Rhetorical analysis essay

All images © Andy Anderson, Lone River Productions

Rhetorical Analysis 6

If you watched the 2013 Super Bowl between the Baltimore Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers, you may remember the commercial. For two solemn minutes, still photographs of rural America and the people who work there moved across the screen accompanied by the unmistakable voice of the late Paul Harvey reading words he had first delivered in 1978. Maria Godoy of NPR described it this way: “It may not have been as dra- matic as the stadium blackout that halted play for more than a half- hour, or as extravagant as Beyonce’s halftime show. But for many viewers of Super Bowl XLVII, one of the standout moments was a deceptively simple ad for the Dodge Ram called ‘God Made a Farmer.’” It was a fourth quarter interrupted by cattle, churches, snowy farmyards, bales of hay, plowed fields, hardworking men, and a few sturdy women. Occasionally, a slide discreetly showed a Ram truck, sponsor of the video, but there were no overt sales pitches — only a product logo in the final frame. Yet visits to the Ram Web site spiked immediately, and sales of Ram pickups did too. (The official video has been viewed on YouTube more than 17 million times.)

87

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 87 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS88

So how to account for the appeal of such an unconventional and unexpected commercial? That would be the work of a rhetorical analy- sis, the close reading of a text or, in this case, a video commercial, to figure out exactly how it functions. Certainly, the creators of “God Made a Farmer” counted on the strong emotional appeal of the photographs they’d commissioned, guessing perhaps that the expert images and Harvey’s spellbinding words would contrast powerfully with the frivolity and emptiness of much Super Bowl ad fare:

God said, “I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt. And watch it die. Then dry his eyes and say, ‘Maybe next year.’”

They pushed convention, too, by the length of the spot and the muted product connection, doubtless hoping to win the goodwill of a huge audience suddenly all teary-eyed in the midst of a football game. And they surely gained the respect of a great many truck-buying farmers.

Rhetorical analyses can also probe the contexts that surround any argument or text — its impact on a society, its deeper implications, or even what it lacks or whom it excludes. Predictably, the widely admired Ram commercial (selected #1 Super Bowl XLVII spot by Adweek) acquired its share of critics, some attacking it for romanticizing farm life, others for ignoring the realities of industrial agriculture. And not a few writers noted what they regarded as glaring absences in its representation of farmers. Here, for instance, is copywriter and blogger Edye Deloch- Hughes, offering a highly personal and conflicted view of the spot in what amounts to an informal rhetorical analysis:

. . . I was riveted by the still photography and stirring thirty-five-year- old delivery of legendary radio broadcaster Paul Harvey. But as I sat mesmerized, I waited to see an image that spoke to my heritage. What flashed before me were close-ups of stoic white men whose faces drowned out the obligatory medium shots of a minority token or two; their images minimized against the amber waves of grain.

God made a Black farmer too. Where was my Grandpa, Grandma and Great Granny? My Auntie and Uncle Bolden? And didn’t God make Hispanic and Native American farmers? They too were under- represented.

I am the offspring of a century and a half of African-American care- takers of the land, from Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana, who experienced their toils and troubles, their sun ups and sun downs. Their injustices and beat-downs. I wrestled with my mixed emotions; loving the commercial and feeling dejected at the same time.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 88 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 89

. . . Minimizing positive Black imagery and accomplishments is as American as wrestling cattle. We’re often footnotes or accessories in history books, TV shows, movies and magazines as well as TV com- mercials. When content is exceptional, the omission is harder to rec- ognize or criticize. Some friends of mine saw — or rather felt — the omission as I did. Others did not. I say be aware and vocal about how you are represented — if represented at all, otherwise your importance and relevance will be lost.

— Edye Deloch-Hughes, “So God Made a Black Farmer Too”

As this example suggests, whenever you undertake a rhetorical analysis, follow your instincts and look closely. Why does an ad for a cell phone or breakfast sandwich make people want one immediately? How does an op-ed piece in the Washington Post suddenly change your long-held posi- tion on immigration? A rhetorical analysis might help you understand. Dig as deep as you can into the context of the item you are analyzing, especially when you encounter puzzling, troubling, or unusually suc- cessful appeals — ethical, emotional, or logical. Ask yourself what strate- gies a speech, editorial, opinion column, film, or ad spot employs to move your heart, win your trust, and change your mind — or why, maybe, it fails to do so.

Composing a Rhetorical Analysis

You perform a rhetorical analysis by analyzing how well the compo- nents of an argument work together to persuade or move an audience. You can study arguments of any kind — advertisements (as we’ve seen), editorials, political cartoons, and even songs, movies, or photographs. In every case, you’ll need to focus your rhetorical analysis on elements that stand out or make the piece intriguing or problematic. You could begin by exploring some of the following issues:

● What is the purpose of this argument? What does it hope to achieve?

● Who is the audience for this argument? Who is ignored or excluded?

● What appeals or techniques does the argument use — emotional, log- ical, ethical?

● What type of argument is it, and how does the genre affect the argu- ment? (You might challenge the lack of evidence in editorials, but you wouldn’t make the same complaint about bumper stickers.)

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 89 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS90

● Who is making the argument? What ethos does it create, and how does it do so? What values does the ethos evoke? How does it make the writer or creator seem trustworthy?

● What authorities does the argument rely on or appeal to?

● What facts, reasoning, and evidence are used in the argument? How are they presented?

● What claims does the argument make? What issues are raised — or ignored or evaded?

