reasons from parallel cases, predicting a new occurrence from a similar preceding one, as opposed to making a generalization (pp. 228–229). Using eductive reasoning, the health coaches argue that if something worked in a particular case (theirs), it will work in the prospective client’s case. Of particular interest in the following analysis is the way in which the coaches predicate their personal transformations on their decisions to abandon traditional medicine. The technique of argumentation by self-model therefore opens up the opportunity to the communicators to advance the tenets of holistic health and to invite audiences to take action in their own health matters.

Narrative 1: The Biohacker

Dave Asprey is the founder of “The Bulletproof Executive,” a company based on Asprey’s penchant for “biohacking,” a newly minted term for what is essentially medical self-experimentation. Asprey has gained more popularity recently for his “bulletproof coffee” recipe (it involves mixing butter and other oils into coffee in place of a traditional breakfast), and he provides other tools for becoming “bulletproof,” including diets, exercise regimens, and supplements, on his website, blog, and podcast.

Asprey (2015a) opens his narrative with a claim about the ways in which clients can benefit from his experiences. Specifically, Asprey promises to share with his subscribers how to become “bulletproof”: “Discover how to upgrade your body and your mind using the proven Bulletproof® blueprint to enter your state of high performance every single day.” Then, he argues that, by using his Bulletproof plan, clients can exceed their own expectations for themselves: “You can think faster, have limitless focus and energy, laugh at food cravings, and . . . No matter who you are, you can get even better” (Asprey, 2015a). Thus, he extends the possibility of becoming like him to his audience. Asprey has developed a community around his “Bulletproof” protocol:

Belonging to a community of people who care as much about personal performance as you do will make your performance better, and it’s even easier to win when you have expert guidance from someone who walks the path of peak performance . . .” (Asprey, 2015a, emphasis added)

He promises readers success if they join his community and follow his “expert guidance.”

To create a sense of identification with his audience, Asprey describes how he was before he began his quest to become bulletproof: as overweight and tired (“a tired 300 pound young adult”), symptoms that are relatively generic and might make him seem relatable. As a result of his personal research efforts, Asprey claims, he was able to make an impressive turn-around:

[. . .] it took nearly 20 years and $300,000 to learn how to do things that aren’t supposed to be possible and then to use them to be a better entrepreneur, husband, and father. Things like how to upgrade my brain (12 IQ points), get lean quickly (after weighing 300 lbs. 15 years ago), have more energy, or just give a press conference in 4 different countries in 4 days without getting sick (Asprey, 2015a, emphasis added).

His list of achievements may sound appealing, but Asprey does not divulge his actual process for achieving wellness; rather, access to information, whether through personal research, education, or self-experimentation, serves as a placeholder for methods, and his own amazing transformation is a placeholder for evidence that he can help others. What Asprey does call attention to are the inadequacies of traditional medical care, as he claims that he had to talk to over one hundred doctors, in addition to experts in other fields, in order to get the healthcare that he desired for himself: His efforts involved “distilling the knowledge of more than 120 world-class doctors, biochemists, Olympic nutritionists, and meditation experts” (Asprey, 2015b). Asprey writes as if he has achieved self-actualization, or as if he has reached the pinnacle of well-being, and he holds himself up as a model for his readers to imitate.

Narrative 2: The Fitness Guru

The fitness coach Shawn Stevenson’s projects encompass a blog, podcast, and various fitness and lifestyle protocols. Stevenson authored Sleep Smarter and has delivered TED talks in addition to cultivating his social media presence. In his weekly podcast, which is titled “The Model Health Show,” he encourages his guest speakers to share their “superhero origin stories,” referring to how they earned success in their personal and professional lives. Likewise, Stevenson shares his own superhero origin story in his personal narrative.

