Rifkin - Sample Rhetorical Analyses
1. STRATEGY OF USING ANIMAL NAMES
In “A Change of Heart About Animals,” a 2003 editorial published in the Los Angeles
Times, Jeremy Rifkin argues that new research calls into question many of the boundaries
commonly thought to exist between humans and other animals, and as a consequence
humans should expand their empathy for animals and treat them better. To support this
argument Rifkin points to studies suggesting that animals can acquire language, use tools,
exhibit self-awareness, anticipate death, and pass on knowledge from one generation to
the next.
One strategy Rifkin employs to build the argument that animals should be treated more
like humans is his subtle use of animal names when introducing data. When he offers
new research about the problem solving abilities of New Caledonian crows, for example,
Rifkin cleverly describes how “Abel, the more dominant male…stole Betty’s hook” in
order to obtain a better feeding tool (Rifkin). Rifkin, of course, could have chosen to
ignore the bird’s test-subject names – which in all likelihood, were arbitrarily assigned by
lab technicians and remain of little importance to the conclusions of the experiment – but
by including them he bestows a human quality to the animals beyond what the data
suggests. He repeats this technique twice more to the same effect, once when introducing
“Koko, the 300 pound gorilla,” who displays close-to-human intelligence and an
impressive sign language vocabulary, and again when describing an “Orangutan named
Chantek,” whose use of a mirror displays human-like self awareness (Rifkin). Surely the
data alone make the argument that animals are, by turns, capable of human qualities of
problem-solving, communication, learning, and self-awareness. By offering the names of
the test animals, though, he imbues them with greater individuality, personality and
dignity. Giving the animals human names invites readers to think of them in terms
usually reserved only for human beings. This strategy establishes a relationship of
similarity between the animals mentioned and ourselves. The more like human animals
seem, the more it follows that they should be treated with the empathy and dignity we
assume all humans deserve. This strategy thus helps advance Rifkin’s claim that we
should “expand and deepen our empathy to include the broader community of creatures
with whom we share the earth.”
Sample Rhet Analyses – language and imagery
Student Example #2: beginning to think about a text rhetorically – still needs work
Rifkin is able to make his audience believe that we should do more for animals by
using very negative language when talking about how we currently treat animals. At
the end of his article there is a paragraph where Rifkin asks a lot of questions.
Almost all of his questions have negative words. For example, he talks about
“animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments” and “raised under the
most inhumane conditions.” He also says that animals are “for slaughter and human
consumption.” Many of these words are totally negative. Words like “subjected,”
“inhumane,” and “slaughter” are almost always used to make it seem as if people are
treating animals terribly. If something is subjected it is controlled by and powerless
to something else. When I think of inhumane I think that what is being done is wrong.
And when I think of slaughter I automatically think negative thoughts. In this article
Rifkin wants us to believe that the current way that we treat animals needs to be
changed. But maybe not all animals are treated so unjustly? What if, instead of
saying “subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments” Rifkin says that
animals are used in research? If he said that the impact of his argument wouldn’t be
as strong. He wants the audience to think that what is happening now is bad and that
we need to treat animals better. His choice of negative words helps him do this.
Student Example #3: A more thoughtful and developed analysis of a strategy.
One strategy that Rifkin employs to build the argument that humans need to treat
animals more humanely is his drastic use of completely negative imagery on the heels
of personifying animals. Until this point in the text Rifkin has diligently created these
animals as people. For example, he explains that a gorilla can speak sign language,
that pigs “crave affection” and “can be easily depressed” and that “elephants…stand
next to their dead kin for days.” This language makes these animals seem like people.
People speak, crave affection, and spend time consoling and grieving. Once the
reader thinks of these animals as people, Rifkin then pulls the rug out from under
them. At the end of the text, when asking questions about how humans should treat
these people/animals, Rifkin uses language that stirs the audience. He talks about
“animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments” and “raised under the
most inhumane conditions.” He also says that animals are “for slaughter and human
consumption.” These words, words like subjected, inhumane, and slaughter have
incredibly negative connotations and bring to mind ideas of brutality and savagery. If
we follow Rifkin’s thinking, and animals are like people, and we slaughter (for eating
no less) and put needles in their eyes in a lab-- that is simply unacceptable. This is
what Rifkin want us to understand. For Rifkin, this is the current situation but it
doesn’t have to be. If individuals understand that animals are very much like us, we
will want them to be treated with the same respect and dignity. Currently, we are not
doing this. But, we can.