● What are the contexts — social, political, historical, cultural — for this argument? Whose interests does it serve? Who gains or loses by it?

● How is the argument organized or arranged? What media does the argument use and how effectively?

● How does the language or style of the argument persuade an audience?

In answering questions like these, try to show how the key devices in an argument actually make it succeed or fail. Quote freely from a written piece, or describe the elements in a visual argument. (Anno- tating a visual text is one option.) Let readers know where and why an argument makes sense and where it falls apart. If you believe that an argument startles, challenges, insults, or lulls audiences, explain why that is the case and provide evidence. Don’t be surprised when your rhetorical analysis itself becomes an argument. That’s what it should be.

Understanding the Purpose of Arguments You Are Analyzing

To understand how well any argument works, begin with its purpose: Is it to sell running shoes? To advocate for limits to college tuition? To push a political agenda? In many cases, that purpose may be obvious. A con- servative blog will likely advance right-wing causes; ads from a baby food company will likely show happy infants delighted with stewed prunes.

But some projects may hide their persuasive intentions. Perhaps you’ve responded to a mail survey or telephone poll only to discover that the questions are leading you to switch your cable service or buy apart- ment insurance. Do such stealthy arguments succeed? Do consumers

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 90 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 91

resent the intrusion? Answering questions like these provides material for useful rhetorical analyses that assess the strengths, risks, and ethics of such strategies.

Understanding Who Makes an Argument

Knowing who is claiming what is key to any rhetorical analysis. That’s why persuasive appeals usually have a name attached to them. Remem- ber the statements included in TV ads during the last federal election: “Hello, I’m X — and I approve this ad”? Federal law requires such state- ments so we can tell the difference between ads a candidate endorses and ones sponsored by groups not even affiliated with the campaigns. Their interests and motives might be very different.

But knowing a name is just a starting place for analysis. You need to dig deeper, and you could do worse than to Google such people or groups to discover more about them. What else have they produced? Who publishes them: the Wall Street Journal, the blog The Daily Kos, or even a LiveJournal celebrity gossip site such as Oh No They Didn’t? Check out related Web sites for information about goals, policies, contribu- tors, and funding.

Funny, offensive, or both? © Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 91 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS92

R E S P O N D. Describe a persuasive moment that you can recall from a speech, an editorial, an advertisement, a YouTube clip, or a blog posting. Or research one of the following famous persuasive moments and describe the circumstances — the historical situation, the issues at stake, the purpose of the argument — that make it so memorable.

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (1863)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Declaration of Sentiments at the Seneca Falls Convention (1848)

Chief Tecumseh’s address to General William Henry Harrison (1810)

Winston Churchill’s radio addresses to the British people during World War II (1940)

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963)

Ronald Reagan’s tribute to the Challenger astronauts (1986)

Toni Morrison’s speech accepting the Nobel Prize (1993)

Will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song/collage on YouTube (2008)

Identifying and Appealing to Audiences

Most arguments are composed with specific audiences in mind, and their success depends, in part, on how well their strategies, content, tone, and language meet the expectations of that audience. So your rhe- torical analysis of an argumentative piece should identify its target read- ers or viewers (see “Appealing to Audiences,” p. 21) if possible, or make an educated guess about the audience, since most arguments suggest whom they intend to reach and in what ways.

Both a flyer stapled to a bulletin board in a college dorm (“Why you shouldn’t drink and drive”) and a forty-foot billboard for Bud Light might be aimed at the same general population — college students. But each will adjust its appeals for the different moods of that group in different moments. For starters, the flyer will appeal to students in a serious vein, while the beer ad will probably be visually stunning and virtually text-free.

You might also examine how a writer or an argument establishes cred- ibility with an audience. One effective means of building credibility is to show respect for your readers or viewers, especially if they may not agree

The Lebanon Daily News explores

how audiences reacted to an

expensive marketing campaign in

“Coca-Cola’s Multilingual ‘America’

Ad Didn’t Hit Any Wrong Notes.”

LINK TO P. 570

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 92 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 93

with you. In introducing an article on problems facing African American women in the workplace, editor in chief of Essence Diane Weathers consid- ers the problems that she faced with respecting all her potential readers:

We spent more than a minute agonizing over the provocative cover line for our feature “White Women at Work.” The countless stories we had heard from women across the country told us that this was a workplace issue we had to address. From my own experience at sev- eral major magazines, it was painfully obvious to me that Black and White women are not on the same track. Sure, we might all start out in the same place. But early in the game, most sisters I know become stuck — and the reasons have little to do with intelligence or drive. At some point we bump our heads against that ceiling. And while White women may complain of a glass ceiling, for us, the ceiling is concrete.

So how do we tell this story without sounding whiny and paranoid, or turning off our White-female readers, staff members, advertisers and girlfriends? Our solution: Bring together real women (several of them highly successful senior corporate executives), put them in a room, promise them anonymity and let them speak their truth.

— Diane Weathers, “Speaking Our Truth”

Retailers like Walmart build their credibility by simple “straight talk” to shoppers: our low prices make your life better. Beth Hall/Bloomberg News/Getty Images

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 93 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS94

Both paragraphs affirm Weathers’s determination to treat audiences fairly and to deal honestly with a difficult subject. The strategy would merit attention in any rhetorical analysis.

