Part 1
Wells-Barnett’s article use of classical oration form instills a sense of urgency into her arguments that makes the audience much more susceptible to her discourse. By instilling this urgency, she captures the reader’s attention and holds it long enough to make her claim. By the time she has made her claim, the reader is so surprised by the factual evidence that they are completely sucked into her article and are compelled to read it all the way through.
She first uses her exordium to hook the reader, “OUR country’s national crime is lynching” (Wells-Barnett 1). First of all, the idea that there is a national crime being committed is astounding and surprises the reader. Secondly, she uses a collective pronoun to grab the reader and also turn them into criminals. It is not “The country’s national crime” but “Our country’s national crime”, the reader is made a part of it and is therefore part of the blame and also the solution. She also italicizes the word “lynching” to emphasize it and also introduce the idea that she will be speaking of a taboo subject.
She goes on to state her narratio, or her case. This takes up the majority of the article. She delves into the history of lynching, including the history of the man Judge Lynch, who was well known for lynching criminals, and the original reason for its use (Wells-Barnett 1). She goes on to state the rise of the popularity of lynching by the Ku Klux Klan and how it spread across the United States, and it is “no uncommon thing to read of lynchings north of Mason and Dixon's line” (Wells-Barnett 1). She speaks of the fact that lynching is an “unwritten law” and implies that as an unwritten law, it is unregulated and unrestrained and unjust (Well-Barnett 1).
She continues into a confirmatio, or her proof of the injustice of lynchings. She not only gives tables of the yearly amount of lynchings in the United States by State, but also lists the victim’s supposed crimes (Wells-Barnett 4). She also tells an account of the lynching of a supposed “guilty” man and his innocent children. The reason for the children’s execution? It was never stated.
The reader might argue that it may not be nice to lynch, but certainly there was some reason for it, which Wells-Barnett anticipates and the next paragraphs become her reprehensio, or her refutation to her opponent’s case. She speaks of international incidents caused by lynchings and the reparations the United States was forced to pay as compensation (Wells-Barnett 5). This transitions the argument from ethical and into economical and diplomatic. If lynchings are causing international incidents and are costing the United States money that could easily be used for other causes, then lynchings should be stopped.
Lastly, in her peroratio, Wells-Barnett sums up her argument. She appeals to the reader’s sense of nationalism and pride where many Americans are ashamed to travel abroad and have to hear other country’s citizens criticize them for “lynching bees” (Wells-Barnett 5). She appeals to the reader’s emotions to ensure that her message rings true and strikes hard where it will hurt most. Also, by following this form, she hooks the reader tightly in the beginning, reels them through her arguments, and eventually wrenches them out of their waters of ignorance and leaves them gasping in the air of shame.
Works Cited
Wells-Barnett, Ida B. “Lynch Law in America” (1900). Mindfully.org. Web. 7 Jan. 2009.
Winterowd, W. Ross. “Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse.” College Composition and Communication 22,1 (Feb 1971): 39-45.
Part 2
An issue I want to pursue is the issue of homosexual marriage. I would be examining the history of marriage itself and how it is defined. In the discourse surrounding this issue, I would have to look at how marriage is defined today and the legal and social applications that come along with it. It would be investigated best in a historical and causal analysis because it can examine homosexual marriage in a secular context and not religious and it would make it more of a level 4 than a level 5 and it could come to an easier conclusion.
The issue of homosexual marriage is a very interesting a controversial topic--I feel that you will definitely be able to find quite a lot of information about it. Taking an historical approach does seem to be a great way to go; after all, people have been trying to legalize it for years in all states. What type of audience do you think you will be trying to reach during your proposal? Are you going to show the positive aspects of legalizing it, or are you going to take more of a neutral standpoint?
ReplyDeleteI think this will be a very interesting topic to examine. I think Fahenstock and Secor's article will help you significantly especially since you will be taking a historical approach. Also, becauase this is a very controversial subject Enoch's article should help you a lot. What audience are you trying to reach out to. The gay and lesbian community? Or the people who are againt homosexual marriage? I believe that audience contruction will also be a key factor in this research topic.
ReplyDeleteGreat topic! There should be plenty opinions to make a good paper. I was wondering about the voice you might use. Will you be impartial or take a side to argue for? I agree with Ieshia that Fahenstock and Secor will be a good resource to draw from.
ReplyDeleteYou did an excellent job of offering examples within Well's article for her successful and persuasive form. You offered detail and significant examples to sustain your argument and I felt as if you were very thorough in your developing remarks. As your topic, I think that you will find your research and resources to be plentiful. This topic would connect well to previous articles and spheres that Dr. Graban has provided us with throughout the course. Specifically, the last article by Jessica Enoch which ultimately suggests that we, as the public audience, must distance from preconceived notions and allow for a 3rd 'voice' to patiently listen to the entirety of the discourse presented. This is a intimate subject that warrants extreme care and caution in it's presentation. Good luck to you, it is an extremely interesting topic and you seem to have a great plan in mind!
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a great topic to approach, and I think the way you plan to do it makes the most sense. By providing historical and causal information, you can make your point stronger and seem less controversial or biased. I think your audience construction here will be crucial. Will you be arguing for it, against it, or re-defining it? You will need to tread carefully as you approach this topic so the audience you speak to will a) trust you and b) not be turned off if your viewpoint is different from theirs. Therefore I think looking at Ong's audience construction, and theories of ethos and kairos will be beneficial to you. Good luck! I can't wait to read it!
ReplyDeleteHomosexual marriage has been argued for a quite a long time! There were a big conflicts between the homosexual people and the heterosexual people, plus the religious ideas, it causes a lot of conflicts in history, I would suggest getting more historical stories as an example to show how the homosexual fight for their freedom. Kaufer's conflict levels would also be a good choice to make this argument. :)
ReplyDelete