Chapter 12

Rhetorical Analysis

Susan Jarratt

Definitions

“Rhetoric” is a field of academic study concerned with the human capacity to use symbols (such as language, art, music, and dance) in specific situations to influence others.  Not as familiar as literature or philosophy to many people outside the university (nor to quite a few within it), rhetoric is often associated with deception or manipulation: the language used when someone is trying to hide the truth.  Manipulative politicians and used car salesmen come to mind.  This everyday definition of rhetoric is in play when someone makes a distinction between rhetoric and “reality.” These definitions are definitely part of the history of rhetoric, and language is used in such ways every day.  Wayne Booth terms these uses “rhetrickery.”

But for scholars who study rhetoric—its history, theory, and practice—rhetoric has many more facets.  It has been discussed by many serious thinkers who, through centuries, have created a long, complex conversation about its nature and uses.  Participants in this conversation have pointed out a number of human needs served by the study of rhetoric:

To preserve, or even more basically, to define, our humanity:  we are creatures who can use speech as an alternative to violence for resolving conflicts

To figure out what we mean—as a mode of inquiry, a means of discovering knowledge and giving shape to experience

To persuade others to take our point of view, to represent the results of our inquiries as valid and useful

To protect ourselves from those who use language (and other symbolic action) to their advantage and others’ disadvantage

To enhance our pleasure in using and experiencing symbol systems of all kinds:  language, visual arts, music, and drama.

The study of rhetoric since the mid-twentieth century in the U.S. has been linked with delivering speeches and with writing, especially the teaching of writing in academic contexts.  For that reason, it is especially relevant for students fulfilling a requirement in writing to know more about the larger world of rhetoric.  It is a field that overlaps several areas of contemporary academic study.  Like creative writing, rhetoric concerns the processes of producing writing;  like literary studies, it is concerned with interpreting texts.   When you write a rhetorical analysis, you will be engaged in both enterprises:  figuring out (with your section leader) how best to produce an effective text, and figuring out how the text you are analyzing works, especially given the situation for which it was created. 

We usually think first of overtly persuasive genres such as political campaign speeches, newspaper editorials, and advertisements as characteristic of rhetoric, but all sorts of texts have designs on their recipients. Literary works, television shows and movies, webpages, body art, and graffiti can all be considered in a rhetorical light.  At the other end of the scale, we find environmental impact studies, legal briefs, software programs, ballots, and lab reports:  seemingly neutral, but all crafted and purposeful.  All such texts emerge out of contexts:  historical, political, educational, social, textual—even natural.  Whenever you consider a text in terms of its designs on the reader—its attempt to shape attitude and belief—and the specific situation that produced it, you are thinking rhetorically.  Thus rhetoric is better understood as a way of approaching writing and speaking, the events they occasion, and the artifacts they produce, rather than as a particular kind of object or detached domain of study.

How to do rhetorical analysis

There is a lively debate within rhetoric studies about how best to do rhetorical analysis (also called “rhetorical criticism”).  Rhetoric over the centuries has generated numerous systems of categorization, each system offering a set of terms and each useful in its way.  There are lists of speech genres, proofs, types of argument to use for particular occasions, organizational schemes, and lists of tropes and figures, just to mention a few frames of organization.  Here are some examples:

What kind of speech is it? Ancient Greek rhetoric recognized three major genres (types) of speech:  deliberative (for the purpose of making political decisions), forensic (legal arguments), epideictic (ceremonial speeches).  In 19th-century U.S. culture (the era of Frederick Douglass), sermons, speeches on national holidays (such as the Fourth of July), and topical speeches at meetings or clubs were very popular.  Today, we are accustomed to hearing presidential speeches (inaugural, State of the Union, oval office) and political campaign speeches. The critical question to ask about genre is, How does this speech fit into or depart from the conventions of this type of speech? 

