Beyond the Cover: an Analysis of Textual Conventions
Is
it true when we say “Don’t judge a book by its cover?” Wouldn’t
it be more appropriate to say “Don’t interpret a text for face
value?” It’s so common today for us to read or listen to
something and make an instantaneous decision of whether or not we are
persuaded. What if the information is being presented with a tone
that makes it seem more logical or emotionally appealing? What if the
author’s language and writing style makes him or her seem more
credible than he or she really is? I’m talking of course about
rhetorical devices. Rhetorical devices are writing techniques used to
convey a meaning and persuade its audience. Sometimes they are
articulated so well that we don’t even notice them or how they are
affecting our interpretations of a text.
Although
we may not always recognize rhetorical devices, identifying a genre
is much more obvious. We can identify a genre by using rhetorical
devices such as layout, language, theme, and we can do so without
even realizing our use of rhetorical devices. In this paper, I will
be looking at three genres that talk about the same subject:
marijuana. The first section will be a comparative analysis of the
rhetorical devices used in these three different genres. In the
second section, I’ll talk about how these devices made the texts
more or less persuasive and how they create a relationship between
the genre, message and delivery. By doing such an analysis, I hope to
create a rhetorical awareness that allows me to more accurately judge
the value of a text.
Part One: Comparative Analysis of Rhetorical Devices
For
this analysis, I have chosen texts that are centered around the theme
of medical and recreational marijuana use. They each share a similar
purpose of educating their audience on the effects of using
marijuana, but they are also persuading the audience to take
different actions after reading the text. In the editorial Myths
about Medical Marijuana, author Jocelyn Elders is arguing against
many of the negative beliefs that the public has on marijuana and
health. Her message is that marijuana has been proven to treat many
symptoms caused by severe illnesses. In an academic article,
Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros and Cons, the Mayo
Clinic discusses how marijuana effects the body and why specifically
it can be used to treat certain symptoms. Unlike Jocelyn Elders
however, the Mayo clinic provides the negative effects and risks of
using marijuana. The message between these two articles are similar
in that they talk about marijuana’s positive effects, but Elders’
purpose is to persuade readers to support the legalization of
marijuana without hesitation, whereas the Mayo Clinic would advise
you to weigh the consequences and benefits before making such a
decision.
On
a completely different view about marijuana use, the Campaign to
Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol would like to persuade their audience
that marijuana is okay to use recreationally. The CRMA is a political
organization that was devoted to advocating the passage of amendment
64, which made marijuana legal for adults in Colorado as of December
2012. Both Elders and the Mayo Clinic agree that marijuana has
positive effects for medical purposes, but the CRMA’s message from
one of their campaign flyers is that it can be used for the same
purposes as alcohol. Unlike the Mayo Clinic which discusses the
negative effects of marijuana, the CRMA only discusses how marijuana
is safer than alcohol. This can imply that marijuana has some risks,
but is tailored to persuading the audience that marijuana is a safe
alternative recreational substance.
Based
off of the different messages and purposes of these texts, we can
identify the intended audience for them. All three texts are
targeting the voting population to persuade them on the political
issue of marijuana, but they are aimed at voters with different
ideologies. Elders wants to persuade voters who have negative and
false beliefs about medical marijuana in the hopes that they will
vote in favor of medical marijuana laws. Similarly, the CRMA is
targeted to people with negative ideologies of marijuana but for
recreational rather than medical use. The Mayo Clinic is more of an
informational piece for voters than it is a persuasive one. Although
it considers the pros, it gives voters reason to doubt the safety and
effectiveness of marijuana by mentioning the cons of its usage.
In
order to support the message and purpose of a text, the author uses
conventions such as tone, language and visuals. The flyer for CRMA
makes use of all three. On the cover of the flyer, there is an
intelligent and friendly looking woman that appears to be making eye
contact with the reader. The language of the flyer is in first person
and the tone is very relaxed and informal, so it seems as though
you’re having a conversation with the unnamed woman while reading.
This helps the campaigners relate to the audience on a personal
level. The tone stipulates that marijuana users are average people
with appropriate and intelligible things to say.
Unlike
the CRMA’s casual and amicable language, Elders employs a very
passionate and argumentative tone. Though her language is very
formal, it is clear that she is very impatient with the fact that
medical marijuana is not legal in Rhode Island. The Mayo Clinic
however demonstrates their information very professionally and
without political opinion. The article’s use of medical and
scientific language makes the clinic sound more rational and logical
rather than driven by an agenda.
