Rhetorical Criticism and Analysis

Rhetorical criticism is a means to not only understand rhetoric, but to draw out underlying meanings within various contexts. Rhetoric has a variety of uses, most with the ultimate goal of inspiring action. It has the capability to harbor feelings through persuasion, and enact social change. There are many ways in which to analyze rhetoric, some of which are stylistic analysis, rhetorical situation analysis, ideographic analysis, hermeneutic analysis, and constitutive analysis. Each method of analysis views different specificities of the language or visuals employed by the rhetor, and how those techniques motivated a potentially measurable outcome. This then provides a variety of perspectives for the rhetorical critic to then come to a better understanding of the discourse. Specifically focusing on the method of constitutive analysis, one can come to understand how rhetoric forms unified identities, and how that is useful for creating and enacting a call to action. Zaeske and Sklar discuss this method in their essays, and getting a feel for their analyses aids in critiquing a speech by Emma Goldman.

Section One: Theoretical Assumptions

Rhetoric is contextual. It depends on its surroundings and its audience to create a match with the intended, persuasive discourse. In more cohesive terms, rhetoric is understood as a message, to an audience, to enact change. Discourse and public communication are focused on various connections to other people, in terms of unity. Ties to abstract and tangible ideas, and symbols or objects, create associations for a movement to enact change. To be an effective rhetor through this focus is to encompass ethos, or credibility, logos, or logic, and pathos, or a peppering of emotion. These three factors contribute to the effectiveness of rhetoric, as well as the audience component of persuasion, for if not to promote action in others, rhetoric would not be contextual, and would only be useful as personal dogma.