            Example:  When Barack Obama was running for president, a major crisis arose about his connection with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, minister of the Trinity United Church of Christ which Obama attended in Chicago.  Certain inflammatory remarks Wright made about race relations in the U.S. were circulated on Youtube, and Obama finally decided to respond with a major speech, called now “A More Perfect Union,” delivered on March 18, 2008 (available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html).  One of the most interesting aspects of the speech is the fact that it doesn’t fit easily into any single genre.  It was related to the campaign, but the point was not directly to advance the candidacy.  It was much longer than a campaign speech and far more reflective and sober in tone.  Audiences were wondering whether it might be a renunciation of Wright or an apology by Obama for his ministers’ remarks.  It had these elements, but neither of them defined the speech.  The speech was personal but also historical.  The question of genre makes a good starting point for analysis of this speech.  

How is it organized? In a long dialogue about rhetoric called De Oratore (“about the orator”; in Latin), the 1st century-BCE Roman orator, Cicero, laid out a system of organization intended primarily for legal argument but applicable to many other situations: 

exordium – introduction;  exhorts (calls to) people to attend to the speaker’s presence and themes
narratio – the story or historical context for the issue under discussion
confirmatio – the case being made:  what is argued
refutatio – refuting counter arguments:  what do people say against the position and how are they wrong
peroration – the “outside” of the oration:  the conclusion

            Example:  Were you taught in high school to write five-paragraph themes?  Do you see any similarities between that organizational structure and Cicero’s?  What are the benefits and drawbacks of following an organizational pattern?  In the Winter quarter, you will write a rhetorical analysis of a speech by Frederick Douglass delivered in 1852 and called “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”  The speech was ceremonial—a speech for the national holiday, although the audience would clearly have been expecting Douglass, a former slave, to make a case for the abolition of slavery.  After “introducing” and “narrating,” when it came time for an argument, Douglass overturned the expectations of his audience by declining to make a case:  “But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued.  What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue?” (157-59).  Building an analysis on organization can show how a speaker uses predictable forms or adjusts them for his or her own purposes.     

What means of persuasion does the speaker use? In his 4th-century B.C.E. work The Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle introduced three major “proofs,” or modes of persuasion used in speeches of the time:  ethos (through the character of the speaker), pathos (through emotion), and logos (through argument).  Aristotle’s systematic study isolated elements of rhetorical practice that are most often blended and interconnected in actual speeches. 

            Example:    When Richard M. Nixon was the U.S. Senator from California and vice presidential candidate in the fall of 1952, he was accused of improperly using campaign funds to reimburse his expenses.  On September 23, 1952, he delivered a half-hour television address in which he defended his character.  He tried to establish the “ethos” of the virtuous, humble public servant by talking about coming from a family of “modest circumstances,” paying his way through school, and serving in the military.  His wife, Pat, he reported, wore only a “respectable Republican cloth coat” rather than mink.  Though he denied using political contributions illegally, he did acknowledge a gift that he would keep: a black and white dog, named “Checkers,” beloved by his children.  Although Nixon was ridiculed for the tone and content of the speech for decades to follow, it was a success in terms of positive phone and telegram response.  Nixon succeeded in creating identification with many of the 60 million viewers.  Eisenhower/Nixon ticket won the election, and Nixon later became president.  See this site for the speech:  
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/richardnixoncheckers.html   

What artful uses of language appear in the speech?  Tropes (“turns,” ways of turning language, or structuring words and sentences in artful ways to capture the attention of the listener or reader) and figures:

Anaphora – repetition of the same word or group of words at the beginning of a
            line:  “I have a dream” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Antithesis – contrasting words or ideas, often in parallel structure:  “If loving you
            is wrong, I don’t wanna be right”  (Barbara Mandrell) 

Metaphor – comparison made by describing one thing as another from a
            dramatically different context:  “Love is a rose but you better not pick it;
            only grows when it’s on the vine” (Neil Young). 