Student Example #4: Solid, well built analysis - sophisticated thinking & clear
language.
Rifkin is able to build the argument that humans need to treat animals more humanely
by smartly contrasting the language he uses to describe these animals at the beginning
of the text with the language he uses to describe their current situation near the end.
Specifically, throughout the majority of the article Rifkin uses language that equates
animals with people. At the end of the article, however, he uses very negative
imagery when explaining how they are treated. For example, in the first part of the
text he explains that a gorilla can speak sign language, that pigs “crave affection” and
“can be easily depressed” and that “elephants…stand next to their dead kin for days.”
This language suggests that these animals are uncompromisingly similar to you and I- that humans and animals both possess the ability to speak, the need to crave
affection, and the desire to spend time consoling and grieving. Once the reader
digests this section of the text and sees animals as “almost” human, Rifkin abruptly
changes how he speaks about these personified creatures’ situations. At the end of
the text, when asking questions about how humans should treat animals, Rifkin
suffuses his descriptions with highly negative language and imagery meant to stir
emotions. He talks about “animals subjected each year to painful laboratory
experiments” and “raised under the most inhumane conditions.” He also says that
animals are “for slaughter and human consumption.” These words—“subjected,”
“inhumane,” and “slaughter” (among others)-- have incredibly negative connotations
and bring to mind ideas of human-induced brutality and savagery. Rifkin easily could
have decided to explain the treatment of animals simply with expressions like
“animals are used in medical research.” He could have created a more positive tone;
“these creatures are at times a source of our nourishment.” But this is not what he
does. He wants the audience to have to deal with thinking, feeling, at times even sad,
creatures being subjugated, poked, prodded, and literally eaten. Such brutality, at the
hands of humans, cannot be ignored by the audience. Rifkin’s contrastive
descriptions, abruptly shifting from flowery personification to deadly exploitation,
force the reader to take heed and to realize that the current brutality is wrong—and
correctable. If the audience believes that animals are human-like, and that humanlike creatures should not be treated savagely, then animals should no longer suffer
such ill treatment. We, humans, should begin to treat them more humanely.
Rifkin Sample Rhetorical Analysis 5: REBUTTALS
In “A Change of Heart About Animals,” a 2003 editorial published in the Los Angeles
Times, Jeremy Rifkin argues that new research calls into question many of the boundaries
commonly thought to exist between humans and other animals, and as a consequence
humans should expand their empathy for animals and treat them better. To support this
argument Rifkin points to studies suggesting that animals can acquire language, use tools,
exhibit self-awareness, anticipate death, and pass on knowledge from one generation to
the next. One strategy Rifkin employs to persuade his readers is to describe some of the
most common objections typically raised against the idea that animals and humans share
essential traits, along with rebuttals to these objections. For example, Rifkin notes that
“philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that other animals are not
capable of self-awareness because they lack a sense of individualism.” He acknowledges
that “scientists have long believed” that unlike humans, animals cannot comprehend their
death, and that “until very recently” scientists assumed animal behavior was based on
instinct rather than learned experience. Rifkin responds to these objections, presenting
counter evidence and counter claims based on new studies that he suggests undermine
previous understandings of animals. This is an important strategy, for Rifkin likely knows
that many of his readers come to his article assuming that fundamental differences exist
between humans and animals, and when presented with an argument suggesting
otherwise, would raise precisely the objections Rifkin describes. By making objections to
his argument a prominent part of his text, and spending so much space responding to
them, Rifkin is better able to win over his audience. Dealing with common assumptions
and objections to his position is crucial to getting his audience to accept his main
argument. It removes what would otherwise be a major obstacle to his audience accepting
his claims. If he did not include this strategy, it is likely that these objections would occur
to many readers, and they might reject his argument. Spending so much time considering
opposing points of view also makes Rifkin appear balanced and fair minded, and thus
may incline readers to trust him. Lastly, the way Rifkin presents objections to his
argument is important strategically. Rifkin presents opposing views almost exclusively in
terms of “past research” that has been superseded by more up to date work. It seems
likely that some contemporary research exists that is at odds with Rifkin’s position, yet
Rifkin does not discuss this, instead presenting disagreement in terms of old, outdated
studies versus new, correct ones. Since many readers are likely to assume that the more
up to date scientific research is, the more likely it is to be true, then associating objections
with past research increases the likelihood they will accept they are not valid.