Look, too, for signals that writers share values with readers or at least understand an audience. In the following passage, writer Jack Solomon is clear about one value that he hopes readers have in common — a pref- erence for “straight talk”:

There are some signs in the advertising world that Americans are get- ting fed up with fantasy advertisements and want to hear some straight talk. Weary of extravagant product claims . . . , consumers trained by years of advertising to distrust what they hear seem to be developing an immunity to commercials.

— Jack Solomon, “Masters of Desire: The Culture of American Advertising”

But straight talk still requires common sense. If ever a major television ad seriously misread its audience, it may have been a spot that ran dur- ing the 2014 Winter Olympics for Cadillac’s pricey new plug-in hybrid, the ELR. The company seemed to go out of its way to offend a great many people, foreign and domestic. As is typical strategy in rhetorical analy- ses, Huffington Post’s Carolyn Gregoire takes care to describe in detail the item she finds offensive:

The opening shot shows a middle-aged man, played by the actor Neal McDonough, looking out over his backyard pool, asking the question: “Why do we work so hard? For this? For stuff?”

As the ad continues, it becomes clear that the answer to this rhe- torical question is actually a big fat YES. And it gets worse. “Other countries, they work,” he says. “They stroll home. They stop by the cafe. They take August off. Off.”

Then he reveals just what it is that makes Americans better than all those lazy, espresso-sipping foreigners.

“Why aren’t you like that?” he says. “Why aren’t we like that? Because we’re crazy, driven, hard-working believers, that’s why.”

— Carolyn Gregoire, “Cadillac Made a Commercial about the American Dream, and It’s a Nightmare”

Her conclusion then is blistering, showing how readily a rhetorical anal- ysis becomes an argument — and subject to criticism itself:

Cadillacs have long been a quintessentially American symbol of wealth and status. But as this commercial proves, no amount of

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 94 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 95

wealth or status is a guarantee of good taste. Now, the luxury car com- pany is selling a vision of the American Dream at its worst: Work yourself into the ground, take as little time off as possible, and buy expensive sh*t (specifically, a 2014 Cadillac ELR).

Examining Arguments Based on Emotion: Pathos

Some emotional appeals are just ploys to win over readers with a pretty face, figurative or real. You’ve seen ads promising an exciting life and attractive friends if only you drink the right soda or wear a particular brand of clothes. Are you fooled by such claims? Probably not, if you pause to think about them. But that’s the strategy — to distract you from thought just long enough to make a bad choice. It’s a move worth com- menting on in a rhetorical analysis.

How well does the emotional appeal here work?

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 95 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS96

Yet emotions can add real muscle to arguments, too, and that’s worth noting. For example, persuading people not to drink and drive by making them fear death, injury, or arrest seems like a fair use of an emotional appeal. The public service announcement on page 95 uses an emotion- laden image to remind drivers to think of the consequences.

In a rhetorical analysis, you might note the juxtaposition of image with text, leading readers to connect casual notes left on windshields with the very serious consequences of drunk driving.

In analyzing emotional appeals, judge whether the emotions raised — anger, sympathy, fear, envy, joy, love, lust — advance the claims offered. Consider how columnist Ron Rosenbaum (whom we met in Chapter 2) makes the reasonable argument he offers for fatty foods all the more attractive by larding it with voluptuous language:

The foods that best hit that sweet spot and “overwhelm the brain” with pleasure are high-quality fatty foods. They discourage us from overeat- ing. A modest serving of short ribs or Peking duck will be both deeply pleasurable and self-limiting. As the brain swoons into in sensate delight, you won’t have to gorge a still-craving cortex with mediocre sensations. “Sensory-specific satiety” makes a slam-dunk case (it’s sci- ence!) for eating reasonable servings of superbly satisfying fatty foods.

— Ron Rosenbaum, “Let Them Eat Fat”

Does the use of evocative language (“swoons,” “insensate delight,” “superbly satisfying,” “slam-dunk”) convince you, or does it distract from considering the scientific case for “sensory-specific satiety”? Your task in a

Health food? Kittipojn Pravalpatkul/Shutterstock

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 96 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 97

rhetorical analysis is to study an author’s words, the emotions they evoke, and the claims they support and then to make this kind of judgment.

R E S P O N D. Browse YouTube or another Web site to find an example of a powerful emotional argument that’s made visually, either alone or using words as well. In a paragraph, defend a claim about how the argument works. For example, does an image itself make a claim, or does it draw you in to con- sider a verbal claim? What emotion does the argument generate? How does that emotion work to persuade you?

Examining Arguments Based on Character: Ethos

It should come as no surprise: readers believe writers who seem honest, wise, and trustworthy. So in analyzing the effectiveness of an argument, look for evidence of these traits. Does the writer have the experience or authority to write on this subject? Are all claims qualified reasonably? Is evidence presented in full, not tailored to the writer’s agenda? Are impor- tant objections to the author’s position acknowledged and addressed? Are sources documented? Above all, does the writer sound trustworthy?

When a Norwegian anti-immigration extremist killed seventy-six innocent people in July 2011, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg addressed the citizens of Norway (and the world), and in doing so evoked the char- acter or ethos of the entire nation:

We will not let fear break us! The warmth of response from people in Norway and from the whole world makes me sure of this one thing: evil can kill a single person, but never defeat a whole people. The strongest weapon in the world — that is freedom of expression and democracy.

In analyzing this speech, you would do well to look at the way this passage deploys the deepest values of Norway — freedom of expression and democracy — to serve as a response to fear of terrorism. In doing so, Stoltenberg evokes ethical ideals to hold onto in a time of tragedy.

