Unit II
General Forms of Criticism
CHAPTER 3 Analyzing Situations
CHAPTER 4 Analyzing Ideas
CHAPTER 5 Analyzing Argument
CHAPTER 6 Analyzing Form
CHAPTER 7 Analyzing Syntax and Imagery
CHAPTER 8 Analyzing Word Choice
CHAPTER 9 Analyzing Media
Chapter 3
Analyzing Situations
I wish I could sing! I speak to you as an American Jew. As Americans we share the profound concern of millions of people about the shame and disgrace of inequality and injustice which make a mockery of the great American idea. As Jews we bring to [this] great demonstration, in which thousands of us proudly participate, a two-fold experienceâone of the spirit and one of our history.
In the realm of the spirit, our fathers taught us thousands of years ago that when God created man, he created him as everybodyâs neighbor. âNeighborâ is not a geographic term; it is a moral concept. It means our collective responsibility for the preservation of manâs dignity and integrity.
From our Jewish historic experience of three and a half thousand years we say: Our ancient history began with slavery and the yearning for freedom. During the Middle Ages my people lived for a thousand years in the ghettos of Europe. Our modern history begins with a proclamation of emancipation.
It is for these reasons that it is not merely sympathy and compassion for the black people of America that motivates us. It is above all and beyond all such sympathies and emotions a sense of complete identification and solidarity born of our own historic experience.
Friends, when I was [âŠ] in the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime, I learned many things. The most important thing that I learned in my life, and under those tragic circumstances, is that bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problem. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful, and the most tragic problem is silence. A great people which had created a great civilization had become a nation of silent onlookers. They remained silent in the face of hate, in the face of brutality, and in the face of mass murder.
America must not become a nation of onlookers. America must not remain silentânot merely black America, but all of America. It must speak up and act from the President down to the humblest of us, and not for the sake of the Negro, not for the sake of the black community, but for the sake of the image, [the dream], the idea, and the aspiration of America itself.
Our children, yours and mine, in every school across the land, every morning pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, and then they, the children, speak fervently and innocently of this land as the land of âliberty and justice for all.â
The time, I believe, has come for us to work together, for it is not enough to hope togetherâfor it is not enough to pray togetherâ to work together, that this childrenâs oathâpronounced every morning from Maine to California, from North and Southâthat this oath will become a glorious, unshakable reality in a morally renewed and united America. Thank you.
Who gave this speech? Was it a speech and not an essay? If a speech, when and where was it given? Was the audience wealthy, middle-class, or poor? Were they Jewish like the speaker or more diverse? How did they feel about the topic? What can we tell about the speakerâs education, age, gender, or occupation?
These questions may seem bizarre since we rarely deal with unknown messages. Most texts come to us already packaged and labeled. We confront them in their natural habitats, at specific times and places. If we ever did confront a mystery message, there is a decent chance we could find its facsimile on the Web.
This chapter invites you to become your own search engine. We will see that all messages emanate from unique situations and that they do something special. We will see that when a speaker, audience, and message come together somewhere, that unique configuration of factors makes its own statement.
Criticism can be thought of as a kind of guessing game, a search for a textâs rhetorical shadows. For example, how do we know that the text above was, in fact, a speech? There are several clues. It would have been presumptuous, after all, for a writer to type the first sentence since it implies a continuing dialogue with others. While writers sometimes start in the middle of things, they usually give readers a clue or two. But someone talking to a live audience might expect them to fill in the missing references, especially if they had just shared a musical experience (which seems to be the case here).
Also, the textâs language seems too staccato for written composition. The sentences are shortâsimple and declarativeâwith few embedded clauses. The speaker addresses the audience directly (âwe share,â âour fathers taught usâ) but also uses formal direct address (âFriends, âŠâ), which would have been off-putting in private correspondence. The message could be a newspaper editorial, but the speaker thanks the audience for their attention, a hint that people are gathered together somewhere. And so we have a speech.
