How about “The Rhetoric of Fear” for a course title? I think it’s catchy. Below is a paragraph that, I argue, has a prevailing or dominant rhetorical appeal of pathos–specifically, the emotion of fear.
The Rhetoric of Fear as a Persuasive Strategy in Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson’s Preface to The Dehumanization of Man
The following thesis is an analysis of the persuasive strategy of the rhetorical devices and elements in the preface to Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson’s book The Dehumanization of Man. Fear is the dominant emotion and persuasive element of the preface. I show how the authors create a sense of fear within the audience through the rhetorical devices they use. I discuss the assumptions of word meanings and how word meanings contribute to an author’s overall rhetorical strategy.
An emotional fear appeal pervades the first two paragraphs of the preface, the part I have chosen to analyze. I demonstrate my findings in a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the main devices found. The demonstration follows a literature review that highlights important scholarship on the rhetoric of fear. I conclude that Montagu and Matson effectively position readers to accept the argument that dehumanization is everywhere before the audience finishes the preface.
The Prose Sample Analyzed
The following passage is taken from The Dehumanization of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983: xi) by Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson
This book is concerned with an invisible dis-ease, an affliction of the spirit, which has been ravaging humanity in recent times without surcease and virtually without resistance, and which has now reached epidemic proportions in the Western World. The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine (psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its lethal effects are everywhere on display. It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record—and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the “Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.” Its more conventional name, of course, is dehumanization.
Pretty grim stuff, huh? Let’s get the obvious out of the way. What’s this paragraph trying to claim, warn, or mention? Also, what’s the dramatic climax of this paragraph?
Word Choice for Effect
Pick out the words associated with fear, danger, and destruction. What words contribute to the authors extended metaphor of sickness? Remember, it will be helpful if you define a prevailing rhetorical appeal in your prose selection.
Sentence-by-Sentence Look
- This book is concerned with an invisible dis-ease, an affliction of the spirit, which has been ravaging humanity in recent times without surcease and virtually without resistance, and which has now reached epidemic proportions in the Western World.
Commas come after the following words: dis-ease, spirit, and resistance. However, notice the parallel structure of “without surcease and virtually without resistance.” What effect does that rhythm create?
- The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine (psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its lethal effects are everywhere on display.
This sentence has another parallel structure, which reinforces the fear of the “invisible dis-ease.” The authors use two words beginning with “un-” that have prepositional phrases following: “unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine.” They argue that dehumanization has largely gone unnoticed by scientific, medical communities with the exception of psychiatry. Even though they want to cover their bases and not fall victim to an absolute fallacy, they mitigate the impact the field of psychology has by using parentheses to recognize psychiatry as an aside. (Word Count: 85)
- It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record—and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation.
The obvious addition is the use of an “em” dash. What are the effects of the punctuation?
The phrase that mentions “war, plague, famine, or natural calamity” links well to the Fifth Horseman concept in the fourth sentence, because, when readers hear that dehumanization is the fifth, the Biblical allusion of the Horseman is anticipated.
- Its more conventional name, of course, is dehumanization.
“Dehumanization” is the last word at the end of this paragraph: “Its more conventional name, of course, is dehumanization.” Since the last sentence is short, the point comes faster and emphatically. Besides the emphasis from end focus the last word of a sentence has, short sentences can also “strike a note of urgency” (Williams 225). Usually, “of course” should be at the beginning of the sentence. Since it is not in the expected place, it is a stylistic tool, slowing readers down and making them focus on “of course”. The effect might also be to imply that we–readers included–already know the name dehumanization.
Discussing Prose
Below is a paragraph that explains and proves the claim that dehumanization is the main topic the authors want readers not to just know, but to feel.
Having dehumanization as the last word of a sentence gives it great emphasis. The flow of the English language naturally focuses on the end of a sentence. It is the last thing read before the necessary pause a period invokes. As Martha Kolln points out, writers should “save important information for the end of the sentence, the point of main stress” (27).* And since dehumanization is the final word of a paragraph, the focus is even greater.
*This is from Kolln’s 3rd edition of Rhetorical Grammar. The 8th edition has a similar quote on the bottom of p. 159.
This next paragraph discusses the known-new contract in the paragraph:
The ailment reference in the first sentence (affliction) is repeated in the next sentence’s subject, the contagion. That upholds the known-new contract, because contagion and affliction—as shown in the pathology section—are related to sicknesses. The known-new contract is the act of placing already presented information at the beginning of the next sentence. Martha Kolln claims that this fulfills readers’ expectations, because they are reminded of the information of the previous sentence as they begin the next one (43-4).* Joseph Williams notes that the known-new contract creates cohesion in sentences; without it, a writer’s “sentences will add up to no coherent cumulative meaning” (104). And cohesion helps readers understand how the different ideas or arguments in an entire work are related to the authors’ overall message (Williams 106). For Montagu and Matson, the known-new contract creates a cohesion between affliction and contagion. Now readers are aware that the ailment is like a cancer, but a cancer unknown to science and medicine.
*This is from Kolln’s 3rd edition of Rhetorical Grammar. The 8th edition discusses the known-new contract on pp. 143-146.
Later in the paragraph:
However, they claim that psychiatry has some knowledge of dehumanization by using parentheses: “the contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine (psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for all to see and its lethal effects are everywhere on display.” Writers use parentheses to mention a point in passing without slowing sentence rhythm by adding too much information (Kolln 93).*
*This is from Kolln’s 3rd edition of Rhetorical Grammar. The 8th edition discusses the parentheses on p. 235.
I do expect you to cite, obviously, where the passage you use comes from, but you also need to cite Kolln & Gray (or other sources) that offer expert guidance. This also shows that you’ve been reading. By the way, the paragraph on the known-new contract was 448 words long.