Or take a look at the following paragraph from a blog posting by Timothy Burke, a teacher at Swarthmore College and parent of a pre- school child who is trying to think through the issue of homework for elementary school kids:

In his article “Are Engineered Foods

Evil?” David H. Freedman examines

the credibility of both advocates and

critics of genetically modified food.

LINK TO P. 630

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 97 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS98

So I’ve been reading a bit about homework and compar-

ing notes with parents. There is a lot of variation across

districts, not just in the amount of homework that kids

are being asked to do, but in the kind of homework. Some

districts give kids a lot of time-consuming busywork;

other districts try to concentrate on having homework

assignments be substantive work that is best accom-

plished independently. Some give a lot from a very early

point in K-12 education; some give relatively little. As

both a professional educator and an individual with per-

sonal convictions, I’d tend to argue against excessive

amounts of homework and against assigning busywork.

But what has ultimately interested me more about read-

ing various discussions of homework is how intense the

feelings are swirling around the topic and how much

that intensity strikes me as a problem in and of itself.

Not just as a symptom of a kind of civic illness, an inabil-

ity to collectively and democratically work through com-

plex issues, but also in some cases as evidence of an

educational failure in its own right.

In considering the role of ethos in rhetorical analyses, pay attention to the details right down to the choice of words or, in an image, the shapes and colors. The modest, tentative tone that Burke uses in his blog is an example of the kind of choice that can shape an audience’s percep- tion of ethos. But these details need your interpretation. Language that’s hot and extreme can mark a writer as either passionate or loony. Work that’s sober and carefully organized can paint an institution as compe- tent or overly cautious. Technical terms and abstract phrases can make a writer seem either knowledgeable or pompous.

Examining Arguments Based on Facts and Reason: Logos

In analyzing most arguments, you’ll have to decide whether an argu- ment makes a plausible claim and offers good reasons for you to believe

Burke establishes his ethos by citing his reading and his talks with other parents.

He underscores his right to address the matter.

He expresses concern about immoderate arguments and implies that he will demonstrate an opposite approach.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 98 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 99

it. Not all arguments will package such claims in a single neat sentence, or thesis — nor should they. A writer may tell a story from which you have to infer the claim. Visual arguments may work the same way: view- ers have to assemble the parts and draw inferences in order to get the point.

Some conventional arguments (like those on an editorial page) may be perfectly obvious: writers stake out a claim and then present reasons that you should consider, or they may first present reasons and lay out a case that leads you to accept a claim in the conclusion. Consider the fol- lowing example. In a tough opinion piece in Time, political commentator John McWhorter argues that filmmaker Spike Lee is being racist when he rails against hipsters moving into Fort Greene, a formerly all-black neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. Lee fears that the whites are rais- ing housing prices, pushing out old-time residents and diminishing the African American character of Fort Greene. McWhorter, an African American like Lee, sees matters differently:

Basically, black people are getting paid more money than they’ve ever seen in their lives for their houses, and a once sketchy neighborhood is now quiet and pleasant. And this is a bad thing . . . why?

Lee seems to think it’s somehow an injustice whenever black people pick up stakes. But I doubt many of the blacks now set to pass fat inheritances on to their kids feel that way. This is not the old story of poor blacks being pushed out of neighborhoods razed down for highway construction. Lee isn’t making sense.

— John McWhorter, “Spike Lee’s Racism Isn’t Cute”

When you encounter explicit charges like these, you analyze whether and how the claims are supported by good reasons and reliable evidence. A lengthy essay may, in fact, contain a series of claims, each developed to support an even larger point. Here’s McWhorter, for instance, expand- ing his argument by suggesting that Lee’s attitudes toward whites are irreconcilable.

“Respect the culture” when you move in, Lee growls. But again, he isn’t making sense. We can be quite sure that if whites “respected” the culture by trying to participate in it, Lee would be one of the first in line to call it “appropriation.” So, no whites better open up barbecue joints or spoken word cafes or try to be rappers. Yet if whites walk on by the culture in “respectful” silence, then the word on the street becomes that they want to keep blacks at a distance.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 99 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS100

Indeed, every paragraph in an argument may develop a specific and related idea. In a rhetorical analysis, you need to identify all these sepa- rate propositions and examine the relationships among them: Are they solidly linked? Are there inconsistencies that the writer should acknowl- edge? Does the end of the piece support what the writer said (and prom- ised) at the beginning?

You’ll also need to examine the quality of the information pre- sented in an argument, assessing how accurately such information is reported, how conveniently it’s displayed (in charts or graphs, for example), and how well the sources cited represent a range of respected opinions on a topic. (For more information on the use of evidence, see Chapter 4.)

Knowing how to judge the quality of sources is more important now than ever before because the digital universe is full of junk. In some ways, the computer terminal has become the equivalent of a library ref- erence room, but the sources available online vary widely in quality and have not been evaluated by a library professional. As a consequence, you must know the difference between reliable, firsthand, or fully docu- mented sources and those that don’t meet such standards. (For using and documenting sources, see Chapters 19, 20, and 22.)

