Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Identifying and explaining rhetorical strategies
Before class on Thursday, select an editorial or op-ed piece from the New York Times that interests you. First, summarize the main claim of the piece and briefly characterize how the writer supports this claim. Then, identify one of the rhetorical strategies—or means of persuasion—that Covino discusses in “What is Rhetoric?” that you see the columnist from the New York Times using in his or her writing. Write a paragraph in which you present a few key sentences or a brief passage that you think illustrates this strategy and then explain how this appeal strengthens the writer’s persuasiveness. Aim for about 250 words and post your response here as a comment to this post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author of "A Dangerous Pursuit" claims that readers should constantly be aware of the threat journalists are faced with when providing news that people can read while sitting safely in their homes. He asserts that since news is so easily available today with the popularization of social networking sites and new technologies, people don’t think about the journalists’ side of reporting. The writer supports this claim by citing recent captures of journalists in Libya and various statistics, including one which states that more journalists have died in the war in Iraq than died in the World Wars, Korean War, and Vietnam War combined.
ReplyDeleteThis author effectively uses ethos to convince the reader to believe his claim. When discussing statistics, the author cites the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Newseum (a museum in Washington about news media), and news taken from the BBC. These citations could easily be used to check the validity of the author’s claim. In order to maintain good will, eunoia is applied when the author mentions that while Turkey does not always treat its journalists fairly, the country did help free the New York Times journalists. The rhetor states, “Turkey, which helped our journalists so effectively, has a bad record when it comes to reporters at home.” Overall, the author also uses a scholarly tone to persuade the reader. For instance, when he says, “That, in a tragic way, has always been the risk of covering war. But journalists also are increasingly targets of repressive governments,” he employs a combination of common language and intellectual vernacular that not only allows the reader to identify with but also to trust the author. All of these aspects work together to strengthen the author’s argument through the credibility they foster.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “Separate and Unequal,” Bob Herbert discusses the situation of inadequate and poor quality schooling for lower income minority students. He stresses how important it is to integrate these impoverished black and Hispanic students into middle-class schools so that they are able to receive a better education because of better teachers, more engaged students, and more involved parents. All of these things foster a more enriched learning environment. However, the author realizes by mixing minority students from lower income background, this also means “racial and ethnic integration in to the schools.” As the author states, this doesn’t seem like a very probable solution that will be adopted by schools.
ReplyDeleteIn order to support this claim, Herbert cites different studies that have come to the same conclusion. In addition, he also refers to the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) where it was ruled that “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” A higher concentration of poorer students results in lower standardized tests scores. This is a consequence of higher qualified teachers not wanting to teach in these schools and lower expectations about the students’ success.
Throughout the article, the author utilizes kairos to captivate and convince the audience of the importance and creditability of his argument. When Herbert discusses the pragmatic fact that racism is still in fact present in American daily life, he is using kairos in order to be sensitive to the political and social realities of the current time period. He states that the main reason that integration of lower income students into more affluent schools is so difficult is because of race; by combining the different economic groups, it also calls for “racial and ethnic integration, and that provokes bitter resistance.” By pointing out the harsh reality that the root issue is race, Herbert addresses the tricky situation at hand.
In “Educated, Unemployed and Frustrated”, Matthew Klein discusses the growing trend in first-world countries of college graduates being unable to find jobs upon graduation from university. He mentions that many of the graduates were told that their reward for the hours spent doing schoolwork would be that when they graduated they would be given stable jobs with reasonable incomes. However, with the job market in its current slump, this has not been the case. Many grads have to take jobs well below what they are qualified for, or have given up hope of finding a full-time job.
ReplyDeleteKlein also compares the uprising in Egypt with the steadily worsening situation in the United States. He says that if the government doesn’t do something about unemployment, the rich world may become desperate enough to do something drastic.
He backs up the information presented in the article using unemployment statistics from various countries as well as a few personal anecdotes.