Stevenson’s narrative begins similarly to Asprey’s, as he claims to be able to “help you become the strongest, healthiest, happiest version of yourself” (Stevenson, 2015). He continues, “I’ve seen people reverse chronic illnesses, achieve stunning levels of fitness, and lose thousands of pounds collectively” (Stevenson, 2015). Significantly, neither Asprey nor Stevenson say what, exactly, they do to help clients achieve those seemingly impossible goals of “having limitless focus and energy” (Asprey)⁶ or “reversing chronic illness” (Stevenson). Both coaches set up a “rhetoric of possibility,” in the sense that Kirkwood (1992) describes it, by “creating a compelling need” to become “the best version of yourself” (p. 44). The distinction between becoming well and becoming the best version of yourself can be explained by the recent shift in genre title from “self-help” to “self-improvement,” which Woodstock (2006) considers a marketing strategy: “The generalized reader constructed in self-help texts is so broadly framed that seemingly no one falls outside the frame” (p. 337). The idea is that some people might already be “well” but everybody can improve.

To reach out to his audience members, Stevenson, like Asprey, describes how he was before he healed himself—specifically, he struggled with degenerative disc disease: “Seemingly overnight I was in excruciating pain, I lost a great deal of function in my leg, and I could barely get from room to room in my house, let alone get around on campus anymore” (Stevenson, 2015). He explains his negative experiences with traditional medical doctors, who told him that his spinal condition was incurable:

You see, up until then I put all of my belief on what the doctors were telling me . . . that nothing could be done, and I just needed to ‘manage’ the disease. It wasn’t until I stopped accepting that nothing could be done, and instead shifted my focus on what I must do to improve my health and well-being [sic]. (Stevenson, 2015)

To cure himself, Stevenson explains, “I began to devour everything that I could that had to do with health and the human body. I changed my diet (even though my doctor said it wouldn’t have any impact), exercised in very specific ways . . .” Then, he exclaims, as if it were a magical turnaround, “Most importantly, the pain was gone!” (Stevenson, 2015). Stevenson presents his self-healing as though he made the impossible—at least within the framework of traditional medicine—possible.

To extend the possibility of his transformation to others, Stevenson explains, “From that point on, I dedicated my life to helping others achieve the health and well-being that they deserve to have” (Stevenson, 2015). His mission is to correct misinformation and to make “proven information” accessible to his clients. It is the promise of information, then, and not actual information about his methods and protocols, that Stevenson offers his readers: “I think that you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how much life-changing information I’m able to share with you” (Stevenson, 2015). Regardless of whether or not Stevenson does share life-changing information in his podcast, “The Model Health Show,” the point to be taken here is that he does not share any of his methods in his personal narrative, although this would have been an opportunity to connect with readers and entice them to subscribe to his podcast. Instead, Stevenson sticks to his own story and uses it to hold himself up as a model for those who are ailing or simply wanting to be a better version of themselves.

Narrative 3: The Celebrity-Chef-Turned-Holistic-Nutritionist

Alexandra Jamieson is perhaps best known for cocreating and costarring in the 2004 documentary Super Size Me featuring (her then-husband) Morgan Spurlock’s fast-food experiment. She runs a blog and podcast called “The Crave Cast” and has authored the best-selling book Women, Food, and Desire. Despite the differences between her background and the others’, Jamieson’s personal narrative relies on the same set of techniques to persuade her audience to subscribe to her protocol.

Like Asprey and Stevenson, Jamieson opens with a claim, but instead of casting it in the future, as a possibility, she uses the present tense in a way that exudes certainty as opposed to probability:

I coach women going through big life shake-ups to double-down on self-care, nutrition, and pleasure, and master a positive mindset, to create the energy and peace they desire in their bodies, so they can be resilient, effective and happy in their lives. (Jamieson, 2015)

The construction of this claim as a statement of what Jamieson already does suggests that she succeeds without a doubt at helping clients. Jamieson’s initial claim is followed by a series of parallel statements that repeat the opening “I’m done with . . .” and that list common frustrations pertaining to dieting. For example, she writes, “I’m done with the body-shaming, nutrition-crazy, upside-down world of health. I’m done with how our body’s cravings are labeled as bad. You too? Then this is the place for you . . .” (Jamieson, 2015). The choice to use anaphora, the repetition of the beginnings of successive clauses, creates “emphasis and emotional heightening,” according to Fahnestock (2011, p. 230). Jamieson’s choice to use the specific phrasing “I’m done with” positions Jamieson as allied with her prospective clients, in the sense that she has faced the same frustrations that they have.

