Blog Post #3: Rhetorical Analysis
Hello! This is my third blog post and for this one I'll be doing a rhetorical analysis of Michelle Alexander's argument. So far I've read up to the end of Chapter 4. (Last post I said that what I had read was part of Chapter 4, but it was actually just a section of Chapter 3.) This chapter expanded on what Chapter 3 explained however it incorporated the targeted abuse towards minorities. I will be referencing some parts of Chapter 3 here as it contained some great examples of some of the rhetorical strategies that Alexander used.
Alexander uses a lot of logos or logical and statistical analysis to convey her points. She uses anything from anecdotes to published police department statistics. This variety in her evidence not only shows that her arguments are valid, (because there are so many different forms of statistics she uses), but it also makes the book nicer to read. It doesn't sound like a narrative the whole time, but it doesn't sound like a report either. Alexander does a really nice job mixing these pieces of evidence to build that flow in her writing and ultimately demonstrate her very high level of understanding on the issues.
One of the most prevalent and strongest tools Alexander uses in her arguments are the use of very specific and targeted anecdotes. For any given point she's trying to make Alexander always finds anecdotes to back up her argument. For a book like The New Jim Crow, anecdotes are extremely important as well. To back up all the specific details she brings up, it's often hard to find reports or studies on that kind of stuff. For example one of her arguments was how becoming a felon makes it a lot harder to apply for loans or jobs, and she uses a quote to demonstrate that.
"As one young man with a felony conviction explained in exasperation, 'I asked for an application for Section 8. They asked me if I had a felony. I said 'yes.'... They said, 'Well, then, this application isn't for you.'" (Alexander 144)
As you can see, she uses a conversation a convicted felon had with a loan officer applying for Section 8 housing. She used this example as a way to show that even applying for more obscure things like Section 8 housing still is extremely difficult or impossible with a felony on your record.
:strip_icc():format(webp)/section-8-housing-eligibility-requirements-2125017_v2-5b64b97446e0fb002c863e8d.png)
Of course this all connected with her previous argument as well, which was how the War on Drugs targets minorities and is the reason behind the mass incarceration. However, the anecdote here was a good way to show case how specific she gets with some of these.
Alexander also supports her arguments through the use of statistics. She uses them very well for specific points like she does with anecdotes, but they appeal more to logic oriented people. For example she was discussing the targeted searches in New York City streets by policemen and she used the following statistic to show the sheer amount of targeted searches happening:
One of the things I appreciated about the book was how Alexander pointed out the cycle that occurs. For example, why does not being able to get section 8 housing make it more difficult for an ex-felon to get a job, and so on?
ReplyDeleteAlexander uses the cycle very efficiently in her writing. Like in your example, Section 8 housing is for low-income tenants, and so often that's their only way to get any form of housing. Without Section 8 housing they're technically homeless and therefor are less likely to get a decent job or any job at all. And then without a job it becomes harder to take out loans or apply for housing and so on. It's hard to get a job as a labeled felon anyway, and being homeless tops it off. The cycle is really eye opening as well as it it becomes very clear to see how fast ones social and economic status can fall because they had just a little marijuana on them during a targeted police search, or they even simply transported marijuana or any drug for that matter.
DeleteHi Ethan,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your blog, and even though we were analyzing the story on different bases, I see a lot of similarities between our understanding in the book. We both focus more on the more factual and number based evidence to show what Alexander was arguing, and then use different stories from the book to show how this effects the everyday person. What do you think about things like section 8 housing, do you think that non felons should have priority on applications, or is it unfair to treat felons like that?
Ryan
Hi Ethan,
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Alexander's use of logos is very effective. It's hard to deny her reasoning or logic when each and every point is backed up by either a fact or statistic. I think that the anecdotes serve to make her arguments more relatable- sometimes, it can be hard to feel emotion towards hard facts or non-fiction writing. The little stories throughout the book help to make some of Alexander's main points more understandable- in a way, they appeal to the sense of pathos as well.