Source: King, Dr. Martin Luther. “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” 16 April 1963. Liberation Curriculum, 2004. Stamford University. Web. 20 April 2015. Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” National Public Radio n.d. Web. 20 April 2015.
Hi. My name is Katie, and today we'll discuss model argumentative essays. In today's lesson, we'll take a look at two sample argumentative essays. The first is a "Letter from Birmingham Jail," written by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And the second is an essay titled "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.
For each of these essays, we'll first discuss which argumentative considerations are present in the text. And then we'll analyze how these considerations contribute to the effectiveness of the overall argument. Let's take a look at the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" first. We don't have enough time in our lesson today to talk about all the elements that are working in this argumentative essay. So right now, I'll take you on a quick tour of some of the most notable points.
One of the first things that you want to do when you're analyzing an argumentative essay is to identify the primary argument of the text. You can usually do this by finding a thesis statement in either the introduction or the conclusion of the text. However, I think it's pertinent to notice that Dr. King does not include a formal thesis statement. Instead, the primary argument is implied in this first paragraph.
In essence, he surmises that this letter is an answer to "your recent statement calling my present activities unwise and untimely." There is good reason for avoiding a formal thesis statement in this sense, and it's because of the rhetorical situation of the text. King was put in jail in Birmingham, Alabama, for being a part of a peaceful protest for civil rights. This letter is explicitly written to clergymen who would criticize his involvement in the protest.
If you had to put a thesis statement into this text, you could reword what King has said here and say that the thesis of this paper is to demonstrate that the claim that his actions were unwise and untimely is untrue or wrong. However, we need to remember that King's ultimate argument is that he wants people to see that he is right. I would categorize this avoidance of a thesis statement as an appeal to pathos.
We often discuss appeals of pathos in terms of what's been added into an argument in order to appeal to a reader's emotions, but in this case, we see King employing this logic in reverse. It's almost as if it's not important that he prove the statement wrong. Instead, he endeavors to illustrate what is right. This makes sense because readers like to be right. Its implied thesis is that he is proving his audience wrong, but King treads carefully by not negating the statement and, instead, delicately answering to it. In this way, he entraps the reader who would be offended by a more abrupt representation of his sentiments.
And this is echoed again in the second paragraph, where he sort of supplies his readers with a route to escape the emotional burden of being wrong, claiming that they "have been influenced by the view which argues against outsiders coming in." So it sort of takes the responsibility of the readers for having come to the wrong conclusion. Instead, he sort of says, well, I understand why you're wrong. It's not your fault your logic doesn't line up-- not because you are wrong or because you are bad, but because you've been misinformed. It's as if he trusts that his readers are good and will make the right choice if they're given the right information in the first place.
While this is sort of a reverse psychology example of the use of pathos, further on in the text, King very explicitly makes appeals to emotions. One moment that really struck me as an emotional appeal is this paragraph here, where King mentions Adolf Hitler. He says, "We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was legal, and it was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Hitler is a villain of world history, and nobody wants to be associated with him." So those who are hiding behind the laws that validate King's detainment are being aligned with Hitler and those who did not stand up against him.
In this way, King forces his readers to emotionally jump back from any position that opposes his own and really question their moral beliefs, rather than just adhering to the linear logic of following the law. King is a beautiful writer, and these appeals to pathos are incredibly effective. However, he does not completely rely upon them. So now let's take a look at where he employs ethos, arguments based on credibility.
There are a number of ways that an author can establish credibility in his text, and King does this explicitly, right in the beginning of his essay, in an answer to the argument that he is an outsider and he doesn't belong in the affairs of Birmingham, Alabama. He smashes this accusation by asserting that not only is he there by invitation, but he is there because his position requires it. He notes that he is the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and that the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights is among one of the 85 organizations affiliated with this conference which he is the president of.
In other words, just because he doesn't live in Alabama doesn't mean that he doesn't have something to do with public matters in Birmingham. In addition to drawing attention to his own personal credibility, King cites the actions of notable characters in Christian theology as a way to establish credibility for his actions based on those of religious figures in the past. For example, he cites similarities between his actions and those of the Apostle Paul. And further down in the text, he notes that his position is incongruity with what Saint Augustine had said, that an unjust law is no law at all.
He also directly addresses sources which his audience can reference to understand more about the basis of his argument. They could, for example, look at the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 and consider the morality of it. In addition to employing appeals to emotion and appeals to credibility, King employees appeals to logic, or logos. So here, King actually illustrates the way that injustices are supposed to be dealt with hypothetically in the American culture. He says that there are four basic steps, and then he articulates the ways that these steps have been carried out in dealing with injustices related to the civil rights movement.
Then the reader, who prefers to come to conclusions based on linear logic, can identify where step one, step two, and step three have been identified by Dr. King so that they can see that if these injustices exist, attempts for negotiations have been made. The process of self-purification, as King defines it, has been accomplished. Then, the nonviolent protests which King was a part of is the logical conclusion. Combined together, these appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos construct a very strong argumentative essay.
Now let's take a look at an essay entitled "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell. Orwell can be somewhat challenging, because he's an older writer. However, we can see elements of a contemporary argumentative essay evident in this text, as well. For example, we do find a traditional thesis statement down here, in the conclusion to the text. He states that, "one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end."
Now, this thesis not only makes clear the argument of the text, but also gives a hint at Orwell's occasion for writing, which early on in the text he more explicitly articulates. For example, here, in this paragraph, he references political atrocities, which have been sort of covered over by tricky language. He claims that political speech and writing are largely in defense of the indefensible, such as the continuance of British rule in India, Russian purges and deportations, and the dropping of atom bombs on Japan.
His primary evidence, however, differs a little bit from the way that we can temporarily write a traditional argumentative essay. Instead of giving evidence in defense of his thesis, he gives evidence which illustrates to the readers what not to do. Take this passage on dying metaphors, for example. Instead of showing what a good metaphor would look like, Orwell gives examples such as "toe the line" and "ride roughshod over" in order to demonstrate how these metaphors effectively blur comprehension of sentiments.
Orwell's non-examples actually get pretty funny at times. For example, here, when he draws attention to constructions like the passive voice, which enable politicians to shirk responsibility for their actions. Orwell's modern political English translations end up giving a sort of comical spin to the essay. His translation of an English professor defending Russian totalitarianism is slightly comical in how lengthy and wandering it ends up. But note the use of the passive voice as he says, "The Russian people have been called upon," rather than assigning authority to the person who's taken that action.
Orwell's translation from a well-known verse of Ecclesiastes is, again, slightly humorous in its lofty form. While Ecclesiastes' prose is very simple and easy to understand, this pretentious diction, like "objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compelled the conclusion," highlights how silly modern political use of the English language seems to Orwell. Overall, even though this is a non-traditional presentation of an argumentative essay, you can see how the claims and supporting governance work together to build the argument.
In today's lesson, we took a look at two model argumentative essays. The first, a "Letter from Birmingham Jail" is a traditional example of how ethos, pathos, and logos construct an argument. The second, "Politics in the English Language," demonstrates how, even when not in a traditional form, supporting evidence and rhetorical appeals can be used to construct a strong argument. I encourage you to revisit these texts and read them fully. Thank you very much for joining me today.