Heinrich and Carson Readings

This is really ironic that we are reading about Rachel Carson, being that I first learned of her book and her efforts to save the planet in my Advanced Placement Environmental Science class in high school. In my opinion Carson uses lots of argumentative techniques to get her point across about the use of pesticides and the pollution to the environment. One major use of pathos was when she talked about the writers of The Bill of Rights and how they could not have foreseen the problems of the current die of pollution and the destroying of our natural environment. A instance of ethos in this writing is that she understands that she wants to people to use less insecticides but that in some cases it must be used. As this writing relates to the Heinrich readings, Carson uses commonplaces to connect with the readers in addition to code-grooming, especially when she refers to WWII, chemicals, radiation, and Darwin. When she uses these commonplaces and codes she is making use of logos and ethos by establishing credibility and giving evidence that insecticides can be dangerous to humans.

Heinrichs and Carson Readings

Carson applies logos frequently to discuss the facts concerning the extent of the environmental problems caused by mankind. She incorporates irrefutable scientific information into her argument by explaining the studies performed by the British ecologist Charles Elton and entomologist Neely Turner. She then utilizes pathos to draw concern from the reader. Her claim that the writers of the Bill of Rights could not anticipate the problems facing the environment causes the reader to question the individual rights protected by the government and to evaluate the severity of the matter. She also focuses on the safety of the general public by arguing that most people are unaware of the many pollutants that they come in contact with without their consent. The use and development of pesticides was a common issue during the time period and Carson uses familiar terms to offer a commonplace for her arguments and to relate to her audience. DDT was probably the more controversial pesticide during the time period because it was used widely and uncontrollably. Her arguments evaluate the benefits and detrimental effects of technological developments on nature and cite the spread of diseases by unnatural causes as a source of her support.

Heinrichs and Carson Readings

We're going to look at Carson in terms of how she put her argument together. So, see if you can identify some of the rhetorical strategies that she's using by considering some the techniques that Heinrichs has explained. Where do you see here using ethos (or doing to things to establish her own credibility as well as the credibility of her argument), pathos (trying to get an emotional response out of her audience), or logos (logical or factual arguments). Where do you see her using commonplaces or codes, appealing to the values of her audience? Where do you see her using the context (this was written in 1962, most of her readers lived through WWII, the atomic bomb, space travel was beginning to seem possible, lots of technological and scientific advances in general)? Are there any major concepts that seem to theme her argument? Anything that you note about how these two chapters are put together is worth commenting about. It also might help you that the 2 chapters I gave you are the first two chapters in a book-length argument about pesticides, Silent Spring.

Heinrichs pp 38-78

I would certainly focus on the social aspect (things that every party goer does) with my best friend. This would differ with my mother, as I would reassure her of my responsible actions during the party. To establish decorum, I would mention to my friend that I participated in a ceremonial barrel ritual, bringing life to the party with my display of courage, as well as defending the honor of our tribe by ingesting large quantities of antiseptic. Virtue would come from my response to the inevitable question of my well-being the next day. I would say that the visions and vertigo were a rite of passage, and that I can now call myself a man. As for my mother, I would explain that during the night I chose to consume as little elixir as possible, for I needed to stay alert throughout the night. I would even talk about the ruse when I substituted the barley and hops cocktail with that of a purified form, free of any contaminants. I would then end with my explanation that I found the company to be a little boorish, and I would regretfully decline an RSVP invitation to another hooligan celebration.

Heinrichs pp 3-37

According to Heinrichs, "rhetoric is the art of influence, friendship, and eloquence, of ready wit and irrefutable logic." My ideas were a little different, as I took rhetoric as the bland style of arguing; I saw no art in it. In the offense category, I have to admit that it is all pretty new to me. I especially found interesting the part where Heinrichs writes about getting the audience to make a choice in the argument. This would be particularly useful in everyday dealings with friends. There are little debates ranging from what to eat to where to shop; someone is always complaining about being left out. Persuading them to make a choice about the situation will help prevent the bad vibes resulting from a less than desirable outcome for those particular individuals.

Michelle Okeke pg 79-133

I have a coworker who often employs what Heinrich calls "setting a backfire." She is a very manipulative person, and I have watched as she uses this tactic to gain the sympathy of our lead and make everyone laugh and forget the horrible mistake she just made. To show what I mean, let me offer an example. We work in the retail industry, and often she and I have to go help out with customer service stuff, like doing returns, or processing payments. There was one particular day when she did an incorrect return, and she made sure everyone knew. Not only that, she kept saying, "Oh my gosh, I'm so horrible, I should just go home, I am so horrible, I shouldn't even be allowed to do this anymore," COMPLETELY exaggerating something that was completely reversible. She OFTEN does this, and it drives me insane, because she ALWAYS gets away with it. Anyway, I think I actually may be more upset that I try to do it, and it doesn't quite work for me.

Michelle Okeke pg. 38-78

My mother has always been the type of woman who wants me to be honest with her. She's made some mistakes in her life, and she would rather I tell her about the mistakes that I've made than act as if I am flawless in college. As far as this party goes, I would probably tell her everything but the VERY JUICIEST details, and since this is me we're talking about, I wouldn't have been leaving out much. That way, my mom and I could laugh at the stupid stuff, and she could attempt to lecture me on the rest.

If I was telling my friends about this college party, I would most definitely make sure that they got the few, juicy details cleverly weaved into the mundane activities of the party, so as to hold and keep their attention.