Some Samples from the Essays You'll Choose From

The following are vignettes about four of the texts that are options for your paper; I focus on analyzing just one rhetorical strategy in each for clarity.

“Singing the Pink Blues” (concentrating on audience identification/proof)

Because this essay is in a regular column, analyzing the title of the column can tell us a lot about audience. “Mothers Who Think” is a bold – and a rather controversial – title as it implies that there’s a cohort of mothers who don’t think. Because Salon (the publication in which this column runs) it is a more liberal magazine, we can guess that the association with “thinking” suggests that this is for mothers who are socially and politically aware and involved, mothers who are critical of culture, questioning, discerning. Most people want to be associated with “thinking” rather than not thinking, so the column title provides a positive association for readers (if I’m reading this, I’m a thinker. Of course, the title refers more to the writer of the piece than the reader, and we can assume that, while moms are probably the intended or ideal audience, the column can and does appeal to others (women thinking about becoming mothers, women interested in children and child development, fathers, etc.)

Something else to think about: the perspective the writer takes (first, second, third-person). Mifflin writes in first-person, which is what we usually use to frame opinion and subjective (personal) experience. As such, she uses her own experience to prove her points – and we wouldn’t necessarily expect her to use research. All of you, regardless of the essay you choose, can and should think about the perspective used and why it’s used.

“Men Are From Vengeance” (concentrating on appeal to authority)

One of the main strategies Saletan uses is an appeal to authority, citing professional research and even leading the essay with a reference to a published study. Such an appeal to authority, especially so early on, suggests to the reader that he/she ought to take the characteristic in question (are men more prone to vengeful thoughts or vengeance in general?) seriously AND that the answer to this question lies in the outcome of scientifically conducted experiments. In this way, of course, Saletan is presenting his thesis as objective (fact). Saletan goes on to quote other sources liberally, never framing anything as opinion until the end, when he uses the inclusive pronoun “we” to include himself in the studied group. Ultimately, do you think Saletan exposes his bias? The research suggests that men are more vengeful, and it’s up to you to decide whether he reveals that he agrees with the research or doesn’t.

“The Descent of Marriage” (concentrating on diction)

This essay offers a number of “loaded” words and terms (those that immediately incite an emotional reaction). The words we choose usually reveal not only our bias but how we want the readers to identify. For instance: Kim uses the word “anti-gay”, which is a strong term – to identify someone as anti is to suggest very, very strong negative emotion. A great example of how the term “anti” operates as one with which people often don’t want to be associated. For instance, the older, most often used terms in the abortion debate are/were “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. Both of these terms, even if though they represent absolutely opposite poles, actually have positive connotations (which is why they’re used so much!) “Choice” is something we usually think of as positive, and so is “life”. BUT. Consider these newer terms: anti-life (which some who don’t support abortion call those who do) and anti-choice (which some who support abortion call those who do not). Again, both of these terms are diametrically opposed, but both are a bit cringe-worthy as well – most people don’t want to be consider either anti-life or anti-choice. So, the terms writers use to refer to individuals and groups are hugely important in rhetorical analysis. Kim uses a number of words and phrases that are loaded, like patriarchy, anti-gay, sinister secret agenda, painstakingly calculated, “compassionate conservative”, rogue officials, clinically homophobic, paranoid fantasy, sexual anarchy, and so forth.

“We’re Here . . . We’re uh . . . Straight” (concentrating on figurative language)

This essay offers some great figurative images. One of the best comes really early on: “John and Anne Paulk are the poster children of this movement, posing stiffly in front of two incongruous plates of fried eggs and bacon in media all over the country.” What’s going on here? Well, since the author is implying that John and Anne are not and cannot be heterosexual (despite their fervent attempts); they do not “go together” like eggs and bacon do – thus, the “incongruous” image. However, this is the literal interpretation of the metaphor – figuratively, the “bacon and eggs” represent tradition, homespun American wholesomeness . . . and John and Ann Paulk cannot become this image, be part of it (at least not genuinely). The metaphor is a bit more complicated than some but works very well for what Tisdale’s trying to get across. Something else to consider, always, is why an author uses a figure of speech rather than literal language/imagery. Usually, the main motivation is to expose/educate/show readers unfamiliar ideas and concepts by using familiar ideas and images to increase their understanding. Also, figurative language is often used to provide a concrete image (bacon and eggs are pretty recognizable, and easy to picture) for abstract ideas that aren’t easy to convey.