Unit 2—Rhetoric in a "Post"-Pandemic
Some wording here taken from a handout by Dr. Rhonda Grego
Overview
In this second unit, we’ll deepen our study of “rhetoric” by learning some special terms, focusing primarily on ethos, logos, and pathos (the three classic “rhetorical appeals”) along with kairos. We’ll practice applying these terms to written texts as we extend our initial exploration of reading and writing in the 21st century, examining the rhetoric used to discuss the society’s thoughts on a variety of conversations (student choice!) (a more specific conversation from Unit 1). Readings and discussions will make us more aware of both the overt persuasive strategies used in a series of writings that consider the impact that our digital world has on literacy in our cu
ent environment (student's choice!).
Unit 2 Writing Assignments:
Short Writing assignments (SWAs) will provide opportunities for practice with rhetorical analysis, using the specialized rhetorical terms/tools for exploring how texts connect context, purpose, and readers. MWA #2 will engage students in rhetorical analysis of a conversation related to 2021 (and the many issues that come with it).
· Essays to be gathered based on student interest and groupings!
· The essay you choose for SWA 3 will be the essay you write about in this unit!n. (Note that you can change, but do it soon!)
Unit 2 Major Writing Assignment (MWA #2)—Analyzing a Conversation via Rhetorical Analysis
In the Unit 2 readings, by studying the appeals used be each author, we get a sense of how different authors approach their perceived audiences. We can learn quite a bit about rhetoric by examining the purpose and audience of each author, and understanding why the authors employed the appeals that they did.
Note that that conversation is not your topic. Your topic is to analyze the rhetoric of THAT conversation. Make sense? In other words, you're being asked to showcase what you've learned about rhetoric from studying these essays in Unit 2.
These essays will not make arguments about cu
ent events, but explain how cu
ent events are being argued!
TOPIC: For this second major writing assignment, compose an essay in which you analyze the rhetoric of the essay you chose for SWA 3.
· Discussion of common rhetorical strategies to persuade the audience (and thoughts about why such strategies would be effective for the intended audience and purpose)
· Discussion of variations in those strategies: ways in which the individual authors made unique appeals, why those appeals might have been chosen for specific audience/purpose reasons, but also, how those appeals worked
Audience: Educated readers in 2021, aware of the conversation of these readings, and studying the concept of rhetoric as it relates to these conversations (aka me and classmates, and other college composition students and citizens).
Suggestions: There are simplistic ways to structure such an assignment, and I want to caution you that simple is not always most effective. The following may be tempting, but do NOT fall into these traps:
· Do not… write about pathos/logos/ethos in separate paragraphs (the old “5-paragraph” model essay will not be effective here!)
Instead, try to find patterns in how the cu
ent essay reaches readers, and base your paragraphs around these commonalities, with plenty of examples, of course, but also, discussion of why these choices are effective and repeated in the conversation.
Focus your paragraphs not on the generic terms ethos/pathos/logos, but instead on various writing methods used to create those appeals (examples include use of language, tone, personal experience, expert sources, etc etc etc!).
Length, Format & Documentation: MLA, minimum of 4-5 pages + additional Works Cited page.
Ilhan Muhamud
Prof. Nelson
ENG XXXXXXXXXX
14 Oct. 2021
Ha
iet’s Fight Against the Government and Unfair Laws
Ha
iet Pipel was an exceptional attorney and women's rights activist. She wrote and lectured on freedom of speech/press and reproductive freedom. Ha
iet was very big on women’s rights and abortion laws. Although Ha
iet’s main audience included women, specifically young women, she mentored young men on women and reproductive rights. She helped establish minor’s rights to abortion and contraception by arguing in the 1977’s Carey v. Population Services. Ha
iet uses ethical appeal, statistics, and her own credibility to gain approval from her audience.
