Welcome back to my blog! In my second reading of The New Jim Crow, I paid especially close
attention to how the author utilizes rhetorical strategies in her writing. This section focused mainly on
providing the reader with information regarding how the problem of mass incarceration of African-Americans
fell upon America, and how it continues to this day.
providing the reader with information regarding how the problem of mass incarceration of African-Americans
fell upon America, and how it continues to this day.
The use of emotional appeals was very strong throughout this section of the book. One way the author
Michelle Alexander chose to utilize these appeals was through the use of both real-life and theoretical
examples. A major argument that Alexander covered in this reading was the idea that African-Americans
caught in the criminal justice system are often imposed with strikingly harsh sentences for relatively minor
offenses. Alexander cites several Supreme Court cases, including ones that ruled to uphold “. . .forty years
of imprisonment for possession and an attempt to sell 9 ounces of marijuana” (pg. 90), and “a sentence of
life imprisonment for a defendant with no prior convictions who attempted to sell 672 grams
(approximately 23 ounces) of crack cocaine” (pg. 90). Using these examples prompts the reader to feel
sympathy for both these cases, and the multiple other cases that Alexander cites, which already sets he or
she up to be more compelled to be convinced by the author’s argument. Alexander describes California’s
controversial “three-strikes” system, in which a felon, upon their third criminal charge, faces a
mandatory sentence of 25-years to life, no matter how minor the crime, or how long ago the previous
charges were from. She challenges this system’s equity by using more personal examples to appeal to
the reader’s emotions. She tells the reader to “. . imagine a young man, eighteen years old, who is
arrested as part of an undercover operation and charged with two counts of dealing cocaine to
minors . .[t]he prosecutor offers him probation if he agrees to plead guilty to both charges,and to snitch
on a bigger dealer. Terrified of doing prison time, he takes the deal. Several years later, he
finds his punishment will never end. Branded a felon, he is struggling to survive and to support his children.
One night he burglarizes a corner store and steals food, toothpaste, Pepsi, and diapers for his baby boy.
He is arrested almost immediately a few blocks away. That’s it for him. He now has three strikes. His
burglary can be charged as a third strike because of his two prior felony convictions. He is eligible for
life imprisonment. His children will be raised without a father” (pg. 91). Though lengthy, this example
contains much significance in terms of emotional appeals in the book. By setting up a tragic scenario
in the reader’s mind, Alexander is able to derive an emotional response from them, which in turn, will
likely make her argument more persuasive.
Michelle Alexander chose to utilize these appeals was through the use of both real-life and theoretical
examples. A major argument that Alexander covered in this reading was the idea that African-Americans
caught in the criminal justice system are often imposed with strikingly harsh sentences for relatively minor
offenses. Alexander cites several Supreme Court cases, including ones that ruled to uphold “. . .forty years
of imprisonment for possession and an attempt to sell 9 ounces of marijuana” (pg. 90), and “a sentence of
life imprisonment for a defendant with no prior convictions who attempted to sell 672 grams
(approximately 23 ounces) of crack cocaine” (pg. 90). Using these examples prompts the reader to feel
sympathy for both these cases, and the multiple other cases that Alexander cites, which already sets he or
she up to be more compelled to be convinced by the author’s argument. Alexander describes California’s
controversial “three-strikes” system, in which a felon, upon their third criminal charge, faces a
mandatory sentence of 25-years to life, no matter how minor the crime, or how long ago the previous
charges were from. She challenges this system’s equity by using more personal examples to appeal to
the reader’s emotions. She tells the reader to “. . imagine a young man, eighteen years old, who is
arrested as part of an undercover operation and charged with two counts of dealing cocaine to
minors . .[t]he prosecutor offers him probation if he agrees to plead guilty to both charges,and to snitch
on a bigger dealer. Terrified of doing prison time, he takes the deal. Several years later, he
finds his punishment will never end. Branded a felon, he is struggling to survive and to support his children.
One night he burglarizes a corner store and steals food, toothpaste, Pepsi, and diapers for his baby boy.
He is arrested almost immediately a few blocks away. That’s it for him. He now has three strikes. His
burglary can be charged as a third strike because of his two prior felony convictions. He is eligible for
life imprisonment. His children will be raised without a father” (pg. 91). Though lengthy, this example
contains much significance in terms of emotional appeals in the book. By setting up a tragic scenario
in the reader’s mind, Alexander is able to derive an emotional response from them, which in turn, will
likely make her argument more persuasive.
I won’t go into detail on every emotional appeal that Michelle Alexander used in this section, because that would make for a very long post. Appealing to emotion, also known as pathos, was the primary form of rhetoric that I noticed. However, she did use other rhetorical strategies to add to the emotional appeal. As mentioned earlier, she continuously cites actual court cases and situations, which helps to strengthen her credibility with readers, also known as ethos. Though, as evident from reading the book, Alexander has clearly done her research, she cannot qualify as an expert on everything. Because of this, she also appeals to ethos by quoting experts on certain topics that she is not as wise on. For example, she is a lawyer, but has not worked as a public defender, so when writing about the injustices regarding many accused criminals’ slim opportunities to work with a lawyer, she cites an expert. “As one public defender explained to the Los Angeles Times, ‘They are herded like cattle [into the courtroom lockup], at 3 or 4 in the morning. Then they have to make decisions that affect the rest of their lives. You can imagine how stressful that is’” (pg. 84). This quote, along with many other quotes/cited information in the book, is referenced in a footnote in the back of the book, which provides the reader with further information regarding the quote. This also adds to the appeal that she is credible. Alexander references other sources in her argument that the legal system often coerces people that have been accused of a crime to plead guilty, whether or not they actually are guilty of the crime, in order to receive a lighter sentence. She references a 2004 American Bar Association report (pg. 85), to back that argument up.
