Rhetorical Analysis Essay
RCL I – Ben Henderson
Assignment (about 1200-1600 words (~4 pgs), double-spaced): Identify a rhetorical artifact that
is interesting or complex, and is located within a unique context. This could be something like a
speech, essay, website, or article. All of these use a fair amount of explicit text—as opposed to
imagery—and all have very specific audiences in mind. If you’d like to analyze something
more visual or aural (a building, memorial, art installation, poster, song, etc.) please run your
potential thesis by me first, and be prepared to do additional research into how others have
viewed this medium rhetorically.
Write an analysis that will help your readers understand how the given example of rhetoric is
situated in and adapted to its rhetorical context/situation. Your thesis should make a claim
about how rhetoric is functioning in light of the context.
As you develop your essay, consider ways in which topics from class and our readings might
inform your analysis. For instance, issues of audience (networks of interpretation), constraints,
ideology, and commonplaces all bridge the gap between artifact (text) and situation (context).
You’ll want to provide a brief description of your artifact’s salient rhetorical features, either up
front or along the way as you develop your analysis. But this textual description should be in
the service of your contextual analysis. Also, you should consider whether outside research
will enrich your understanding of the context you’ll be discussing.
At the end of your analysis, readers should have a richer understanding of the rhetorical
dimensions of both the artifact and its rhetorical context, and, especially, the connections
between them. Put another way, a successful contextual analysis will provide a clearer picture
of :
 how this specific rhetorical artifact communicates within/against/through the particular context
and sometimes also:
 how rhetoric operates generally in a related category of rhetorical contexts.
Possible thesis statements for the first option include:
John F. Kennedy’s rhetoric of solidarity in “Ich bin ein Berliner” is uniquely and adeptly
suited to the constraints posed by a demoralized West Berlin audience.
In response to the exigence of King’s death, Robert Kennedy’s speech was able to reframe King’s role and influence in a manner that preempted those who would use the
assassination to further divide blacks and whites.
Michael Arad’s 9/11 Memorial in New York City ultimately fails to address the
American ideology of remembrance because it focuses nihilistically and exclusively on
loss and absence.
Possible thesis statements for the second option include:
My examination of Swift’s A Modest Proposal will demonstrate the features a particular
rhetorical situation must contain in order for satire to be an effective persuasive strategy.
On video games and liberalizing ideals about gender roles:
Non-human options for playable characters address the felt need of some players to
reject archetypal gender depictions (i.e., the axe-hefting bodybuilder or the bowwielding bikini model). Yet these character options also allow players to locate—and
thus reinforce—their own gender identity between the extremity of the stereotype and
extremity of the non-human’s “otherness.”
Objectives and Criteria for Success
 Be interesting. Go beyond the obvious.
 Make a strong claim (thesis) about the rhetorical artifact’s connection to its context.
 Demonstrate a strong capacity for rhetorical analysis.
 Write in a lively, memorable style.
 Expand/challenge/transform the audience’s understanding of the rhetorical situation.
Suggestions for Strong Analysis
 Use good analytical verbs and sentences.
 Go for depth rather than breadth. You don’t need to say everything that is going on
rhetorically in the situation.
 Be specific. Support your claims with evidence, which could include outside research or
unique features of the artifact or rhetorical situation. Cite your sources. (But remember
that this is an analysis, not a research or history paper.)
 Have a strong, definite conclusion that reviews your claim and findings.
 Remember that simply identifying the rhetorical techniques employed (i.e., pathos, or
analogy, or a commonplace) is not good analysis. Rather, these terms function as
necessary descriptive tools to do further analytical work.
Grading Standards
 Strong analysis
 Depth of insight into rhetorical function within contexts
 Argument and evidence strength
 Writing mechanics