Klein’s ethos appears to be quite strong throughout the piece. The fact that he mentions not only the overall unemployment statistics for those under the age of 25 in the United States, but also those statistics for Italy, Portugal and Spain, suggest that he has done the research required for his opinion to be a reasonable and valid one.
Klein also seems to be making an appeal to pathos with the personal anecdotes he uses. He mentions how a friend of his who went to a top-tier college “had the misfortune to graduate in the class of 2009, and could find paid work only as a lifeguard and a personal trainer.” That anecdote would certainly grab the attention of any current college student.
Overall, his stance in asking the government to take a more active role in tempering unemployment rates is well thought out and well argued, with his rhetoric contributing nicely to the effectiveness of the piece.
Eight years ago, Christian Longo was found guilty of murdering his wife and three children. He is now on death row.
ReplyDeleteCondemned to a 6-foot by 8-foot box for 22 hours a day, Christian Longo has spent his time in solitude feeling remorse for his actions. But in an effort to make a positive out of his horrible situation, Longo has requested that, after his execution, his organs be donated to those in need. The state has denied Longo’s petition, citing that “the interests of the public and condemned inmates are best served by denying the petition.” Longo believes that the public would disagree.
As an effect, Longo published an article in the New York Times that begs readers to respond emotionally to his situation. Through the reliance on words like “saving,” “die,” and “healthy,” the article makes a brilliant appeal to pathos. It’s hard not to react emotionally when sentences like “19 people…on organ waiting lists die each day” are present. Longo makes the claim that if innocent people are dying, why not let the “bad guys” donate their organs after death.
In addition, Longo understands that we, as readers, have already made basic assumptions about the character, or ethos, of convicted murderers. He assumes (albeit appropriately) that our society has decided that murders are cold-blooded, heartless, and certainly not capable of harnessing virtuous thoughts without some sort of ulterior motive. Fully aware that these assumptions would be made, Longo addressed the apprehensions by stressing that he does not simply wish to set right his wrongs. He seeks only the right to his own body after his sentence has been carried out. Longo assures the readers that his request is not part of some elaborate scheme to break out of prison, as executions take place on prison grounds. He also states explicitly that he is guilty. He is not looking for a reduction in his sentence—he has no intention of leaving the prison alive. These assertions provide an ethical appeal and enhance Longo’s credibility. Longo fully addresses these preconceived notions of the intentions of convicted criminals so as to gain support for real cause—to do good in the world.
In “Settling the Afghan War,” Lakhdar Brahimi and Thomas R. Pickering discuss the United States’ military involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, focusing predominantly on our country’s struggle with the Taliban. Brahimi and Pickering identify major flaws in our current military activity, and they feel that unless we enter into peaceful negotiations with the Taliban and resolve the underlying political conflict, our troops will remain in the Middle East indefinitely. The two writers brainstorm a lengthy list of controversial issues which would have to be addressed and settled, and they recognize the difficulty of this task. However, they feel that it is the only way to end the dangerous stalemate into which we have entered.
ReplyDeleteThe audience, in this case, generally consists of well-read, informed people who want a fully outlined, rational plan for how to approach the Taliban. The two writers use ‘arrangement’ in order to reach their audience effectively. Brahimi and Pickering begin with a clear, poignant statement to grasp the attention of their readers. Then, they briefly explain the reasons why the current plan is not working before using the majority of their space to outline their own plan of action. The two writers spend little time explaining the situation in the Middle East under the assumption that the majority of the audience already knows it. In order to support their views even further, they then indirectly quote citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan who want the Taliban to engage in peaceful negotiations. Lastly, the rhetors use an appeal to logic as the final, supporting piece of their argument.
The two writers employ the use of logos in the last paragraph which reads, “The international community has confronted equally intractable conflicts in Cambodia, Bosnia and elsewhere, and, with unity and purpose, resolved them. Afghanistan is a particularly challenging case, but it is not hopeless.” They give examples of similar cases in history to support their idea that peaceful resolution is possible now because it has been done before. This is a very logical approach to the situation.