            Example:  On a number of occasions during his presidential campaign, Barack Obama used a  metaphor he borrowed from Martin Luther King, Jr.:  the moral universe is an arc bending toward justice.    In a speech on the 40th anniversary of King’s assassination, April 4, 2008, Obama gave this figure of speech another turn:   "Dr. King once said that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. It bends towards justice, but here is the thing: it does not bend on its own. It bends because each of us in our own ways put our hand on that arc and we bend it in the direction of justice...."  In his victory speech (November 4, 2008,  Grant Park, Chicago), Obama spoke of what could be achieved when people “put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.” 
            This metaphor is in the news this fall because Obama had it stitched onto a rug for the Oval Office, attributing it to King.  Historians have traced it to a 19th-century Unitarian minister and abolitionist, Theodore Parker (see Jamie Stiehm’s Washington Post article, September 4, 2010: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090305100.html).  Tracing the source is interesting, but even more interesting as a subject for rhetorical analysis is how each rhetorician uses the figure.  You might notice that for Parker and King, this arc (perhaps like a rainbow?  or like an astronomical force?) operates on its own agency.  They reassure their audiences that, even though the struggle for abolition or civil rights goes on for decades without success, justice will eventually prevail.  Obama, however, gets human agents into the picture:  we can bend this arc with our own hands!  Explaining why Obama makes such an adjustment would make fascinating material for a rhetorical analysis.
            In “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” Douglass refers to the Declaration of Independence as the “ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny” (152).  Where does it come from?  What are its realms of association?  How does it work?  How does a figure enhance an ethos?  Build an argument?  Create an emotional climate?

[See “Silva Rhetoricae”—Forest of Rhetoric—for an extensive list of tropes and figures:   http://rhetoric.byu.edu/]

Using rhetorical categories as starting points for analysis can be generative, but applying them like a recipe or a list of items to check off will give your analysis a mechanical quality.  You will want to think of the text in hand not as a static object but as evidence of a situated rhetorical act.  To make “situation”—the most distinctive aspect of rhetoric—a more dynamic component of analysis, scholars have highlighted various elements of the rhetorical act, suggested by the following questions:  

Questions for rhetorical analysis

Who speaks (writes, performs, etc.)?

For or on behalf of whom?  i.e., does the speaker purport to represent a group?  What are the
            difficulties entailed in “speaking for” a group?  Does this rhetorical text allow for
            multiple voices?

To whom is the rhetorical act addressed?  At what distances can these addressees be
            located?

What genre (type) of product is it?  Letter, speech, manifesto, editorial, essay, dialogue,
            debate, etc.?  Are the features of this genre well established?  Does this text strain or
            violate them?  Play with or parody them?

What is the situation?  To what event or occasion (exigence) does the rhetorical act respond?
            Does the rhetorical act create the event, or does it fit into an existing frame (e.g., 4th             of July speech, inaugural address)? How does power in terms of social position affect
            the rhetorical performance?  Are there power inequities or imbalances involved in the
            rhetorical situation?

What are the purposes?  To express, inform, persuade?  To instruct, move, delight?  To set an
            agenda, shift attitudes, advocate specific policies?

How would you describe the style?  Style draws attention to words, sentences, and larger
            segments of discourse.  Is the style dry, direct, flat, workmanlike, prosaic?  Vivid,
            colorful, florid, elaborate, elegant, delicate?  Forceful, aggressive, confrontational; 
            scientific, argumentative, contemplative? How do figures of speech come into play?  Are
            sentences short or long;  simple or complex?  Is the overall organization linear or
            associative;  narrative, descriptive, or process-oriented?  Do the points of argument
            accumulate, or do they line up like birds on a wire?  Is the style determined by the
            genre?  Is it determined by historical period or cultural location?   

What do you know about delivery and/or circulation of this rhetorical act? Through what
            medium does it come to life?

A “conceptual” analysis (see Jasinski) sets out a problem derived from the critic’s understanding of the text and situation, and works from this problem or question, generating a fresh interpretation.  In the process, rhetorical terminology and categories such as the ones alluded to above may come into play, but they do not map the analysis like a set of directions. 

Your Winter quarter rhetorical analysis assignment, based on Frederick Douglass’ speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” poses a question for you, leading you to start from a single category of analysis (ethos, the character of the speaker) as a means of thinking about the speech and speaker in the context of the abolition movement in the antebellum North.  This analysis will be conceptual and contextual;  you may call on any of the other tools of analysis outlined here to develop your interpretation.  For example, you may wish to consider the structure of the argument (see Chapter 6, “Counterargument,” and Chapter 12, “Claims, Evidence, Warrants in Practice”), or you may find Douglass’ use of tropes and figures relevant to the construction of ethos.  Analytic possibilities abound!

