Rhetorical Critique

Chris Gomez

Professor Brown

English 1B

24 March 2013

A Strong Table with Weak Legs

American activist and literary icon Susan Sontag had a lot to say after our nation was attacked on September 11^th 2001. Facing one of the biggest emergencies in America’s history, the general public was in a vulnerable state that had a huge effect on the way they absorbed consolation from the government in tandem with the way the media shed light on what many others said about the attack. Sontag’s article “9/11” provides her account and criticisms of the way the nation and government dealt with the aftermath. The negative responses to Sontag’s claims shift the focus the article itself, mainly its rhetorical strategy. We can analyze the article’s rhetorical technique by separating her appeals to ethos, pathos and logos. By focusing on evaluating her usage of these rhetorical devices, we can see that Sontag’s overall argument not only fails to propagate her claim but also fails to essentially appeal to her concurrent audience.

Sontag’s argument construct presents some issues within the ethos technique. At first glance, it appears that Sontag attempts to create the connection between herself and the audience. Her description of the 9/11 attack as a “monstrous dose of reality” is appropriate in terms of how the rest of the nation might be viewing the attack. Many readers would agree with her by the way she introduces her claim. Later in the article, Sontag begins another paragraph by saying phrases like “America is not afraid” and “our spirit is unbroken.” With respect to the timing, or kairos, of this article’s publishing, these types of expressions suggest that Sontag is starting most of her topics off by building a bridge between her argument and the audience. On the other hand, when progressing through the text, we see that her proposals are quite lacking in other areas of ethos strategies. Once again, taking into account the timing of the article in response to the actual event being described, it can be assumed, as stated by Sontag herself, that the nation is in a state of grief. For her to go on to try and persuade a mourning audience not to be “stupid together” and that they are being “infantilized” by our leaders can be best described as a futile endeavor to prove her point. Sontag’s motion here detracts her credibility. Furthermore, the text fails to establish an element of fairness to alternative views. She explains how we we’re comforted by a “robotic president” without acknowledging the inevitable scrutiny that those in favor of our nation’s president at the time will respond with. This comment most likely destroys whatever bridge was established with the audience. Sontag effectively sets up her proposal for failure by squashing her appeal to ethos. 

In analyzing Sontag’s text in terms of her appeal to logos, we can see that her argument poses some concerns here as well. The amount of backing evidence for her rather bold claims is what is in question. When speaking of issues regarding the competency of public figures, such as our president, one must anticipate the potential arguments against the claims being made and make the appropriate adjustments. It just so happens that Sontag makes an indirect attack toward President Bush, characterizing him as “robotic” in standing behind a nation with ”ineptitude of American intelligence.” There is an implied assumption in this text that the audience is behind her with this opinion. Not only does the argument make a claim that is assumed to be true, she fails to provide evidence other than the evidence that the nation is being shielding from the truth, which is also an assumed claim. The main issue here with Sontag’s appeal to logos is that much her claims are justified, however, their justifications are merely claims that have to be assumed as true in order to back the original claim. Sontag attacks public leaders by saying they are deceiving us and backs that up by explaining how they aren’t allowing us to bear the “burden of reality.” Because there isn’t a justification for the claim that we aren’t bearing the burden, the audience must assume that we aren’t in order to accept that we are being deceived. There isn’t foundational evidence that establishes a common ground of agreement other than Sontag’s acknowledgement that the attack was “monstrous” one, which only goes so far. Although the text does justify itself, the claims are merely unspoken assumptions that ultimately fail to provide evidence for the claims stated.

Sontag’s argument largely relies on the appeal to pathos, due to her overtones of frustration and anger; however, there is a discrepancy between the effectiveness of her pathos and the effectiveness of her overall argument. After the 9/11 attack, the nation was in a state of dramatic emotional distress. We can assume that a majority of public commentaries in response to the attack appealed largely to pathos because of this. Emotion plays an important role in dictating how experiences are perceived. In fact, pathos was probably the best way to appeal to the public around the time the article took place, specifically because of the fact the country was mourning. Sontag’s diction is emotionally heavy throughout so we can assume she was aware of this. Describing the attack as a “slaughter” and touching on America being “strong” and “unbroken” establishes a profound and nationalistic tone to the article. Although the actual substance may contradict ideas of American nationalism, the tone stands upon an element of pride and dignity. Arguments appealing to pathos may tend to stray from logical understanding, where in this case, Sontag’s article would be a bit more effective. Her use of this rhetorical strategy isn’t perfect, but it isn’t substandard. So, in order to understand why the article still lacks in appealing to the audience in this way, we have to understand that at this point, the only people to side with Sontag in this argument are those who already agree with her. Her ideas most likely parallel with those shared by others who have a problem with the way the nation deals with major incidents like 9/11. Had Sontag wanted to appeal emotionally to her audience in this situation, her arguments would need to simply reflect those that she directly opposes. In the end, the article relies heavily on the appeal to pathos, but because it is somewhat contradictory to the collective emotion of the nation, it is deemed unsuccessful.

The most important aspect of Sontag’s rhetoric that must be understood is how her appeal to ethos and logos affects her appeal to pathos. Had Sontag refrained from indirectly insulting the public’s intelligence, the audience might have had less of a hard time buying into her arguments. To take that even further, she practically begins the article by insulting the public, making her argument that much more incredible. Sontag’s claim against the president also digs the hole deeper. Timing is a factor as well. You can’t choose a worse time then when someone is depressed to tell them that they’re stupid. This only succeeds in pushing that person farther away and lessens the chance of persuading them to believe anything you say; once again, emotion dictates how we interpret our experiences. Sontag’s appeal to kairos negatively affects the success of her article. On the other hand, she does utilize analogies to back her claims. Her references to how we react to the Soviet Party paired with how she touches on how a “few shreds of historical awareness” would help to see things how she sees them actually help her argument by making her appear knowledgeable and serving as an example to back her claims. The only problem is that these mean nothing once her appeal to ethos and logos have already failed.

“9/11” is, without a doubt, an article that evokes much controversy regardless of when it’s read and what context it’s read in.  Susan Sontag feels strongly about the way the nation responded to the terrorist attack. Her article does a good job of reflecting her opinion not only of the subsequent incidents of the attack but perhaps her opinion of the nation’s government overall. Unfortunately, Sontag’s argumentative techniques in this article don’t come across to her audience that smoothly. Sontag doesn’t establish her credibility very well as we see how she doesn’t do much to appeal to her audience. Other than the fact that we can all agree the attack was a terrible thing, her voice stands alone; at least in the context of her rhetoric. The article also lacks solid evidence for her claims. Her claims remain claims and never really evolve into credible points of view. And because of this, her pathos is predisposed to failure. With all the rhetorical devices rendered inadequate, including the appeal to kairos, Sontag’s argument proves to be ultimately unsuccessful.