"Wisconsin's Radical Break" by William Cronon addresses the law stripping public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights. While a state judge has placed a temporary hold on the law, its mere passage has caused unprecedented outrage and protest. Cronon specifically mentions that the initial law that extended bargaining rights to municipal employees passed through a Republican House. In fact, the Republican Governor, Warren P. Knowles, promoted the reform that extended the same bargaining rights to state employees. In sum, Cronon states, "The policies that the current governor, Scott Walker, has sought to overturn, in other words, are legacies of his own party". This "treason" is what Cronon refers to as "Wisconsin's Radical Break".
ReplyDeleteCronon does a great job employing Logos, Ethos and Pathos in his rhetorical strategy. Logos is perhaps the most apparent of the three in his rhetorical strategy. Cronon easily pits the Republican party against itself by reminding the audience that the Republican party giveth and the same party taketh away. Pathos, on the other hand, is slightly more subtle. Throughout the essay, Cronon employs words like "celebrated achievements", "demonizing of government", and "radical break". These words immensely impact the subconscious mind and create a stark and aggressive image of the current Republican party. Ethos is also used effectively. By using the word "particular" to describe the current governing party, he clearly separates the new and the old and the specific from the general. Later in the article, he makes a specific point to announce his centrist and independent political values. These centrist values allow him to make seemingly unbiased remarks about the subject which appeal to a much larger audience.
American intervention in foreign countries has always been a source of debate for many. Our current military intervention in Libya is no exception. In Nicholas D. Kristof’s article, “Hugs from Libyans,” he proposes that America’s involvement has been surprisingly well accepted and very much essential to Libya’s return to peace. This is an opposite reaction to America’s 2003 Iraq invasion in which Iraqis did not want foreigners to invade their soil. Even the president of Refugees International, Michal Gabaudan, agreed that the “opinion was unanimous” that military aid helped to avoid “a major humanitarian disaster.”
ReplyDeleteTo support his assertion that the Libyan intervention has been a beneficial action, Kristof uses different methods of rhetoric to make an impression on the reader. The first is his use of pathos. He tries to appeal to the reader’s emotions almost immediately when he describes a scene in which Libyan villagers hug and show hospitality to an airman who had just bombed their country. He mentions that civilians were so grateful that they even threw a “thank you rally.” The reader can relate to this feeling of gratitude.
Kristof also weighs out both the uncertainties and certainties of the intervention. This is an effective use kairos because it brings to attention that many American’s are uncertain whether the intervention has been effective or not. Kristof recognizes the very real concern of exit strategies and overall cost to both our nation and Libya. Yet, he addresses these apprehensions by analyzing the effect of not taking any action at all in Libya. He acknowledges the horrors of war but knows that turning a blind eye to “systematic slaughter of civilians” is worse.
In David Brook’s March 21, 2011 column, The Problem with Partners, Brooks’ central thesis is that politicians (and observers of politics) have over simplified multilateralism and overlooked its flaws in regards to dealing with pressing world issues. Brooks supports this claim by (a) briefly alluding to past failures of multilateralism in Kosovo, Rwanda and Iraq as a historical frame for his argument (b) declaring five weaknesses in multilateralism and analyzing the situation in Lybia for evidence of them and (c) juxtaposing these with a running image of romanticized multilateralism.
ReplyDeleteBrooks makes particularly good use of logos in this column, particularly insofar as he precisely identifies the key common assumptions that his audience is likely to have and builds his argument logically upon them. The most prominent underlying assumption in this particular column is that the United States—or the UN or other states, for that matter—ought to intervene in affairs of other sovereign states. In the historically isolationist United States, and thus in Brooks’ audience, this assumption ought not be taken for granted and, indeed, Brooks doesn’t. Using the examples of Kosovo and Rwanda in particular, Brooks implicitly frames the assumption as a humanitarian issue, which would seem to illicit much more agreement. Essentially, Brooks constructs for himself as broad an audience as possible with this shared assumption. From this point, Brooks proceeds in a highly ordered fashion that supports his logic, but treads very carefully so as not to contradict any assumptions about the particulars of intervention that might alienate parts of his audience.
