HW 2 ENG

Rhetorical Analysis of “The Last Straw” by Alice Wong

Alice Wong’s article ‘The Last Straw’ illustrates how rhetorical choices can be employed to oppose environmental policies that fail to take into account the needs of people with disabilities. The urgency of the rhetoric and the intended audience all play a part in the strength of Wong’s argument; they also show the clash between environmental goals and the rights of people with disabilities.

The individual creating a rhetorical message gains credibility through their own experiences. As Wong is both a disabled activist and the founder of the Disability Visibility Project, she has firsthand knowledge of accessibility issues. She claims that a plastic straw acts as an access aid because she is unable to lift a drink to her mouth and considers plastic straws to be safe when used with hot liquids (Wong, 2018). It is this kind of personal experience that gives her ethos, since she is speaking from actual experience. The fact that she takes this stance also allows her to challenge the assumptions of environmental advocates who view plastic straws only as waste. Wong acknowledges that plastic pollution is a real and serious problem, which makes her argument more balanced. She then argues that environmental progress should not “steamroll” disabled people (Wong, 2018). In this way, her identity strengthens her authority and connects disability rights with environmental justice.

The situation or problem that causes a rhetorical response is called the exigence. In Wong's instance, it is the growing campaign to ban plastic straws and the danger this poses to the access of people with disabilities. She describes herself as a ‘reluctant participant’ in the debate about plastic straws since she had never expected to have to justify the use of a common accessibility aid (Wong, 2018). As a result of the bans, people with disabilities now have to explain and defend their normal needs. Wong shows that granting exemptions may require individuals to disclose personal information and can cause service workers to act as gatekeepers with regard to access. She also points out that there has been no significant consultation with disability communities before some policies were introduced. By bringing these consequences to light, Wong shifts the focus of the discussion from individual consumer behaviour to questions of power and participation. The presence of this exigence means that the article is timely and gives readers a reason to reconsider apparently simple environmental policies.

The audience comprises the people towards whom a rhetorical message is aimed. Wong addresses environmentalists, policymakers, business people, and the general public, as well as those who have a disability. Even though she recognises the environmental concerns regarding plastic pollution, she encourages her readers to consider the possibility that some proposed solutions might exclude people with disabilities. By noting that certain alternatives thought to be safer are actually unsafe for people with a disability, she challenges the assumptions of environmentally conscious audiences (Wong, 2018). Furthermore, her reference to disability activism and social-media campaigns verifies the experiences of disabled readers. The article therefore creates a connection between groups who might otherwise approach the issue differently. Since she employs direct language and at times adopts a humorous tone, the discussion stays engaging without overlooking its seriousness. The fact that she speaks to such a diverse audience supports her central argument that accessibility should be considered in environmental decision-making. In the end, it is through an understanding of her audience that Wong is able to combine personal testimony, evidence, and appeals for inclusion.

Mini-Reflection

If I look at “The Last Straw” from a rhetorical perspective, I am able to notice some points which I had not properly considered the first time I read the article. Although at first sight it appears that the article is mainly about the debate surrounding plastic straw bans, after thinking about the rhetorical situation, I came to the conclusion that Wong is also dealing with questions of power, accessibility, representation, and the question of who is included in public decision-making. The fact that she draws on her own personal experience adds strength to her argument since the straw is an important access tool in her daily life (Wong, 2018). I also noticed that Wong recognizes environmental concerns rather than just ignoring them. This makes her argument more reasonable in that she supports reducing pollution while opposing solutions which place obstacles in the way of disabled people. Having examined the rhetor, the exigence, and the audience, I have learned that persuasive writing depends on the relationship between the writer, the issue, and the readers. Consequently, carrying out a rhetorical analysis has changed the way I read the text so that I no longer just ask what the author says but also think about why the author says it, who needs to hear it, and what circumstances make the message important.

Reference

Wong, A. (2018, July 19). The last straw. Eater. https://www.eater.com/2018/7/19/17586742/plastic-straw-ban-disabilities

Feedback

1. the thesis statement is very clear and well worded. The only area I would say it needs improvement is the inclusion of exigence in the thesis statement. It’s the only rhetorical appeal not mentioned in the thesis statement.

2. All the elements are well explained. I also liked that the definitions were put into your own words. This helps to further show your understanding of the appeals and how they relate to the article. 

3. All the elements are well illustrated and the use of examples from the article to further articulate the point were well thought out. I don’t think you need any additional information the further explain the elements.

4. All the elements are present and well explained.

5. All the elements are illustrated with pear phrasing from the article all of which is cited correctly, these examples from the article are also well placed and sandwiched between information that helps to provide context to the elements being described. 

6. I was completely convinced the writing is clear and to the point while also keeping the reader engaged. It’s also very clear that thought was put into the analysis. I think the points are well articulated and helped to give further perspective to the article.

the format/additional comments

1. the formatting is clear and easy to navigate. It doesn’t overwhelm or create disconnect for the reader. I think the pear graphs are well structured and in a good order, ending with audience is a good way to sum up all the information you’ve present3d and how it relates to us as the reader.

2. I think expanding upon some of your ideas more clearly, specifically including the appeal of exigence in the thesis would help to better prepare us for the analysis and keep the reader from getting confused.

3. the only thing you really need to work on is the thesis statement

4. I was impressed most by how eloquent it was. The writing flows so nicely and doesn’t distract from the point it’s overall well written and present.

 

mini reflection

You point out the relationship between the writer perspective and the world around them as well as the connection to the audience. Pointing out how using a rhetorical perspective helps us to see the deeper less noticeable points being presented to us. The new perspective pointed out is one of power and understanding, this isn’t just about straws it has a deeper impact and asks us to question why things are the way they are and whether that could change. You explain the appreciation for the subtext and how Wong goes about explaining her point. Wong doesn’t just condemn the inaccessibility created by removing plastic straws but also tell us about how we can continue to make environmental improvements, there is understanding from her that these things are not done out of malice but ignorance.