Rhetorical Criticism and Analysis

Rhetorical criticism is a means to not only understand rhetoric, but to draw out underlying meanings within various contexts. Rhetoric has a variety of uses, most with the ultimate goal of inspiring action. It has the capability to harbor feelings through persuasion, and enact social change. There are many ways in which to analyze rhetoric, some of which are stylistic analysis, rhetorical situation analysis, ideographic analysis, hermeneutic analysis, and constitutive analysis. Each method of analysis views different specificities of the language or visuals employed by the rhetor, and how those techniques motivated a potentially measurable outcome. This then provides a variety of perspectives for the rhetorical critic to then come to a better understanding of the discourse. Specifically focusing on the method of constitutive analysis, one can come to understand how rhetoric forms unified identities, and how that is useful for creating and enacting a call to action. Zaeske and Sklar discuss this method in their essays, and getting a feel for their analyses aids in critiquing a speech by Emma Goldman.

Section One: Theoretical Assumptions

Rhetoric is contextual. It depends on its surroundings and its audience to create a match with the intended, persuasive discourse. In more cohesive terms, rhetoric is understood as a message, to an audience, to enact change. Discourse and public communication are focused on various connections to other people, in terms of unity. Ties to abstract and tangible ideas, and symbols or objects, create associations for a movement to enact change. To be an effective rhetor through this focus is to encompass ethos, or credibility, logos, or logic, and pathos, or a peppering of emotion. These three factors contribute to the effectiveness of rhetoric, as well as the audience component of persuasion, for if not to promote action in others, rhetoric would not be contextual, and would only be useful as personal dogma.

Specifically, constitutive analysis has three major characteristics, which are to create a unified identity of the audience; to create this identity through a shared narrative discourse in order to create common ground and parallel understanding; and to use the affirmed identity to perform a call to action. This creation of identity serves to move the audience to feel because they have a shared past and present, they should have a shared future, therefore pursuing the call to action by working together, which would be more efficient and powerful. This method of analysis proves that there is strength in numbers.

What Zaeske refers to as subjectivity, she explains as, “(the process of forming social identities) provides a lens through which to view the bounds of public political inclusion”(p. 196). Through inclusion, a bond is created, which uses unity to drive action. Conversely, as she also discusses, exclusion can be motivation to reconstruct an already assigned identity, to either improve an image or promote a better balance of power. This makes an attempt to allow the voices of the excluded to be heard and negotiated with more fairly. It is then understood that these are cultural processes, dependent upon delineations within society of various groups based on a number of distinctions. This also then shows that rhetoric is truly contextual and moves with the ebb and flow of human thought and associations.

Context also is the element explaining why rhetoric can be subversive. Through inclusion and exclusion, those of the minority, who want to be heard, must create messages using the terministic-screens of society to get their message across. They must work within the system to change the system. Because people see their surroundings through a filter of societal rhetoric and social norms, various aspects are weeded out to maintain correlations with the standards of the time and place. Again, looking at Zaeske, an example to relate to this would be that as women were expected to be moral and religious during the time of the anti-slavery movement, they drew upon these expectations to explain why they then should be listened to. The argument was that women understood religion the best, and because they felt that slavery was sacrilegious, those in power should answer the call to action of ending slavery. They turned around their lack of power to explaining an expert power, all within the standard expectations of society. By tailoring their rhetoric as such, they were able to obtain the attention of those excluding them from voting, and persuade them to understand their perspective. Zaeske refers to this as “subersiveness through reappropriation” (p. 204, packet). They had also maintained society’s idea of hierarchical levels of citizenship and elevated their standing by comparing their placement to that of the enslaved women. This improved their credibility to the men in power and helped gain them suffrage. The women were able to call upon a variety of techniques of reconstructing their identity within society to create social change.

Section Two: Method of Analysis

Construction (and reconstruction) of identity composes itself within a standard route. There are three essentials to look at within texts to understand the construction of identity. First, analyzing the narrative characteristic of constitutive analysis, allows comprehension of how the shared story is delineated to attempt to create unity. Looking at the focal point of commonalities can depict what kind of connections are being made and why. Second, by analyzing the actual self-naming of the audience can determine what sort of implications are being conjured to determine what ends are driving the message. Language itself is very powerful, and the use or avoidance of certain terms can impose an array of overt and hidden meanings behind words. Third, analyzing attitude and value appeals can relate to ideographs and the overall meaning of the message. By being able to grasp the ideology of the text, the forming identities based on these attitudes and values can become clearer because the background and motivation is understood.

Understanding the identity attempted to be created by the rhetor gives an indication of ideology, or attitudes and values. Looking at these ideographs can then provide information for realizing the call to action and what correlations are being made. The language, tone, and context are concrete focal points for the analyzation to then explain the other factors. Using this information will assist in deconstructing the Emma Goldman speech and how it unifies and persuades its audience.