Her last “I’m done with” statement segues into another example of strategic repetition, this time a series of statements beginning with “We want”: “We want energy, love, joy, peace, confidence, connection . . . and we want to love food and our bodies. We want to feel good about our desires, and this is the place to discover, share, and nurture them” (Jamieson, 2015). Transitioning into statements beginning with “We want” not only serves to include her audience (“we”) but also creates a sense of community and belonging. Jamieson’s pathetic appeal consists of creating a sense of identification with her audiences and tapping into their feelings of frustration and isolation.

To further the impression that she identifies with audience members, Jamieson describes herself prior to her personal transformation, which is a technique used by the other coaches as well. Jamieson explains, “Even though I was raised on an old organic farm by health-conscious parents in Portland, Oregon, I was addicted to sugar and did everything I could to feed my craving” (Jamieson, 2015). A sugar addiction is a generic enough “ailment” to ensure that the majority of her audience will be able to relate to her. Like Asprey and Stevenson, Jamieson calls into question the cultural assumption that “doctor knows best.” She goes as far as to set up a binary between listening to doctor’s orders and “choosing to heal”: “my decades of unhealthy habits brought me to a crossroads: either take the handful of prescriptions recommended by my doctor, or heal my body . . . I chose to heal” (Jamieson, 2015). Jamieson presents her path to healing as a model for her readers:

With support and education, I found a diet that worked for me and my body. I adopted a vegan diet and lifestyle, and stepped into a life of cooking, teaching, and writing. I detoxed, got clear about my purpose in life, quit the soul-crushing job, said goodbye to the unfulfilling relationship, and rebuilt a life and way of living that inspired me to act, and eat, with intention, every day. (Jamieson, 2015)

In the same way as the other two coaches, Jamieson positions her information gathering as a precursor to successful transformation, furthering the idea that traditional medical doctors are unwilling to search for cures on behalf of their suffering patients, opting instead to write prescriptions to mask symptoms. Jamieson shares lifestyle changes that “healed” her (e.g., quitting a soul-crushing job), suggesting that attendance to mental health and wellness can take the place of the prescriptions her doctor recommended.

To extend the possibility of healing to her audience, Jamieson alludes to sharing information as a means of achieving the results that she did. She describes her mission as being “about my journey through health, my client’s discoveries and successes, and the tools I’ve learned along the way and how they can help you, too” (Jamieson, 2015). She concludes her narrative with a series of parallel statements, the same way that she opened the narrative: “No matter what diets you’ve tried, you can have a body you love. No matter how exhausted you are right now, you can create more energy. No matter how lost and defeated you feel, you can feel inspired again” (Jamieson, 2015). This repetition of “no matter . . . you can” summons up the frustration and discontentment of her audience in order to then guarantee success and instill hope in them.

The Three Narratives: Commentary

In summary, all three health coaches employ argumentation by self-model, which can be paraphrased as follows: Achieving optimum wellness seems impossible, but it was possible for me. Therefore, you can achieve optimum wellness if you do what I did. The popular health coaches use their personal transformations to demonstrate that the seemingly impossible is actually achievable by the audience members. Given that all three of these health coaches from varying backgrounds have used the technique of argumentation by self-model, and that they all have the generated a following for themselves, it would seem as though the technique has assisted their efforts at growing a client base. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) note that a model “serves as a guarantee for an adopted behavior” (p. 364). The “guarantee” of clients achieving the same seemingly impossible results as the coaches is predicated on the fact that it worked at least once before—for them, personally. If the health coaches were not able to present themselves as models who are worthy of imitation—that is, if they were not able to use their experiences as proof that abandoning traditional medical care is safe, and even beneficial—it is likely that their attempts at persuasion would be far less effective. For this reason, the use of argumentation by self-model would appear to be an essential component of the rhetoric of the do-it-yourself health-care movement.