4 MORE SAMPLE ANALYSES
PAPER 1 In "A Change of Heart about Animals," a 2003 editorial in the Los Angeles
Times, Jeremy Rifkin, a well known American economist, addresses the topic of animal
similarity to humans. He argues that because animals can make tools, develop
sophisticated language skills, experience self-awareness, and mourn the dead, they should
be shown the same empathy and treated the same way as humans are. To support this
claim, he gives numerous examples of animals showing these traits that were thought to
be solely possessed by humans.
Rifkin uses a number of rhetorical strategies to support his claim but one that greatly
develops his argument is his use of counter-arguments and rebuttals. It has been debated
whether animals are closer to humans than previously thought but there is still much
skepticism. Many arguments have been made saying that “other animals are not capable
of self-awareness…” or that “[they] have no sense of their mortality and are unable to
comprehend the concept of their own death” (Rifkin). However, according to current
research, these statements may be false. Rifkin states multiple accounts that disprove
these current theories. One of these examples involves Chantek, an orangutan at the
Washington National Zoo, who “used a mirror to groom his teeth and adjust his
sunglasses” (Rifkin). Rifkin also uses the example of Elephants who “will often stand
next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks”
(Rifkin). Rifkin could simply state these examples and completely omit the counterargument, however, by including the counter-argument he is able to better support his
claims as well as create a sense of individualism within the animals. Rifkin often stated
an animal’s name (i.e. Koko the 300-pound gorilla and Chantek the orangutan) in order to
create emotion within the reader. If the reader begins to feel for the animals are more like
humans and feel empathy for them then Rifkin’s point is better noted. By giving both the
counter-argument and a rebuttal, Rifkin’s evidence becomes stronger. He states facts that
support his ideas and puts to rest any arguments against his. Finally, Rifkin ends his work
with a series of questions that raise thought within the reader. These questions with his
counter-argument rebuttals force the reader to think about the topic and create their own
feelings toward the topic.
PAPER 2: Jeremy Rifkin, an American economist, writer and public speaker, has written
an editorial that questions how humans should treat animals. In “A Change of Heart
about Animals,” published in 2003 in the Los Angeles Times, he argues that animals can
be related more to humans than previous thought. Rifkin gives evidence by illustrating
examples of various types of creatures depicting human emotions and intelligence. His
purpose is to make readers think more deeply and be aware of animals around them
because they are not as different to us as one might think.
One of Rifkin’s strategies in his article is providing the audience with objections to his
claim and then answering them which, in the end help to strengthen his overall argument.
He states that some philosophers and animal behaviorists argue that many animals do not
have the ability for awareness of their surroundings and human-like emotions. But
according to new studies this is not true. Rifkin states, “At the Washington National Zoo,
orangutans given mirrors explore parts of their bodies they can’t otherwise see, showing a
sense of self.” This example helps to solidify his argument by addressing both sides to the
topic. In another example Rifkin says that “an orangutan named Chantek who lives at the
Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to groom his teeth and adjust his sunglasses.” This is also
another rebuttal to any objections against animals’ ability to express human emotion and
intelligence. If Rifkin had left out these counter arguments it would leave his issue very
open to objections. This is a strategic way to persuade the reader in one direction.
PAPER 3 Los Angeles Times, Rifkin in his Editorial, “A Change of Heart About
Animals,” published in September 1, 2003 addressed the topic of animals and how they
relate in numerous ways to humans. He supports this claim by giving the animals
personification and contradicts prior beliefs. Rifkin’s purpose is to inform people that
animals are just like us and they should be treated the way we would want to be treated.
He adopts a friendly educational tone for his audience, the readers of Los Angeles Times
and others interested in learning about animals.