A contemporary speech? Possibly, although there is none of todayâs fast-paced, hard-nosed talk here, no media personalities or recent legislation mentioned. Instead, the speech seems to be a beginning (âThe time ⊠has comeâ). We hear of plans being made, not victories savored. Individuals are turned into a collective (âour children, yours and mineâ), a hint that speaker and audience shared certain experiences.
What else do we have? We have singing, Jews, Blacks, collective responsibility, repudiation of silence, World War II, and, interestingly, the Emancipation Proclamation. The speech seems to ignore local conditions, reaching out to a national constituency (âfrom Maine to Californiaâ). We hear, in short, the language of the 1960s, a time when even political talk sounded vaguely spiritual. We also hear the sound of gospel-singing (the famed Mahalia Jackson preceded our speaker to the podium) and of souls being saved (Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke just after). The place: Washington, D.C. The scene: The Lincoln Memorial. The audience: Some 200,000 civil rights marchers. The date: August 28, 1963.
And our speaker? A male, no doubt, for few women addressed such large crowds at that time. The act of speaking at a massive demonstration was an outward sign of power, a sign not accorded to women by the early civil rights establishment. We hear male forcefulness here (e.g., âI speak to you as an American Jewâ) and a kind of gentle paternalism (ââNeighborâ is not a geographic term; it is a moral conceptâ). We are exposed to the long view (âDuring the Middle Ages my people âŠâ), suggesting an older speaker.
Finally, even though the phrase âa rabbiâ has been removed from the first line of the fifth paragraph, the speaker signals his occupation with his scholarly distinctions (ânot for the sake of the black community, but for the sake of âŠâ) and his spiritual exhortations (âa glorious, unshakable reality in a morally renewed and united Americaâ). The speaker was Rabbi Joachim Prinz, then national president of the American Jewish Congress and one of several speakers who shared the platform with Dr. King on that historic day in 1963.1
So our critical work is done. But was it worth it? Would it not have been easier simply to look up the required information? Perhaps, but then we would have missed the chance to explain how we knew the differences between todayâs and yesterdayâs speech, between male and female speech, between religious and secular speech, between private and public speech, between older and younger speech, between formal and informal speech, between speech and non-speech.
In this chapter, we will see that most messages bear the imprints of the social conditions producing them. Rhetoric is a situated art that can only be understood when text and context are considered simultaneously. Despite the attractions of the Internet, that is, we will see that the criticâs best reference source is his or her own library of textual knowledge. Rhetorical criticism helps us discover how we know what we know.
The Meanings of Speech-Acts
A basic fact about speaking often goes unnoticed: It is an activity. By addressing another, a speaker both says something and does something. Many critics miss this âdoingâ function but daily life highlights its importance: Despite his gift for storytelling, for example, a guest overstays his welcome at a party; despite her good intentions, a young executive is fired for sharing classified information with a colleague in a public restaurant; despite their affability, a married couple insults their new neighbors by greeting them with a wave instead of an extended conversation. In each of these cases, the messages exchanged were innocent enough, but matters of place, time, and relationship undid them.
Philosopher J. L. Austin was intrigued by these speech-acts, noting that this âextraâ dimension of persuasion (what he calls its âperformativeâ character) can be especially powerful.2 If said in the right context, for example, âI doâ both communicates a loving sentiment and gets one married! The critic is therefore wise to examine what a text is doing before attempting any textual analysis.
Consider, for example, the furor aroused when a physician published a brief column in the illustrious Journal of the American Medical Association. The piece was titled âItâs Over, Debbieâ and vividly detailed a case of euthanasia performed by the author-doctor. Michael Hyde has analyzed this letter, arguing that its importance lay not in what was said but in its having been published.3 Many doctors have performed mercy killings but few acknowledged doing so and fewer still did so in print. As a result, âItâs Over, Debbieâ inflamed the medical community, including physicians who had never read the article.
Because rhetoric âactsâ as well as âsays,â it always contains implicit understandings.4 Deciding to communicate with someone else means at least these things:
- The speaker feels something is wrong. This wrong thing may not be a calamity but even a friendly greeting to a passerby ...