An anti-fur protestor in London makes a rather specific claim. © Charles Platiau/Reuters/Corbis

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 100 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 101

Examining the Arrangement and Media of Arguments

Aristotle carved the structure of logical argument to its bare bones when he observed that it had only two parts:

● statement

● proof

You could do worse, in examining an argument, than to make sure that every claim a writer makes is backed by sufficient evidence. Some argu- ments are written on the fly in the heat of the moment. Most arguments that you read and write, however, will be more than mere statements followed by proofs. Some writers will lay their cards on the table imme- diately; others may lead you carefully through a chain of claims toward a conclusion. Writers may even interrupt their arguments to offer back- ground information or cultural contexts for readers. Sometimes they’ll tell stories or provide anecdotes that make an argumentative point. They’ll qualify the arguments they make, too, and often pause to admit that other points of view are plausible.

In other words, there are no formulas or acceptable patterns that fit all successful arguments. In writing a rhetorical analysis, you’ll have to assess the organization of a persuasive text on its own merits.

It’s fair, however, to complain about what may be absent from an argu- ment. Most arguments of proposal (see Chapter 12), for example, include a section that defends the feasibility of a new idea, explaining how it might be funded or managed. In a rhetorical analysis, you might fault an editorial that supports a new stadium for a city without addressing fea- sibility issues. Similarly, analyzing a movie review that reads like an off- the-top-of-the-head opinion, you might legitimately ask what criteria of evaluation are in play (see Chapter 10).

Rhetorical analysis also calls for you to look carefully at an argu- ment’s transitions, headings and subheadings, documentation of sources, and overall tone or voice. Don’t take such details for granted, since all of them contribute to the strength — or weakness — of an argument.

Nor should you ignore the way a writer or an institution uses media. Would an argument originally made in a print editorial, for instance, work better as a digital presentation (or vice versa)? Would a lengthy paper have more power if it included more images? Or do these images distract from a written argument’s substance?

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 101 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS102

Finally, be open to the possibility of new or nontraditional structures of arguments. The visual arguments that you analyze may defy conven- tional principles of logic or arrangement — for example, making juxtapo- sitions rather than logical transitions between elements or using quick cuts, fades, or other devices to link ideas. Quite often, these nontradi- tional structures will also resist the neatness of a thesis, leaving readers to construct at least a part of the argument in their heads. As we saw with the “God Made a Farmer” spot at the beginning of this chapter, advertisers are growing fond of soft-sell multimedia productions that can seem like something other than what they really are — product pitches. We may be asked not just to buy a product but also to live its lifestyle or embrace its ethos. Is that a reasonable or workable strategy for an argument? Your analysis might entertain such possibilities.

Looking at Style

Even a coherent argument full of sound evidence may not connect with readers if it’s dull, off-key, or offensive. Readers naturally judge the cred- ibility of arguments in part by how stylishly the case is made — even when they don’t know exactly what style is (for more on style, see Chap- ter 13). Consider how these simple, blunt sentences from the opening of an argument shape your image of the author and probably determine whether you’re willing to continue to read the whole piece:

We are young, urban, and professional. We are literate, respectable, intel- ligent, and charming. But foremost and above all, we are unemployed.

— Julia Carlisle, “Young, Privileged, and Unemployed”

The strong, straightforward tone and the stark juxtaposition of being “intelligent” with “unemployed” set the style for this letter to the editor.

Now consider the brutally sarcastic tone of Nathaniel Stein’s hilari- ous parody of the Harvard grading policy, a piece he wrote following up on a professor’s complaint of out-of-control grade inflation at the school. Stein borrows the formal language of a typical “grading standards” sheet to mock the decline in rigor that the professor has lamented:

The A+ grade is used only in very rare instances for the recognition of truly exceptional achievement.

For example: A term paper receiving the A+ is virtually indistin- guishable from the work of a professional, both in its choice of paper

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 102 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 103

stock and its font. The student’s command of the topic is expert, or at the very least intermediate, or beginner. Nearly every single word in the paper is spelled correctly; those that are not can be reasoned out phonetically within minutes. Content from Wikipedia is integrated with precision. The paper contains few, if any, death threats. . . .

An overall course grade of A+ is reserved for those students who have not only demonstrated outstanding achievement in coursework but have also asked very nicely.

Finally, the A+ grade is awarded to all collages, dioramas and other art projects.

— Nathaniel Stein, “Leaked! Harvard’s Grading Rubric”

Both styles probably work, but they signal that the writers are about to make very different kinds of cases. Here, style alone tells readers what to expect.

Manipulating style also enables writers to shape readers’ responses to their ideas. Devices as simple as repetition, parallelism, or even para- graph length can give sentences remarkable power. Consider this pas- sage from an essay by Sherman Alexie in which he explores the complex reaction of straight men to the announcement of NBA star Jason Collins that he is gay:

Homophobic basketball fans will disparage his skills, somehow equat- ing his NBA benchwarmer status with his sexuality. But let’s not forget that Collins is still one of the best 1,000 basketball players in the world. He has always been better than his modest statistics would indicate, and his teams have been dramatically more efficient with him on the court. He is better at hoops than 99.9 percent of you are at anything you do. He might not be a demigod, but he’s certainly a semi- demigod. Moreover, his basketball colleagues universally praise him as a physically and mentally tough player. In his prime, he ably bat- tled that behemoth known as Shaquille O’Neal. Most of all, Collins is widely regarded as one of the finest gentlemen to ever play the game. Generous, wise, and supportive, he’s a natural leader. And he has a degree from Stanford University.

In other words, he’s a highly attractive dude. — Sherman Alexie, “Jason Collins Is the Envy of

Straight Men Everywhere”

In this passage, Alexie uses a sequence of short, direct, and roughly par- allel sentences (“He is . . . He might . . . He ably battled . . . He has”) to present evidence justifying the playful point he makes in a pointedly

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 103 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS104

emphatic, one-sentence paragraph. The remainder of his short essay then amplifies that point.