Significantly, the failure of EBM, or at the very least, institutionalized medicine, is presented as the catalyst for positive personal transformation in all of these coaches’ personal narratives. Indeed, these coaches suggest that their positive results are deemed “impossible” in a culture that privileges EBM; in order to achieve life-changing results, it is necessary to stop relying on traditional medical doctors. Because all of the coaches position their departure from traditional medicine as essential to their healing and transformation processes, one might expect to find a brief description of how these proponents of holistic health approach their clients’ needs—that is, a brief description of their methods. Besides self-education, experimentation, and abandoning their traditional medical doctors’ advice, what the health coaches did, exactly, to heal themselves, is unmentioned. Audience members who want to understand the distinctions between what traditional medicine and holistic health can offer them would be unsatisfied.

Discussion

The rhetorical analysis in the previous section provides insight into the communicative choices of popular health coaches in their efforts to persuade audiences to abandon traditional medicine. In this section, I offer recommendations for improving these types of health communication efforts. Framing this article with Andrea Nakayama’s personal narrative was a calculated choice, as her narrative can stand as a model for the other popular health coaches. She, too, employs argumentation by self-model, but she supplements it with a statement of her methods for helping clients. In her narrative, Nakayama explains, “Using food and supplemental therapies, we work from the core of the body to heal the gut, balance hormones, and support the detoxification of organs” (Nakayama, 2016). By way of comparison, Stevenson actually refers to a “secret sauce” for helping his clients: “In order to become this incredible, strong, happy, healthy version of yourself, you first have to identify WHY you need to become it. And that’s where my secret sauce comes in” (Stevenson, 2015). The key distinction between Nakayama and the others is that she places value on her methods and thus presents her clients with a clear alternative to institutionalized medical care. When faced with a “secret sauce” and a brief, but concrete statement of methodology, an ailing person who is desperate enough for a cure might be persuaded either way. However, those who are in any way skeptical of alternatives to institutionalized medicine would be more likely to dismiss the “secret sauce,” and, possibly, holistic health in general. Rather than using argumentation by self-model as an advertisement or a “teaser”—and running the risk of losing prospective clients who are not already willing to agree with their premises—the coaches could elaborate on and highlight personal experiences and methods, as Nakayama does. The distinction between Nakayama and the others can be explained by Jensen et al.’s (2010) concept of a transcendent persona, which has argumentation by self-model at its core, though the authors do not explicitly mention it.

As I see it, the three main qualities of a transcendent persona, as explained by Jensen et al. (2010), overlap with the theories of narrative elaborated earlier in this article: (a) “the rhetor speaks from the position of having done that which others assumed was impossible, thus establishing credibility by proving wrong basic assumptions about the world”; (b) the rhetor must be able “to balance distance from audiences—the mystery—with similarities to them—identification”; and (c) the rhetor creates a “tool box from which audiences can draw to begin communicating and acting in transformative ways” (pp. 5–6). In the particular case examined in this essay, the personal narratives of health coaches follow a truncated version of this template; that is, they hold themselves up as models worthy of imitation, attempt to identify with their audiences, but stop short of creating a “tool box” for their audiences. By both describing traditional medicine as inadequate or misguided at best and damaging at worst, and championing holistic health principles, the coaches set up an opportunity to describe their protocols to prospective clients, but they do not follow through. Nakayama, however, does offer tools in the form of a brief statement of her methods. Although this distinction may seem minor, it could mean the difference between preaching to the choir, so to speak, and reaching audience members who may be skeptical about alternative or holistic health. In other words, the variable of a presentation of methods—the equivalent of a “tool box,” in Jensen et al.’s terminology—might be the key to inciting social action and creating change in the context of the tensions between holistic health and traditional medicine.

To capitalize on the opportunity, the coaches would have to configure their values, which, in many instances, align with the Mayo Clinic Proceedings article’s description of clinical reasoning, into a statement of their methods. For example, the practices that the health coaches used to heal themselves, such as attending to their unique physiologies, taking into consideration their whole bodies when addressing issues, and integrating mental wellness into healing processes can all be seen as aspects of “clinical reasoning.” Jamieson, for instance, characterizes the “world of health” as “body-shaming, nutrition-crazy, upside-down” and distinguishes her approach by emphasizing “a positive mindset” to reconnect the mind with the body (Jamieson, 2015). Casting their strengths explicitly as the very weaknesses of EBM, elaborating on how their approaches differ from the treatment they received from traditional doctors, might assist communicators in persuading more skeptical audience members, but, more importantly, it would position them to make a broader social argument for trying holistic health protocols.

