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: the
medical and recreational use of 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 messages of 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 medical 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 Campaign Flyer #1 is that it can be used
for the same purposes as alcohol. The CRMA doesn’t caution the public about marijuana’s negative effects
like The Mayo Clinic. Instead they claim that marijuana is a safer to use 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. She hopes that they will vote in favor of medical
marijuana laws. Similarly, the CRMA is targeted at people with negative
ideologies of marijuana, but they
want voters to support the legalization of recreational marijuana 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 without emotion or 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. This is because she wants to quickly
grab the reader’s attention, establish a status quo, and destabilize it.
On the other hand, the Mayo Clinic states their thesis at below the title. This allows the reader to know
what the article is about before they invest their time in reading it.
The format of the CRMA flyer is completely different. It starts with a bold,
large attention grabbing
statement: “Some folks prefer alcohol. My Preference is marijuana.”(Campaign
Flyer #1 front). 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 before proving 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.
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 spectrum using scientific evidence.
“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)
In this segment of the article, they talk about how the
mind-altering effects of marijuana aren’t safe or tolerable for everyone.
By identifying both the positive and negative effects of marijuana, the Mayo
Clinic allows the reader to make a judgment for themselves. Do 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’s flyer was the least
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.” (Campaign Flyer #1 back). 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 gain a second hand understanding of the world around
us. 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. E:\Marijuana as medicine Consider the pros and cons.htm
2012 Campaign
to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol. “Campaign Flyer #1”.
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/flyer1
No comments:
Post a Comment