Intentions and effects

Using a “communications” model of rhetoric, a speaker gets an idea, puts it into a speech with the intention of persuading a listener, the speech “goes” to the listener, who either is or isn’t persuaded and then acts.  These are commonsense ways of thinking about almost any act of communication.  They imply that we can know clearly both the intentions of the speaker and the effect on the listener.  But most rhetoric scholars find rhetorical situations and acts more complex than this model suggests. 

Because of the nature of language and the complexities of consciousness, speakers don’t always say what they think.  Their rhetorical acts exceed or fail to reflect perfectly their intentions.  Likewise, it is impossible to know how any particular listener or reader will receive a text, given the complexities of individual knowledge, belief, and receptivity.  To avoid the pitfalls of assuming we can pin down and know any one of these points of reference in the process of communications, we can change the questions from  “What is the message?” and “Was this speech effective?” to “What happens when someone speaks or writes?” (IJsseling).  Changing the metaphor can help too.  Instead of imaging the persuasive impulse flying like a well-aimed arrow from the shooter/speaker to the target/listener, we can substitute the idea of circulation.  Ideas, intentions, styles, and genres circulate in texts, cultures, geographies, media, and spaces of performance.  Any single speaker or writer steps into this stream of circulation, gathers and re-sorts some of these rhetorical materials, sending them back out into the mix.  “Effects” or responses come swirling back in many ways (applause at a speech, conversation afterward, a summary of the speech in the paper the next day, students imitating the speech in classroom exercises, editorials challenge the ideas, the speech anthologized in a collection, and on and on), but rarely with the clarity or decisiveness of votes in an election or a choice to purchase a product.  Effects are diffuse, uneven, and distributed through time and space.  As we think about and discuss our 21st-century responses to Douglass’ speech, and make critical  judgments about it, we also try to imagine how it was received in his time.

A term that may help you to think about this swirl of influences around rhetorical acts is “intertext.” An intertext is a pre-existing work that gets reused in some form in future writing and speaking.  For this unit on rhetoric, the Declaration of Independence is a significant intertext for Stanton and Douglass.  As Blight (editor of Douglass’ Narrative) suggests, the bible and sentimental novels and poetry play important roles in the rhetoric of 19th-century social movements.

            Example:   On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., before 200,000 participants in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.  On August 28, 2010, conservative talk-show host, Glenn Beck organized a rally in the same location called  “Restoring Honor.”  Many people expected that Beck selected the date and place in order to refute or mock the principles of the civil rights movement and of King.  Instead, according to Taylor Branch, author of a three-volume history of the civil rights era, Beck’s rally “extended respect” to the movement in an event blending religion and patriotism (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05branch.html).  Branch, in this New York Times opinion piece, constructs a rhetorical analysis of the rally by exploring the earlier March on Washington as an intertext. 

Rhetorical analysis can be enriched by research to discover how the work you’re considering may be like or unlike others in the same category, or may be borrowing from other contexts.  To use an expression from Aristotle, we might call such intertexts and generic conventions the “available means of persuasion” for the era.  As a rhetorical analyst, you are seeking to discover what choices the author made and why. 

Works Cited

Aristotle.  On Rhetoric.  A Theory of Civic Discourse.  2nd ed.  Trans.  George A. Kennedy.
            Oxford:  Oxford UP, 2007.  Print.  

Booth, Wayne C.  The Rhetoric of Rhetoric.  The Quest for Effective Communication.  Malden, MA: 
            Blackwell, 2004.  Print. 

Burke, Kenneth.  Grammar of Motives.  Berkeley:  U of California P, 1945.  Print.

IJsseling, Samuel.  Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict.  The Hague:  Martinus Nijhoff, 1976. 
            Print. 

Jasinski, James.  “Rhetorical Criticism.”  Sourcebook on Rhetoric.  Key Concepts in Contemporary
            Rhetorical Studies.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage, 2001.  Print.  

Ramage, John D.  Rhetoric:  A User’s Guide.   New York:  Pearson Longman, 2007.  Print.

Selzer, Jack.  “Rhetorical Analysis:  Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers.”  What
            Writing Does and How It Does It.  An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices
            Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior.  Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004:  279-
            307.  Print.