In a rhetorical analysis, you can explore such stylistic choices. Why does a formal style work for discussing one type of subject matter but not another? How does a writer use humor or irony to underscore an important point or to manage a difficult concession? Do stylistic choices, even something as simple as the use of contractions or personal pro- nouns, bring readers close to a writer, or do technical words and an impersonal voice signal that an argument is for experts only?

To describe the stylistic effects of visual arguments, you may use a different vocabulary and talk about colors, camera angles, editing, bal- ance, proportion, fonts, perspective, and so on. But the basic principle is this: the look of an item — whether a poster, an editorial cartoon, or a film documentary — can support the message that it carries, undermine it, or muddle it. In some cases, the look will be the message. In a rhetori- cal analysis, you can’t ignore style.

Jason Collins © Gary A. Vasquez/USA Today Sports Images

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 104 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 105

This poster, promoting travel to the bicycle-friendly city of Münster, Germany, demonstrates visually the amount of space needed to transport the same number of people by car, bicycle, and bus. Foto Presseamt Münster, City of Münster, Press Office

R E S P O N D. Find a recent example of a visual argument, either in print or on the Inter- net. Even though you may have a copy of the image, describe it carefully in your paper on the assumption that your description is all readers may have to go on. Then make a judgment about its effectiveness, supporting your claim with clear evidence from the “text.”

Examining a Rhetorical Analysis

On the following pages, well-known political commentator and colum- nist for the New York Times David Brooks argues that today’s college grad- uates have been poorly prepared for life after school because of what he sees as a radical excess of supervision. Responding to his argument with a detailed analysis is Rachel Kolb, a student at Stanford University.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 105 6/17/15 5:09 PM

It’s Not about You

DAVID BROOKS

Over the past few weeks, America’s colleges have sent another class of graduates off into the world. These graduates possess something of inestimable value. Nearly every sensible middle-aged person would give away all their money to be able to go back to age 22 and begin adulthood anew.

But, especially this year, one is conscious of the many ways in which this year’s graduating class has been ill served by their elders. They enter a bad job market, the hangover from decades of excessive bor- rowing. They inherit a ruinous federal debt.

More important, their lives have been perversely structured. This year’s graduates are members of the most supervised generation in American history. Through their childhoods and teenage years, they have been monitored, tutored, coached and honed to an unprecedented degree.

Yet upon graduation they will enter a world that is unprecedentedly wide open and unstructured. Most of them will not quickly get married, buy a home and have kids, as previous generations did. Instead, they will confront amazingly diverse job markets, social landscapes and lifestyle niches. Most will spend a decade wandering from job to job and clique to clique, searching for a role.

No one would design a system of extreme supervision to prepare people for a decade of extreme openness. But this is exactly what has emerged in modern America. College students are raised in an environ- ment that demands one set of navigational skills, and they are then cast out into a different environment requiring a different set of skills, which they have to figure out on their own.

Worst of all, they are sent off into this world with the whole baby- boomer theology ringing in their ears. If you sample some of the com- mencement addresses being broadcast on C-Span these days, you see

© David Levene/ eyevine/Redux Pictures

106

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 106 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 107

that many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture.

But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front. College grads are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of

limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to. The successful young adult is beginning to make sacred commitments — to a spouse, a community and calling — yet mostly hears about freedom and autonomy.

Today’s graduates are also told to find their passion and then pursue their dreams. The implication is that they should find themselves first and then go off and live their quest. But, of course, very few people at age 22 or 24 can take an inward journey and come out having discovered a developed self.

Most successful young people don’t look inside and then plan a life. They look outside and find a problem, which summons their life. A rela- tive suffers from Alzheimer’s and a young woman feels called to help cure that disease. A young man works under a miserable boss and must develop management skills so his department can function. Another young woman finds herself confronted by an opportunity she never thought of in a job category she never imagined. This wasn’t in her plans, but this is where she can make her contribution.

Most people don’t form a self and then lead a life. They are called by a problem, and the self is constructed gradually by their calling.

The graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But, of course, when you read a biography of someone you admire, it’s rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration. It’s the things they did to court unhappiness — the things they did that were arduous and miserable, which sometimes cost them friends and aroused hatred. It’s excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.

Finally, graduates are told to be independent-minded and to express their inner spirit. But, of course, doing your job well often means sup- pressing yourself. As Atul Gawande mentioned during his countercultural address . . . at Harvard Medical School, being a good doctor often means

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 107 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS108

being part of a team, following the rules of an institution, going down a regimented checklist.

Today’s grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the cen- ter of a life. But, of course, as they age, they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the center. Fulfillment is a byproduct of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly. Most of us are egotistical and most are self-concerned most of the time, but it’s nonetheless true that life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task. The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourself.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 108 6/17/15 5:09 PM

Understanding Brooks’s Binaries

RACHEL KOLB

As a high school and college student, I was given an incred- ible range of educational and extracurricular options, from interdisciplinary studies to summer institutes to student- organized clubs. Although today’s students have more opportunities to adapt their educations to their specific personal goals, as I did, David Brooks argues that the struc- ture of the modern educational system nevertheless leaves young people ill-prepared to meet the challenges of the real world. In his New York Times editorial “It’s Not about You,” Brooks illustrates excessive supervision and uncontrolled individualistic rhetoric as opposing problems that complicate young people’s entry into adult life, which then becomes less of a natural progression than an out- right paradigm shift. Brooks’s argument itself mimics the pattern of moving from “perversely structured” youth to “unprecedentedly wide open” adulthood: it operates on the basis of binary oppositions, raising familiar notions about how to live one’s life and then dismantling them. Throughout, the piece relies less on factual evidence than on Brooks’s own authoritative tone and skill in using rhe- torical devices.