Section Three: Applying the Method of Analysis

Emma Goldman uses a historical narrative to constitute an identity for her audience, the jury hearing her case, as well as herself and her co-defendant. Goldman and her co-defendant were indicted for acting against the country and the government by creating and distributing a No-Conscription manifesto. The prosecution is using the law to construct identities for the defendants of enacting harm against the United States, thereby being portrayed as conspirators and criminal anarchists. To counteract this, and deconstruct this identity, Goldman must create a new identity through terministic-screens of the present attitudes of the time, as well as historical narratives shaping the ideals of the audience.

Goldman begins with discussing the identity of her audience as recognizing that they are Christians and Americans. By doing this, she can rely on the historical narratives of Jesus Christ and the founders of the Declaration of Independence, espousing American values and attitudes. As she quotes, “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God”(p. 449). This quote then ties together American and Christian beliefs through correlating both narratives. By then taking these historical narratives, Goldman is able to position herself within the framework, or the terministic-screens, of this value system by defining actors of these narratives as “âÂ?¦the Anarchists of their time” (p. 449). Goldman was an Anarchist, however was perceived in a negative light, therefore, by comparing herself to former historical heroes, under a different classification, she is able to definitively make correlations, hence logically then being able to constitute an identity under the same title of “Anarchist”. She reconstructs the negative light she was cast into by that title, and makes it understood as the American way, as well as a Christian tradition.

Then following this course of making positive connotations for the label, “Anarchist”, Goldman accordingly draws in “great pioneers and rebels” (p. 449) to compare historical icons again to herself and her ideologies. Then improving the concept of rebel allows her to move to criminal, and create an idealistic tone for her classification of a political criminal. She uses the words, “hero, martyr, and saint” (p. 450) to promote civil disobedience and altruism through self-sacrifice, rather than the connotation of subversive, self-serving actions.

Goldman is then comparing herself to previous patriots, martyrs, and idols of American and Christian historical narratives (as well as other heroes outside of those parameters), as she is comparing that history to her audience, which comprises their values and attitudes. She then takes this ideology of her audience to relate it to her reconstructed identity, which then attempts to prove that she has a shared identity with the jurors. By using the terms, “sincere, honest, and brave” (p. 452) to refer to these jurors, she tries to enact a self-fulfilling prophecy within them to concur with her construction of identities for both herself and co-defendant, as well as the audience to follow the call to action of deciding in favor of not guilty for Goldman and Berkman. Understanding this call to action then also explains the use of rhetoric to persuade the audience to agree with the constitutive identities reconstructed by Goldman to pursue a common ground for agreement and support.

Section Four: Implications of the Analysis

To conclude, the method of constitutive analysis was discussed and used in order to assess its constructs and value. This form of rhetorical criticism views how rhetors create or reconstruct identities for themselves and their audiences in order to create a common ground through a narrative, to then persuade interest and action in a call to action. Rhetoric promotes social and political change, and these various methods comprise the text.

This specific analysis of constitutive identities really does prove that rhetoric is contextual, which is a very important aspect of the discourse. Identities are constructed through present societal norms, historical contexts, and various ideologies. To pursue this technique, those factors must be taken into account, along with a thorough understanding of the present day values and attitudes. When the time, place, and audience change, the rhetor must be prepared to tailor his or her text to the differences. As an example, Goldman specifically tailored her speech to an American audience, mostly comprised of Christians. If she used the same correlations to an audience of a different nationality and religion, it would not have the same meaning or importance as it would have had for her original audience.

Constitutive analysis encourages public discussion about the idea of inclusion and exclusion, as Zaeske discusses in her essay. Ethical implications are present once these lines are drawn. Hate speech is an example of exclusion, for by creating identities for outsiders through dissimilarities, ingroups and outgroups are formed. The “us versus them” mentality is dangerous with political and social strife, and can add more fuel to the fire by constructing more differences for the outgroup. As using Zaeske’s discussion as an example, anti-slavery women used language to include themselves and share an identity by sex with the female slaves in order to explain why they should be able to speak for them; yet at the same time, created language of exclusion by race, in order to include themselves with the voting white males so their right to suffrage would be promoted. Drawing different boundaries can be useful, as well as detrimental for the outgroup.

This type of analysis seems to be very beneficial for preventing ignorance towards exclusion. Because it looks at creating identities, constitutive analysis makes it possible to use background ideology to understand composition of a call to action. The persuasion then for this call to action is tangible through the labels and identities conjured through the text. It can possibly prevent perseverance of hate speech by being able to understand its background more thoroughly, as well as delineate textual exclusion and comprehend which ideologies might contribute to the construction of a negative identity.

This form of analysis does not necessarily lack anything, because whenever a rhetorical text undergoes criticism, many different angles should be taken to understand all facets of the rhetoric. More than one distinct style of analysis should be employed to be able to get a sound grasp on techniques used and goals strived for. Additionally, one form of analysis may even be able to help explain another. It is not wise to only examine with one viewpoint, because a multiplicity of angles is what promotes the best understanding of persuasive discourse. Constitutive analysis is very useful for its own purposes, but within the overall picture, a combination of analytical techniques must be brought about.