I’ve found it interesting how many rhetorical appeals Michelle Alexander uses in her writing. I think it
definitely strengthens the persuasion of it by a lot, and I wonder how different it would be without the
appeals. I will likely be talking more about it in my future posts, because it plays such an important part
in her writing. It’s fascinating how much rhetorical appeals are used and how much they work, often
without being noticed. As I wrote about in my last post, the first section of this book was focused on the
more historical aspects of racism in America, including slavery and Jim Crow laws, while this section
focused more on modern-day racial inequality. I did find this section easier to read, which I think was
mostly due to the fact that it was incredibly eye-opening. Like the part of the book that I read last time,
it contained a lot of factual information, however unlike the facts about slavery and the civil rights era,
I hadn’t heard most of it before. Although I was aware that the United States has a huge problem of
mass incarceration of African-Americans, I never knew how it began, and most importantly, why it
continues to exist in a time that has clearly progressed in many ways since the civil rights era. The facts
that I was reading were shocking, and they really made me think. I am looking forward to reading the
next section, and reading more eye-opening stories. It’s scary how much goes on in the world around
you that you are completely blind to.
definitely strengthens the persuasion of it by a lot, and I wonder how different it would be without the
appeals. I will likely be talking more about it in my future posts, because it plays such an important part
in her writing. It’s fascinating how much rhetorical appeals are used and how much they work, often
without being noticed. As I wrote about in my last post, the first section of this book was focused on the
more historical aspects of racism in America, including slavery and Jim Crow laws, while this section
focused more on modern-day racial inequality. I did find this section easier to read, which I think was
mostly due to the fact that it was incredibly eye-opening. Like the part of the book that I read last time,
it contained a lot of factual information, however unlike the facts about slavery and the civil rights era,
I hadn’t heard most of it before. Although I was aware that the United States has a huge problem of
mass incarceration of African-Americans, I never knew how it began, and most importantly, why it
continues to exist in a time that has clearly progressed in many ways since the civil rights era. The facts
that I was reading were shocking, and they really made me think. I am looking forward to reading the
next section, and reading more eye-opening stories. It’s scary how much goes on in the world around
you that you are completely blind to.
And I’ll leave you on that ominous note. Until next time!
Hi Jennifer! I really liked this post; I am also reading The New Jim Crow and I'm really happy reading your post allowed me to gain some new perspective. I liked how you talked about both real-life and theoretical examples and integrated quotes to illustrate your points. I also really liked your ethos paragraph because you talked about what exactly makes her a credible source and cited specific page numbers. I also really liked how you included some of your own thoughts and reflections thus far at the end.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about the complicated language and syntax in this book? Does it enhance the material, or does it make it more difficult?
Can't wait to read more!
Grace
Hi Grace! I think that the more wordy way this book is written has its pros and cons. I do think that it makes it stronger in a way - it helps to kind of give the author more ethos, because she sounds more educated on this issue, and in general. However, it can also make it kind of dense at times, which I think could throw off some readers, and make them either less interested in reading the book, or just confused at times. I do think this was more of a problem in our first reading though, because it mainly focused on history, which wasn't as intriguing as this part was. In this section, it definitely doesn't have as strong of an overwhelming affect. It will be interesting to see how that changes as we read more, though.
DeleteThis is a really great post! I also found this section much more enjoyable, and I agree that it’s probably due to how interesting the material was. My post for this section also focused on the arguments she made and how she made them, and I used the example of the hypothetical situations she included. I was actually wondering what other members of our group thought of that, so I’m really glad you brought it up! I felt as though it would’ve been more effective if it were a real-life situation rather than a hypothetical one, but I see why you think otherwise! I’d also like to know what your thoughts were on the part discussing the juries. That piece really surprised me because I had never really considered how that affects and is effected by mass incarceration. Great job!
ReplyDelete-Myah
Thank you, Myah! I agree that the part about the juries was surprising. It's crazy how they can be pretty much be forced to make what they don't think is the right decision, because of certain laws. Like when the book quoted some of them saying how upset, and even emotional it made them to abide by these laws, I wondered why they are in place. I personally don't think that laws like the "three-strikes law" are effective, because they can put jurors in situations like that, where they aren't technically doing their job, which is to make the decision they think is best. I can definitely see how laws like that contribute to the problem of mass incarceration. I wonder how much of an impact it would have if they got rid of certain laws that don't allow for individual decisions on each case. It's interesting to think about.
DeleteI like the new look! Your discussion of the rhetorical appeals Alexander uses in this section of the read is very thorough. I am always impressed ,when I read nonfiction texts, but the number of citations/source entries at the back of the book. The amount of research that goes into a book like this certainly establishes the author's ethos. Be on the look out for word choice and other devices too, such as in this example you include: "They are herded like cattle [into the courtroom lockup], at 3 or 4 in the morning." After our viewing of Food Inc., this simile proves even more powerful.
ReplyDelete