I ran into difficulty during this deceptively "easy" assignment. Where do you draw the line between description and analysis? When it comes to a film scene, such as Ehrenhaus describes, I can see that distinction easily; but within a summary of the rhetorical nature of a speech, where does that difference come in? How do you know when you're steeping your description in analysis?
-S
------------------------------------------
Clarence Thomas
Statement Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
"A High-Tech Lynching for Uppity Blacks"
Full text and video at American Rhetoric
Senator Biden opens the hearing set to confirm Judge Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court Justice with an acknowledgment that Thomas has had a difficult day. With an invitation to speak before the official proceedings begin, Judge Thomas proceeds to frame the hearing as not only the end of a difficult day, but also an offensive exploitation of an innocent man. He begins by denying everything. Two of the longest words in the speech, "unequivocally" and "categorically" precede that denial, and phrases such as "each and every single," "ever," and "in any way ever" follow the denial. These words work to establish his innocence, but the redundancy serves to fashion a sense of ridiculousness. With every paragraph, where he spells out why the hearing is both offensive and exploitative, the hearing is labeled "a travesty," dealing with "sleaze" and "dirt."
His primary audience, the Senate Committee, is rarely addressed in formal terms. Within his denunciation of the hearing, he clearly calls out “this committee.” On the rare occasions he acknowledges an actor or creator of the “disgusting” hearing, he places blame on the committee rather than outside actors. By blaming his audience, he picks up the persona of a victim, a receiver of injustice. His tone is offended. His language is very clear and straight forward using short sentences, often starting with “I”. In doing so he shames his audience and elevates himself to an honorable person. This with his emotional appeals to other individuals with integrity and families, frame Thomas as a falsely accused and wronged individual and the hearing as completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
His primary audience, the Senate Committee, is rarely addressed in formal terms. Within his denunciation of the hearing, he clearly calls out “this committee.” On the rare occasions he acknowledges an actor or creator of the “disgusting” hearing, he places blame on the committee rather than outside actors. By blaming his audience, he picks up the persona of a victim, a receiver of injustice. His tone is offended. His language is very clear and straight forward using short sentences, often starting with “I”. In doing so he shames his audience and elevates himself to an honorable person. This with his emotional appeals to other individuals with integrity and families, frame Thomas as a falsely accused and wronged individual and the hearing as completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
I'd love to see a Burkeian look at this.
ReplyDeleteHello Sarah: I think you ask a great question about the description/analysis difference. As you can see by my description, I don't do a very good job at drawing the line between the two. Maybe we have some sort of hybrid: descriptive analysis. I think, as your description suggests, that often times the tone and style of the piece (though certainly descriptive), offers key insights into how the text works (analysis). Though, I could be totally off on this...
ReplyDeleteSara, I like how you highlight the tone established by Thomas throughout the speech--especially as it relates to his audience. You seem to pick up on some key themes in your description of the speech.
ReplyDelete