Along
with the differences in tone and language, these texts also contrast
with their format and layout. Elders’ editorial has a very brief
introduction and stated purpose and then jumps straight into a body
of short paragraphs in which she gives a status quo and destabilizes
it. On the other hand, the Mayo Clinic starts off with their thesis
and then has clearly divided sections for the different subjects of
the article. The format of the CRMA flyer is completely different. It
starts with a bold and large statement to grab attention at the top
of the page. Below that are quick, concise facts and opinions next to
their visual of a woman. They finish by placing a rhetorical and
reflective question at the bottom.
Finally,
one should always check the author’s credibility and sources to
make sure they’re receiving trustworthy information. Jocelyn Elders
gives her background as a previous surgeon general and a currently
working professor of public health. The Mayo Clinic provides their
medical foundations official name for reference, and the CRMA cites
the sources of the facts and statistics they used for their flyer.
Without a demonstrated background or list of sources, the information
in these texts would be regarded as invalid.
Part Two: Personal Analysis
In
order for me to find a text persuasive, I like them to provide
specific examples of their competitors opposing view and prove it
wrong. If this method doesn’t persuade the audience to change their
ideology, it can at the least get them to question the value of their
beliefs. Jocelyn Elders does a great job of this in her editorial
especially when she debunks this view;
“’The medical community doesn’t support this (medical
marijuana); just a bunch of drug legalizers do.’ The truth:
Numerous medical and public-health organizations support legal access
to medical marijuana.” (18-19)
Her
ability to destabilize this belief and support her opinion with facts
from the medical community helped convince me to change my views, but
the text I found to be most effective was Marijuana as Medicine:
Consider the Pros and Cons from the Mayo Clinic.
Even though the Mayo Clinic does not declare a bias or opinion, I
like how they present both sides of the scientific evidence on the
effects of marijuana.
“Younger people may find marijuana more useful as a treatment for
nausea than do older people — who may not tolerate its
mind-altering side effects as well. The prescription form,
dronabinol, also may produce psychological side effects that make it
inappropriate for some older people. Doctors generally prescribe
several kinds of newer anti-nausea drugs with fewer side effects.”
(pg. 2)
By
identifying both the positive and negative effects of marijuana, the
Mayo Clinic allows the reader to make a judgment for themself on
whether or not the consequences outweigh the benefits. For some
people, deciding whether or not marijuana’s benefits are worth the
health risks isn’t so obvious. I think this article helps in
determining that choice.
Because
I like to see both sides to a coin, I found that the CRMA flyer was
not very persuasive. They didn’t make an attempt to demonstrate any
negative side effects of marijuana. Their main point was to create an
ideology that marijuana is safer than alcohol without talking about
the risks of using it. One of their bulleted facts stated: “About
37,000 U.S. deaths per year are attributed to the health effects of
alcohol. Marijuana? Zero.” This is a false fact that can be refuted
by the Mayo Clinic;
“Marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more
carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke and has the
potential to cause cancer of the lungs and
respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke is commonly inhaled deeper and
held longer than is tobacco smoke, increasing the lungs' exposure to
carcinogens.” ( pg.3)
Although
no one has been documented to have died from the immediate effects of
marijuana use, that does not mean that there aren’t deaths caused
by the long term usage of marijuana. If the CRMA had provided more
truthful statistics, I may have been more persuaded.
Whether
or not the audience is persuaded, texts like these have an important
impact on the individual and society as a whole. We use texts to
understand the world around us and gain second hand knowledge, for
most of society does not have the means or capability of making hands
on discoveries like scientists, explorers, and politicians. Although
our life experiences will shape us, so will the texts we read. Many
of our opinions, beliefs, values and philosophies come from a written
or spoken source that is not our own.
Since texts make up such a vast part of our knowledge, it is
important that we know how to analyze textual conventions. In this
paper, I took a close look at the rhetorical devices from three texts
of different genres. After doing so, I talked about the effectiveness
of their persuasive techniques as they relate to me. With this skill,
I can read or see a text and not take its perspective for granted.
Works Cited
Elders, Jocelyn. (2004) “Myths about Medical Marijuana”.
Editorial. Providence Journal
The Mayo Clinic. (2006) “Marijuana as Medicine: Consider the Pros
and Cons”. Article. www.mayoclinic.com.
2012 Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol. “Campaign Flyer
#1”.
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/flyer1
No comments:
Post a Comment