On the flipside, the concept of argumentation by self-model could prove useful to the communicative efforts of traditional medical doctors, who perhaps focus too much on methods at the expense of cultivating personal connections with clients. Although traditional medical doctors consider their approaches to be evidence-based, as opposed to the “non-scientific” approaches of holistic health practitioners, their methods are just as rhetorical as their holistic counterparts. Still, doctors may resist using appeals from pathos, likely thanks to the longstanding tradition of shunning emotional discourse in scientific studies, which privilege “objectivity” (see, e.g., Waddell, 1997). The traditional concept of a good doctor as resolute and reliant on “objective” data is an example of the rhetorical techniques embraced by evidence-based medicine. In studying autism rhetorics, Jack (2014) has noted that doctors have had to learn to use emotional appeals in order to respond to what she calls “mother warriors,” who are opposed to vaccinating their children:

Responding to mother warriors has required scientists and doctors to develop new forms of authority and appeal, including emotional appeals not usually considered appropriate for the character of the paternalistic, disinterested scientist. (p. 103)

Perhaps traditional medical doctors have something to learn from holistic health practitioners, particularly Nakayama, who is able to balance emotionally-charged narrative with a clear statement of her methods for healing others. There has been a great deal of scholarship on the subject of doctor–patient communication (see, e.g., Derkatch, 2011; Meloncon & Frost, 2015; Ragan, Mindt, & Wittenberg-Lyles, 2005; Sunwolf, Frey, & Keranen, 2005; Zerbe, 2008). Regarding the contributions of rhetorical studies to health communication, Scott, Segal, and Keranen (2013) maintain that,

While rhetoricians of health and medicine may not suggest specific corrections to a flawed system, we do, ultimately, believe our work shares some type of ameliorative aim—perhaps, ultimately, helping to improve medical training, patient-provider interaction, public health efforts, and health literacy. (p. 2)

Argumentation by model could offer a new way of approaching these fraught relationships. For example, doctors could use their own experiences as patients in order to create a sense of identification with their patients, or they could use their experiences with other patients (without using names and identifiers, so as to prevent ethical breeches) to explore treatment options. One could argue that evidence-based medicine will eventually need to engage with the emotional appeals used by holistic health practitioners in order to maintain its privileged status in society.

Conclusion

Popular health coaches leading the do-it-yourself health-care movement are, at least in the short term, profiting from personal narratives that employ argumentation by self-model to stand in for their methods for helping clients. Considering their narratives in the larger context of EBM’s recent self-critique, however, we could argue that, in the long term, over-valuing personal experience and under-valuing methods will be insufficient for sparking the change in healthcare that Nakayama advocates for in her talk mentioned at the beginning of this essay. The use of argumentation by self-model serves the individual projects of the coaches, but, when used on its own, it also suggests a lack of awareness of the larger social issues regarding healthcare. Like the other health coaches, Nakayama does use herself as a model for her audience, but unlike the other health coaches, she also discusses her methods for helping clients and explicitly distinguishes them from mainstream medical practice. Put differently, seizing the rhetorical moment entails engaging with the realization in the EBM community that over-reliance on “logical,” “objective” data is ineffective and that treating the unique individual ought to be paramount.

In addition to showing a persuasive trend in popular health communication, this article has introduced a new way of looking at Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argumentation by model by considering the persuasive effects of the use of the self as model. Whereas Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca and scholars of their work have mentioned the possibility of using the self as model in passing, there has not yet been a full consideration of this iteration of the technique. Argumentation by self-model can range from communicators giving a brief mention of their personal achievements to elaborating on their experiences to create a narrative, the latter being the focus of this paper. By analyzing the usage of argumentation by self-model in the context of the do-it-yourself health-care movement, I have hoped to provide insight into what the technique can offer communicators, in addition to considering its limitations.