In an article she wrote, The Right of Abortion, she argues about the population crisis by appealing to logic and logos. Even though the article was published 52 years ago in 1969, it is very applicable today; just look at what Gov. Gregg A
ott of Texas has been up to! Throughout Ha
iet’s article, she isn't afraid to be transparent about her emotions and doesn't hold back either. Ha
iet’s evidence is strong and backed by multiple sources and is organized in both a logical and structural way that impresses her readers. She also uses ethos to persuade her audience with her knowledge on the subject and extensive research. In the article, she mentions how the population crisis could be easily cut if abortion was made available on a voluntary basis. Ha
iet then uses Japan as an example because Japan liberalized its abortion laws and halved its rate of population growth in a decade. Though Ha
iet helped shape arguments for abortion issues, her efforts to repeal abortion laws were unsuccessful and remain an unsolved problem today. Ha
iet’s article is overflowing with examples of ethos, pathos, and logos. Throughout her article, you can easily pull-out compelling vocabulary, facts, statistics, and transparency about her own feelings, because of Ha
iet's personal feelings and connection towards the subject she fails to show multiple points of view on the subject.
Firstly, Ha
iet is very transparent with her feelings on the subject and appeals to her audience by using her emotions. You can sense the strong tone and frustration in her writing. For example, Ha
iet talks about how the abortion laws are outdated and is heavily influenced by religion because all major religious groups in the United States are all in favor of abortion-law reform. “... this is an appeal to catholic officials in this country, it must clearly be disregarded, because it is inconsistent with the laws of the land” (Pipel pg. 7). Ha
iet argues that Catholics who occupy public positions struggle to separate their own beliefs from constitution and therefore shouldn’t be in office because they struggle to choose between their own obligations to their church and religion rather than saving the life of a woman. As a reader I felt persuaded with Ha
iet's writing and often stopped to ask myself questions like why should a woman's life be determined by a public figure's own religious belief? Why should someone else’s religious views be forced on anyone? What happened to freedom of religion? Ha
iet also points out that this leads to religion playing a role in hospitals and how sectarian medicine is being practised. “... if following the teachings of the pope then they are infringing the American Medical Association's canons of ethics, which prohibit the practice of sectarian medicine” (pg. 8).
Ha
iet uses clear logical connections between ideas and uses facts and statistics to make a logical argument. At one point in her writing, she makes a point about the laws discriminating against people and how unfair it is. “Since abortions, especially on white women with good incomes, are routinely and openly performed in some hospitals in most states, and the prosecuting authorities do nothing about it” (pg. 6). Ha
iet backs up her argument with a research done that shows how 93% of abortions done are on white women and the majority of those abortions were done safely and in private rooms compared to how people of color suffered unsafe abortions and 56% percent of deaths were black women compared to 21% of white women deaths. Ha
iet points out how the laws discriminate against people of color and families with low incomes, and authorities and the supreme court do nothing about it.
Throughout Ha
iet’s writing she uses credible and reliable sources to build her argument. It’s easy for her audience to follow along and continuously acknowledge her sources to the audience. For example, when Ha
iet was stating that some doctors practice sectarian medicine, she backed up her claim with textual evidence and quoted straight from the American Medical Association. Ha
iet is also a quality writer. She often shares her ideas through stories or references. She began her article off by referencing the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes and how both in the story and the cu
ent time of when the article was written, there was mass refusal to see the oblivious. “... I cannot think of a more startling examples of mass refusal to see the obvious than is presented by cu
ent attitudes towards the population problem on the one hand, and absorption on the other” (Pipel pg. 1). Ha
iet’s ethical appeal is easy to follow along with because of her evidence and research. Unfortunately, Ha
iet’s writing is biased. Even though her intended audience is 100% on board and have common ground she doesn’t represent the opposing side accurately.
As we can see, the author uses her knowledge on the subject, the use of logos is also very prominent throughout her writing using different sources and examples. Ha
iet appeals to her audience by being transparent with her feelings about the subject that's evident through her writing that it means a lot to her and manages to convey and connect with her readers that may be sharing the same frustration as her.
Citations
Pilpel, Ha
iet. “The Right of Abortion.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 16 Aug. 2018, https:
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/06/the-right-of-abortion/303366/.
Unti, Bernard. “Ha
iet Fleischl Pilpel.” Jewish Women's Archive, https:
jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/pilpel-ha
iet-fleischl.