In writing “all of this is not to say the world should do nothing while Qaddafi unleashes his demonic fury. Nor is this a defense of unilateralism,” Brooks effectively builds up the common assumption of intervention in the defense of humanitarian crises, but carefully avoids possibly alienating a major sector of his audience by seeming too positive about unilateralism.
Bob Herbert’s article in The New York Times, “Separate and Unequal,” addresses the issue of substandard education systems located in impoverished areas of the United States. He indicates that policy-makers recognize the problem as relating only to social class and rarely acknowledge the racial segregation that automatically occurs when schools draw students from economically disparate neighborhoods. Herbert then argues that the only effective way to improve education for the poor is to integrate the low-income students into affluent schools.
ReplyDeleteThe facts that Herbert presents to the reader are useful in identifying the problem and establishing his point of view, but the way in which he most effectively inspires action by the audience is through the use of the rhetorical pistis, pathos. Evidence of this strategy crops up mostly in the end of the article. In fact, Herbert begins his most emotionally invoking section with, “What I think is a shame.” With this, he explicitly states the emotion that the reader will feel after continuing on to read, “We pretend that no one’s a racist anymore, but it’s easier to talk about pornography in polite company than racial integration. Everybody’s in favor of helping poor black kids do better in school, but the consensus is that those efforts are best confined to the kids’ own poor black neighborhoods.” Using subtleties such as comparing the issue to pornography, a commonly condemned and censored topic, and generalizing the group in need with the vernacular “poor black kids,” Herbert leaves the reader in an introspective state, in which guilt and shame hopefully pervade their thoughts.
In her article “The Fight of the Valkyries,” Maureen Dowd argues that President Obama has exhibited weakness and embarrassed himself and our country in his decision making progress regarding the current situation in Libya. The arrangement of Dowd’s piece is strategic and successfully undermines the authority and popularity of President Obama. She begins with an analysis of traditional gender roles and how they have been demolished by influential women in Washington D.C. over the last 10 years. Nearly everyone in America is familiar with traditional gender roles. We see them in movies, books, and advertisements and by addressing this universal concept Dowd engages her entire audience. Dowd goes on to comment that its “odd to see Rush and Samantha Power on the same side.” By choosing two diametrically opposed political figures and teaming them up against President Obama’s decision she establishes just how unacceptable the president’s actions have been. First, Dowd engages the entire audience, and then she uses a very clear method to capture the terrible decisions of our nation’s leader. Dowd finishes the article with a comparison of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. She develops this comparison by explaining the critiques of then Senator Obama on then President Bush. Using that explanation as a preface she then argues that Obama has taken a very similar course of action as the course of action taken by the Bush administration that he (and the majority of the country) loathed. The organization of this piece is methodical and it is helpful for the development of Dowd’s argument. By first engaging the audience and then attacking Obama indirectly from two very different angles, she expresses her strong distaste for our president’s poor decision making.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Discord Among Allies1, the author, who’s name is unlisted, paints a picture of the current tension between NATO countries based on France’s aggressive position for engagement in Libya. The article explains how France has taken a pro-action stance against Libya in what could be a face saving action, trying to maintain and reconstruct international respect for France, damaged when France supported a Tunisian dictator instead of a popular democratic revolution. It also proposes that some of this action may be prompted by Nicolas Sarkozy’s upcoming election. The article also explains (in no great detail) the United States’ and Obama Administration’s hesitation to engage in another conflict in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteThe article uses logos primarily along with some pathos to explain the situation, offering the opinion that a coalition should take over the situation in Libya, and that the United States should play a less than major role in said coalition. Logos comes into play for a substantial part of the article, the author even begins his paragraphs in a fashion that begs for logos: “Mr. Sarkozy had his reasons for taking such an aggressive stance on Libya.” Such a topic sentence implies that the following paragraph will be an explanation of the possible reasons for French aggression. This approach is very logic driven, leaving pathos and ethos aside to put forward just the facts in a fashion that creates a convincing argument. Pathos comes into play with the author’s choice of words. By using the word ‘murderous’ we emotionally feel sympathy for the people of Libya, in referring to our “deep engagement” in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am reminded of the ten years of war that our country has faced, and am turned off to the prospect of further engaging our soldiers in another middle eastern country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