Throughout “A Change of Heart About Animals,” Rifkin uses the strategy of
contradicting prior beliefs about animals with his knowledge and evidence. For example,
Rifkin states, “Some philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that other
animals are not capable of self-awareness because they lack a sense of individualism.” He
than goes on to say this is not the case and provides evidence of a new study at the
Washington National Zoo where they placed mirrors and noticed the animals looking in
the mirror and observing parts of their bodies. By using this rebuttal and bringing up a
prior belief this makes Rifkin’s writing much stronger because a reader may remember
hearing animals lack a sense of individualism in the past. Another example where the
author contradicts a prior belief is when he says that animals have no sense of mortality
and can not comprehend the concept of death. He than rebuts this belief by using the
example of elephants who experience grief and we know this because they stand next to
their kin for days after their death. This strategy helps solidify his argument that much
more because it presents both sides of the argument. This strategy helps support Rifkin’s
claim that “animals feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even
love–and these finding are changing how we view animals.”
PAPER 4 Writer and Economist, Jeremy Rifkin in his Editorial column, “A Change of
Heart about Animals, published in September 1, 2003 addresses the topic of Animal
Rights and behavior and argues that animals should be treated and viewed with more
respect since each individual animal is so closely related to us humans. He supports this
claim by introducing the idea that animals feel the same feelings that humans feel, then
presenting evidence that proves the animals’ behaviors to be like humans, then
questioning our perceptions of animals, and finally challenging his readers to expand our
perception and empathy to our fellow creatures. Rifkin’s purpose is to illustrate the way
animal behavior is similar to human behavior in order to persuade his audience to
reevaluate their perception of animals and more than that, treat them better. He adopts a
persuasive, emotional tone for his audience, the readers of the Los Angeles Times and
others interested in the topic of human-like animal behavior.
A major strategy that Rifkin uses to persuade his audience to believe that animals should
be perceived and treated better is pathos. Knowing that this is a very sensitive topic that
most Americans can relate to, Rifkin uses an emotional appeal to reach his audience’s
ears and heart. Rifkin starts using this strategy by writing, “our fellow creatures are more
like us than we ever imagined,” as he introduces the topic. Rifkin defines that humans
and animals are the same, in order to spark emotions, allowing the reader relate better to
animals as if they were another human being. When describing the study of pigs, he notes
that pigs “crave attention” and “are easily depressed if isolated.” Having many choices of
different animal studies, Rifkin chose this study of pig behavior at Purdue University
because he knows that every human has craved attention at least once in their lifetime,
and most people can either relate to or heard of a case of depression among humans. He
illustrates a study done at Oxford University, reporting that “two birds named Betty and
Abel were given a choice between using two tools… to snag a piece of meat from inside
a tube.” Rifkin chose this study as useful evidence that his readers can relate to because
for the most part, no matter where one lives, there are birds present. Not only does he use
an animal that most can associate with, but Rifkin also adds the names of the birds: Betty
and Abel. Again, he illustrates another study done by writing, “Koko, the 300-pound
gorilla… was taught sign language,” and again, he titles the animal by first name-basis.
The concept of pathos is used in these situations because by individualizing each animal,
the situations are more personal, exemplifying that animals are individuals and like
humans, should be called by their names. Rifkin later states a common belief that animals
have no sense of morality and rebuts that belief by writing, “Animals… experience grief.
Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days.” He chose elephants to rebut
this false claim because elephants are portrayed by humans as loveable animals that can
definitely prove to be emotional. In closing his article, Rifkin fills an entire paragraph
with questions about human treatment to animals, starting with “So what does all of this
portend for the way we treat our fellow creatures?” Rifkin uses the pathos strategy not
only with the personal questions, but also by the way he chooses his wording in his
questions. He addresses the readers as “we”, and by doing so, he includes himself in these
convictions and refrains from pointing the finger at his audience. While challenging his
audience in his closure, he finishes by navigating us to “deepen our empathy to include
the broader community of creatures with whom we share the Earth.” As if the challenge
was not emotional enough, Rifkin uses pathos to remind us readers that animals are our
fellow creatures, explaining that both animals and humans are equal residents on this land
called Earth.