In his editorial, Brooks objects to mainstream cultural messages that sell students on individuality, but bases his conclusions more on general observations than on specific facts. His argument is, in itself, a loose form of rhetorical analysis. It opens by telling us to “sample some of the commencement addresses being broadcast on C-Span these days,” where we will find messages such as: “Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself.” As though moving down a checklist, it then scrutinizes the problems with this rhetoric of “expressive individualism.” Finally, it turns to Atul Gawande’s “countercultural address” about working collectively, en route to confronting the

Connects article to personal experience to create an ethical appeal.

Provides brief overview of Brooks’s argument. States Brooks’s central claim.

Transition sentence.

Courtesy of Rachel Kolb

109

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 109 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS110

individualism of modern America. C-Span and Harvard Medical School aside, however, Brooks’s argument is astonishingly short on external sources. He cites no basis for claims such as “this year’s graduates are members of the most supervised generation in American history” or “most successful young people don’t look inside and then plan a life,” despite the fact that these claims are funda- mental to his observations. Instead, his argument per- suades through painting a picture — first of “limitless possibilities,” then of young men and women called into action by problems that “summon their life” — and hoping that we will find the illustration familiar.

Instead of relying on the logos of his argument, Brooks assumes that his position as a baby boomer and New York Times columnist will provide a sufficient enough ethos to validate his claims. If this impression of age and social sta- tus did not enter our minds along with his bespectacled portrait, Brooks reminds us of it. Although he refers to the theology of the baby boomer generation as the “worst of all,” from the beginning of his editorial he allots himself as another “sensible middle-aged person” and distances him- self from college graduates by referring to them as “they” or as “today’s grads,” contrasting with his more inclusive reader-directed “you.” Combined with his repeated use of passive sentence constructions that create a confusing sense of responsibility (“The graduates are sent off into the world”; “graduates are told”), this sense of distance could be alienating to the younger audiences for which this edi- torial seems intended. Granted, Brooks compensates for it by embracing themes of “excellence” and “fulfillment” and by opening up his message to “most of us” in his final paragraph, but nevertheless his self-defined persona has its limitations. Besides dividing his audience, Brooks risks reminding us that, just as his observations belong only to this persona, his arguments apply only to a subset of American society. More specifically, they apply only to the well-educated middle to upper class who might be more likely to fret after the implications of “supervision” and

Comments criti- cally on author’s use of evidence.

Analyzes author’s intended audience.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 110 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 111

“possibilities,” or the readers who would be most likely to flip through the New York Times.

Brooks overcomes his limitations in logos and ethos through his piece’s greatest strength: its style. He effec- tively frames cultural messages in binaries in order to rein- force the disconnect that exists between what students are told and what they will face as full members of society. Throughout his piece, he states one assumption after another, then prompts us to consider its opposite. “Serious things” immediately take the place of “rapturous talk”; “look[ing] inside” replaces “look[ing] outside”; “suppressing yourself” becomes an alternative to being “independent- minded.” Brooks’s argument is consumed with dichoto- mies, culminating with his statement “It’s excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.” He frames his ideas within a tight framework of repetition and parallel struc- ture, creating muscular prose intended to engage his read- ers. His repeated use of the phrase “but, of course” serves as a metronomic reminder, at once echoing his earlier assertions and referring back to his air of authority.

Brooks illustrates the power of words in swaying an audience, and in his final paragraph his argument shifts beyond commentary. Having tested our way of thinking, he now challenges us to change. His editorial closes with one final binary, the claim that “The purpose in life is not to find yourself” but “to lose yourself.” And, although some of Brooks’s previous binaries have clanged with oversimplifi- cation, this one rings truer. In accordance with his adop- tion of the general “you,” his concluding message need not apply only to college graduates. By unfettering its restric- tions at its climax, Brooks liberates his argument. After all, only we readers bear the responsibility of reflecting, of jus- tifying, and ultimately of determining how to live our lives.

Work Cited

Brooks, David. “It’s Not about You.” Everything’s an Argument. By Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 7th ed. Boston: Bedford, 2016. 106–8. Print. Rpt. of “It’s Not about You.” New York Times 30 May 2011.

Closely analyzes Brooks’s style.

Analyzes author’s conclusion.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 111 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS112

● Finding a Topic

A rhetorical analysis is usually assigned: you’re asked to show how an argu- ment works and to assess its effectiveness. When you can choose your own subject for analysis, look for one or more of the following qualities:

pleases you

Look for arguments to analyze in the editorial and op-ed pages of any news- paper, political magazines such as the Nation or National Review, Web sites of organizations and interest groups, political blogs such as Huffington Post or Power Line, corporate Web sites that post their TV ad spots, videos and state- ments posted to YouTube, and so on.

● Researching Your Topic

Once you’ve got a text to analyze, find out all you can about it. Use library or Web resources to explore:

are, who its members are, and so on

- ically publishes

how others have responded to it

● Formulating a Claim

Begin with a hypothesis. A full thesis might not become evident until you’re well into your analysis, but your final thesis should reflect the complexity of the piece that you’re studying. In developing a thesis, consider questions such as the following:

to writing a rhetorical analysisGUIDE

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 112 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 113

ignore, and why?

the author? emotional appeals? logical progression? style?