Argumentation by self-model will likely have a different set of advantages and disadvantages in other situations. The technique could be used as a theoretical apparatus for analyzing discourse in online forums—health forums, to be sure—but also forums used for other purposes, such as product or business reviews. Further exploration of the concept might consider cases in which it is used in conjunction with other means of persuasion to bring about positive (or negative) effects. If used purposefully and in conjunction with other forms of evidence, argumentation by self-model could be quite advantageous in the digital era. For example, the use of argumentation by self-model is likely prolific in the business sector, especially by entrepreneurs and free-lancers who rely on their carefully constructed presentation of their previous experiences for employment opportunities. Moreover, studying the ways in which successful entrepreneurs hold themselves up as models can be of pedagogical use, particularly in technical and professional communication. Acknowledging the technique of argumentation by self-model as a unique iteration of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of argumentation by model affords scholars and teachers a new way of exploring the boundaries between personal and professional communication.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Maria E Gigante, PhD is an assistant professor of Rhetoric and Writing Studies in the English department at Western Michigan University. Her research concerns both current and historical cases of visual communication between scientific communities and non-expert public audiences. Her work can also be found in Rhetoric Review. She is interested in pursuing projects that involve collaboration between STEM fields and the humanities.

References

Asprey, D. (2015a). About bulletproof. The Bulletproof Executive. Retrieved from https://www.bulletproofexec.com/the-state-of-high-performance/.

Asprey, D. (2015b). New readers. The Bulletproof Executive. Retrieved from https://www.bulletproofexec.com/new-readers/.

Biber

Connor

Upton

T. A.

(2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.

Binder, L. (2014, September 26). Employers reining in health care costs, but with a twist. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/2014/09/26/employers-reining-in-health-care-costs-but-with-a-twist/#3d70cc556474.

Cartwright

(2007) Are RCTs the gold standard? Biosocieties 2(1): 11–20.

Croxton, S. (2015). About. Underground Wellness. Retrieved from http://undergroundwellness.com/about/.

Derkatch

(2008) Method as argument: Boundary work in evidence-based medicine. Social Epistemology 22(4): 371–388.

Derkatch

(2011) Does biomedicine control for rhetoric? Configuring practitioner-patient interaction. In: Leach

Dysart-Gale

(eds) Rhetorical questions of health and medicine, Plymouth, England: Lexington Books, pp. 129–153.

Derkatch

(2012) Demarcating medicine’s boundaries: Constituting and categorizing in the Journals of the American Medical Association. Technical Communication Quarterly 21(3): 210–229.

10.

Devereaux

P. J.

Yusuf

(2003) The evolution of the randomized controlled trial and its role in evidence-based decision making. Journal of Internal Medicine 254: 105–113.

11.

Fahnestock

(2011) Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

12.

Fisher

(1984) Narration as a human communication paradigm, the case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs 51: 1–22.

13.

Fisher

(1985) The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communication Monographs 52: 347–367.

14.

Fisher

(1987) Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value and action, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

15.

Fontanarosa

P. B.

Lundberg

G. D.

(1998) Alternative medicine meets science. Journal of the American Medical Association 280(18): 1618–1619.

16.

Foss

S. K.

Foss

K. A.

Trapp

(2014) Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric: 30th anniversary edition, Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

17.

Gross

A. G.

Dearin

R. D.

(2003) Chaim Perelman, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

18.

Jack

(2014) Autism and gender: From refrigerator mothers to computer geeks, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

19.

Jamieson, A. (2015). About. Alexandra Jamieson. Retrieved from http://alexandrajamieson.com/about/.

20.

Jensen

R. E.

Doss

E. F.

Janssen

C. I.

Bower

S. A.

(2010) Theorizing the transcendent persona: Amelia Earhart’s vision in The Fun of It. Communication Theory 20: 1–20.

21.

Kirkwood

W. G.

(1992) Narrative and the rhetoric of possibility. Communication Monographs 59: 30–47.

22.