If there exists any two people, who together have a comprehensive understanding of the contemporary Afghan situation, it is Lakhdar Brahimi, a former United Nations special representative for Afghanistan and Thomas R. Pickering a US former ambassador and undersecretary of state. On March 24th 2011, these two wrote an opinion article for the New York Times entitled, “Settling the Afghan War,” in which they argue that “talks with the Taliban should start now.” Citing the ever-continuing violence in Afghanistan, even with the increased presence of American troops, Brahimi and Pickering champion that the only way to stability in the country is by brokering a coalition to govern Afghanistan that includes the Taliban. They argue that the perfect time to begin the negotiations is now, as both countries are growing tired of the endless fighting and neither the Americans nor the Taliban will be able to achieve a complete victory. American publications have recently given much attention as to why American forces will be unable to entirely defeat the Taliban, and after Brahimi and Pickering briefly address this, they then focus on why it is unlikely the Taliban will completely regain the country. Areas not under Taliban control have seen an increase in infrastructure, which has placed “a new pressure on the Taliban, as has increasing ambivalence toward the Taliban in Pakistan.” Because of the waning support, the Taliban is most likely to negotiate now. Since they are willing to talk, the United States has the power to apply stipulations to a brokered power-sharing of the country. If the Taliban severs ties to Al-Qaida and “contains rampant drug production and trafficking in Afghanistan,” the United States can ensure the removal of a military presence by 2014.
ReplyDeleteIn a refreshing change of style from most opinion-oriented articles, Brahimi and Pickering rely primarily on the rhetorical strategy of logos to persuade the audience of their stance. As detailed in Covino’s “What is Rhetoric?” the first and necessary step in the application of logos is the invocation of common assumptions that the author and the audience hold in common. An observation about the applicable situation can then be made, and “the speaker can posit a conclusion that follows from the assumption and the premise” (Covino 17). In the Afghanistan editorial, Brahimi and Pickering start by establishing that the Afghan war has drawn on for an unimaginably long period of time—a fact that most readers of the New York Times would agree to. They then make the observation that America will not be able to establish a stable country with military force only, nor will the Taliban be able to reestablish dominance. Hence, the current stalemate will only continue. After this background, they have the facility to voice their primary assertion—that negotiations must begin with the Taliban. This assumption, observation, claim pattern, as utilized by Brahimi and Pickering, has its roots in ancient rhetorical study, where Aristotle named it the enthymeme . This is the first of Aristotles’ logical devices, with the second being the much more well-known strategy of, the example. Covino, however, elaborates upon “the example” by saying that the word intended by Aristotle is much more similar to the contemporary word of “paradigm,” meaning a “repeated pattern of precedents.” In “Settling the Afghan War,” Brahimi and Pickering also cite precedents to show that while negotiations may be difficult, they will work. Power struggles between local tribes for control of the government is not a new phenomenon, and “the international community has confronted equally intractable conflicts in Cambodia, Bosnia and elsewhere and, with unity of purpose resolved them.” Brahimi and Pickering end their argument with a reference to both the ephymeme and example used in the work, with “Afghanistan is a particularly challenging case, but it is not hopeless.”
(continued from above post)
ReplyDeleteThe strong presense of the ephymeme and “the example” in the editorial are chief indicators that Brahimi and Pickering rely primarily on logos to persuade the audience of their well-reasoned, yet controversial, idea. Given the nature of the subject, using appeals to patterns, conventions and modes of reasoning proves to be the most effective manner to convince the audience to consider their utilitarian contention.