Here’s the hardest part for most writers of rhetorical analyses: whether you agree or disagree with an argument usually doesn’t matter in a rhetorical analysis. You’ve got to stay out of the fray and pay attention only to how — and to how well — the argument works.

● Examples of Possible Claims for a Rhetorical Analysis

others are put off by her bland and sometimes tone-deaf rhetoric. A close look at several of her speeches and public appearances will illuminate both sides of this debate.

Daily Collegian about campus crimes may scare first-year students, but its anecdotal reporting doesn’t get down to hard numbers — and for a good reason. Those statistics don’t back the position taken by the editors.

others claim it as a great boon to creativity. A close analysis of its home- page can help to settle this debate.

- faces and evocative spire, made a stronger argument about American val- ues than its replacement, a fortress-like skyscraper stripped of imagination and unable to make any statement except “I’m 1,776 feet tall.”

● Preparing a Proposal

If your instructor asks you to prepare a proposal for your rhetorical analysis, here’s a format you might use:

photograph, a digital image, or a URL, for instance.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 113 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS114

worthy of detailed study and any connections between elements. For example, does the piece seem to emphasize facts and logic so much that it becomes disconnected from potential audiences? If so, hint at that pos- sibility in your proposal.

institution, and contexts (political, economic, social, and religious) of the argument.

- ment, you may be writing primarily for a teacher and classmates. But they make up a complex audience in themselves. If you can do so within the spirit of the assignment, imagine that your analysis will be published in a local newspaper, Web site, or blog.

- paring a rhetorical analysis.

● Considering Format and Media

Your instructor may specify that you use a particular format and/or medium. If not, ask yourself these questions to help you make a good choice:

an academic essay, a report, an infographic, a brochure, or something else?

delivered orally to a live audience? Presented as an audio essay or pod- cast? Presented in print only or in print with illustrations?

charts — and what function will they play in your analysis? Make sure they are not just “added on” but are necessary components of the analysis.

● Thinking about Organization

Your rhetorical analysis is likely to include the following:

or name of the work; its place of publication or its location; the date it was published or viewed.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 114 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 115

- ing from, to what it may be responding, in what controversies it might be embroiled, and so on. Don’t assume that they can infer the important contextual elements.

- nal argument, you must summarize it in enough detail so that a reader can imagine it. Even if you attach a copy of the piece, the analysis should include a summary.

evaluative claim or something more complex. The claim can come early in the paper, or you might build up to it, providing the evidence that leads toward the conclusion you’ve reached.

analyze rhetorical components separately, don’t let your analysis become a dull roster of emotional, ethical, and logical appeals. Your rhetorical analysis should be an argument itself that supports a claim; a simple list of rhetorical appeals won’t make much of a point.

analysis.

● Getting and Giving Response: Questions for Peer Response

If you have access to a writing center, discuss the text that you intend to ana- lyze with a writing consultant before you write the paper. Try to find people who agree with the argument and others who disagree, and take notes on their observations. Your instructor may assign you to a peer group for the purpose of reading and responding to one another’s drafts; if not, share your draft with someone on your own. You can use the following questions to evaluate a draft. If you’re evaluating someone else’s draft, be sure to illustrate your points with examples. Specific comments are always more helpful than general observations.

The Claim

rather than the opinion or position that it takes?

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 115 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS116

- cal components?

- ous criticism?

Evidence for the Claim

you still need?

- nificance and appropriateness analyzed? Is a more detailed discussion needed?

other materials?

evidence?

- ment? Do you need to use sources to check factual claims made in the argument?

instance, “As Áida Álvarez points out”), and do they merge smoothly into your sentences?

Organization and Style

- nization? Would some other structure work better?

claims, your supporting reasons, and the evidence you’ve gathered (from the original text and any other sources you’ve used)? If not, what could be done to make those connections clearer? Are more transitional words and phrases needed? Would headings or graphic devices help?

paragraph to paragraph clear and effective? If not, how could they be improved?

too formal? Too casual? Too technical? Too bland or boring?

and how could they be improved? Should some short sentences be com- bined, or should any long ones be separated into two or more sentences?

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 116 6/17/15 5:09 PM

C H A P T E R 6 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 117

Do they break the analysis at strategic points?

- ful? Do any seem dull, vague, unclear, or inappropriate for the audience or your purpose? Are definitions provided for technical or other terms that readers might not know?

Spelling, Punctuation, Mechanics, Documentation, and Format

of any institution involved with the work is correct. Note that the names of many corporations and institutions use distinctive spelling and punctuation.

- ment sheet to be sure.

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 117 6/17/15 5:09 PM

READING AND UNDERSTANDING ARGUMENTS118

R E S P O N D. Find an argument on the editorial page or op-ed page in a recent newspa- per. Then analyze it rhetorically, using principles discussed in this chapter. Show how it succeeds, fails, or does something else entirely. Perhaps you can show that the author is unusually successful in connecting with read- ers but then has nothing to say. Or perhaps you discover that the strong logical appeal is undercut by a contradictory emotional argument. Be sure that the analysis includes a summary of the original essay and basic publi- cation information about it (its author, place of publication, and publisher).

06_LUN_9864_ch06_087_118.indd 118 6/17/15 5:09 PM