This project is all about identifying the complexities and intricacies of any given rhetorical situation and attending to the means of persuasion in play in any given argument. By “rhetorical situation,” we mean any instance in which people use images and words to convey information and make an argument. We will call the things we are analyzing “artifacts.” It’s a clunky word, but because we might be analyzing very different things, it makes sense.
In this class, we will be focusing on analyzing artifacts whose exigencies relate to the double-triple bottom line of sustainability: economy, environment, and equity. And the means of persuasion will, in turn, be influenced by the external and internal factors related to sustainability–the “Cs” along with those “Es” that Edwards talks about in The Heart of Sustainability. Here, we will look at a Nike ad as our artifact, and then read an article from Slate Magazine as an example of a rhetorical analysis of that artifact.
First, let’s look at a now-famous Nike ad that went viral a few years ago and stirred up all manner of conversation. After you watch the video, start building a sustainability-based inventory noting its broader rhetorical situation (identifying the audience, exigence, and constraints) as well as the specific rhetorical and sustainability-based strategies that the ad plays out.
Rhetorical Inventory Worksheet–please note that there are often multiple exigencies and constraints and audiences at play, as well as different contexts (cultural, historical, economic, etc.).
- Big Picture: The Rhetorical Situation
- Context
- Exigence (or exigencies)
- Audience(s)
- Constraints
- Genre
- Purpose
- The Details 1: Rhetorical Appeals
- Character-based appeals
- Emotional appeals
- Logical appeals (including possible unstated premises)
- The Details 2: Sustainability-Based Appeals
- Economy-based considerations
- Social Equity-based
- Environment-based considerations
- Education
- Creativity
- Consciousness
- Compassion
- Connection
This campaign was the subject of many analyses–from extended riffs in late-night comedy-news shows, to more carefully composed critiques such as this one one that appeared in Slate. How well did your critique line up with Slate’s take? What specific cross-section of concerns does the author select to tell their argumentative story?