I met with Brett yesterday to discuss my arguing to inquire paper. When I first walked in the room, Brett gave me my rhetorical analysis back, and we discussed what it’s flaws were and how I could improve it. I think the most important concept that I took away from our discussion was the importance of understanding who the audience is in a particular argument.
For my rhetorical analysis, I wanted to analyze an argument about the use of the word schizophrenia in literature and how it affects individual’s identities. However, if you read my earlier blogs, you would know that I felt that the speaker at the conference didn’t realize that her blog wasn’t just scholars in rhetoric, but also everyday run-of-the-mill college students whose studies were not the mirror image of hers. If I would have wrote about her speech, I would have analyzed how important it was to know who your audience is. But, I didn’t understand her comments and I thought that writing a paper that said “ I didn’t understand anything from this conference” was going to fulfill the 3-5 page requirement.
Therefore, I decided to write about Obama’s speech on healthcare, because it was the first relatively recent speech that came to mind. However, when I wrote my rhetorical analysis, I just wrote about how Obama was speaking to the American people. But, is that really who his audience was. Brett and I discussed how important it was to analyze who it was that Obama was speaking to, and a generic audience like “Americans” was a bit too vague. Was Obama speaking to Congress? Was he speaking to middle class Americans? How about to low-income communities? To those with insurance? Or those without? Sure, he adressed all of these audiences in his speech, but who was it really directed toward? In my opinion, I believe it would be those Americans who have fallen on hard times, or have always been in the negative. The audience would be those Americans who would most significantly gain something from healthcare reform, even though the President tried to make sure that all Americans were semi-satisfied with his proposal. Sure, Obama was speaking in front of Congress, but he wasn’t speaking to them, at least not for most of the speech. He was trying to elicit emotions in the un- and under-insured to make them agree with him, to fight with him, and to make sure that the issue didn’t fall to the wayside. To Congress, would healthcare reform have been at the top of their agenda if the President had given the speech just to them? I think the obvious answer is no. Congress already knew that there were people who have inadequate healthcare, not because they choose not to have it, but because they can’t afford to have it. But yet they didn’t make any significant advances on the issue. The president’s speech was needed because he needs the support of the American people. After all, this is a country that is supposed to be led by the people, not just by the people that we elect into office.
My argument here is not whether healthcare reform is good for everyone, because obviously it isn’t. Insurance companies would no longer to reap the same benefits and those who have affordable insurance now may see their premiums go up when the underinsured and the terminally ill who have been rejected in the past would now be given the right to have health insurance for a price similar to what everyone else pays. When costs go up, the insurance company isn’t going to eat the costs; they are going to pass them on to you to the best of their ability.
My argument instead is that whenever analyzing an argument, make sure you know who the argument is directed towards. And, when you are making an argument, make sure you know who your audience is. Otherwise, you won’t get the point and reasons for another person’s argument, and you won’t address the needs of your audience if you have a mindset that you are speaking to a different audience than you actually are.
I have never put any emphasis on audience before; that is something I definitely wish to change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
James,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that sometimes the audience that is actually in front of you is not necessarily the actual audience the speech is for. Although we know that Obama is not necessarily talking to COngress but to the Americans that will be affected by the changes, in other situations this type of "speaking to an audience" can lose some translation. What I mean is, the audience that needs to hear the issue or whatever the subject of the matter is may not necessarily understand or hear it because they are unsure of who the issue is towards. When I was writing my inquiry paper thinking who this article is aiming to write to I had some difficulty figuring this out. I think as part of an effective argument you must be direct in your writing to your audience.
I think you have found this out now, and I'm glad you wrote about it because I realized this too. I hope to read more of your blogs!
Great analysis, both of you. I agree with Areej. IF-- and I mean IF-- Obama was speaking to a different audience than congress, even one that included congress, he can only be successful if he was heard and understood by those people, but who are they? What would motivate them to listen? How can he create a rhetoric to bring in people who would be affected by his policies (to agree and disagree) if people decide what he is going to say before he says it, or if they sense the argument isn't 'for them.' This is a great issue to explore.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I think your observations of the panel you observed in the blog below and the ways in which you did not understand the presentation are pretty strong. Actually, you COULD have turned in an analysis that found the argument was ineffective because the speaker did not know her audience. (Of course, I also enjoy reading the Obama analysis too!)