Kuehl

R. A.

Anderson

(2015) Designing public communication about doulas: Analyzing presence and absence in promoting a volunteer doula program. Communication Design Quarterly 3(4): 75–84.

23.

Landau

Thornton

D. J.

(2015) Teaching rhetoric of health and medicine to undergraduates: Citizens, interdisciplinarity, and affect. Communication Quarterly 63(5): 527–532.

24.

Lucaites

J. L.

Condit

C. M.

(1985) Re-constructing narrative theory: A functional perspective. Journal of Communication 35(4): 90–108.

25.

Lynch

J. A.

Zoller

(2015) Recognizing differences and commonalities: The rhetoric of health and medicine and critical-interpretive health communication. Communication Quarterly 63(5): 498–503.

26.

McClure

(2009) Resurrecting the narrative paradigm: Identification and the case of young earth creationism. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 39(2): 189–211.

27.

Meloncon

Frost

E. A.

(2015) Charting an emerging field: The rhetorics of health and medicine and its importance in communication design. Communication Design Quarterly 3(4): 7–14.

28.

Nakayama, A. (2012, July). Action potential: Sparking the change in healthcare. KC Baker’s School of the Well-Spoken Woman. Retrieved from http://replenishpdx.com/video/sf-talk/.

29.

Nakayama, A. (2016). About. Replenish PDX. Retrieved from http://www.replenishpdx.com/about/.

30.

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (2016, April 12). Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: What’s in a name? Retrieved from https://nccih.nih.gov/health/integrative-health.

31.

Perelman

Olbrechts-Tyteca

Wilkinson

Weaver

Trans (1969) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, Notre Dame, France: University of Notre Dame Press.

32.

Ragan

S. L.

Mindt

Wittenberg-Lyles

(2005) Narrative medicine and education in palliative care. In: Harter

L. M.

Japp

P. M.

Beck

C. S.

(eds) Narratives, health, and healing: Communication theory, research, and practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 259–275.

33.

Rowland

R. C.

(1989) On limiting the narrative paradigm: Three case studies. Communication Monographs 56: 39–54.

34.

Scott

Segal

J. Z.

Keranen

(2013) The rhetorics of health and medicine: Inventional possibilities for scholarship and engaged practice. POROI 9(1): 1–6.

35.

Sniderman

A. D.

LaChapelle

K. J.

Rachon

N. A.

Furberg

C. D.

(2013) The necessity for clinical reasoning in the era of evidence-based medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 88(10): 1108–1114.

36.

Stevenson, S. (2015). About. The Shawn Stevenson Model. Retrieved from http://theshawnstevensonmodel.com/about/.

37.

Stroud

S. R.

(2004) Narrative as argument in the Indian philosophy: The Astavakra Gita as multivalent narrative. Philosophy and Rhetoric 37: 42–71.

38.

Sunwolf Frey

L. R.

Keranen

(2005) Rx story prescriptions: Healing effects of storytelling and storylistening in the practice of medicine. In: Harter

L. M.

Japp

P. M.

Beck

C. S.

(eds) Narratives, health, and healing: Communication theory, research, and practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 237–257.

39.

van Eemeren

F. A.

Grootendorst

Johnson

R. H.

Plantin

Willard

C. A.

(2013) Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments, New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Waddell

(1997) The role of pathos in the decision-making process: A study in the rhetoric of science policy. In: Harris

R. A.

(ed.) Landmark essays in the rhetoric of science, Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press, pp. 127–149.

41.

Walter, S. (n.d.). Holistic health. American Holistic Health Association. Retrieved from http://ahha.org/selfhelp-articles/holistic-health/.

42.

Warnick

(1987) The narrative paradigm: Another story. Quarterly Journal of Speech 73: 172–182.

43.

Woodstock

(2006) All about me, I mean, you: The trouble with narrative authority in self-help literature. The Communication Review 9(4): 321–346.

44.

Zerbe

M. J.

(2008) From the frontiers of IMRAD: Nontraditional medical research in two cancer journals. In: Heifferon

Brown

S. C.

(eds) Rhetoric of healthcare: Essays toward a new disciplinary inquiry, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc, pp. 203–220.