REFLECTION STATEMENT

In my first reading of Defending Against the Indefensible I found Postmans ideas revolutionary and a radical change to the language education system. Then I found out that the piece was written over twenty years ago. I found difficulty in the beginning of the writing process because as an unbiased audience member, I was already convinced of Postmans argument, but had to confront how little impact it held. After annotating almost every line of the essay, it got much easier. The masses of rhetoric strategy provided ample proof that this article was quite persuasive. The only other trouble that I found in the process was just organizing the multitudes of information into a coherent and effect rhetoric analysis. It was funny that when I went the writing center with my paper, the girl helping me had never even heard of a rhetorical analysis. She still was able to improve my grammar, but was little assistance in critiquing my overall analysis. I found examples, and I think I used them well in my paper. If I could start over, I would have started much earlier, it took way more time and thought than I expected. Overall though I enjoy the structure and purpose of this paper compared to the first one. I think I did considerably better.

Justin Pyron March 28, 2011 Academic Writing

Use Your Allusion

A Rhetorical Analysis of Neil Postmans Defending Against the Indefensible

Teachers are schooled in how language education develops critical thinking in Neil Postmans lecture, Defending Against the Indefensible. In his lecture, Postman asserts that educators are neglecting several vital aspects of language communication, leaving the majority of people vulnerable to the rhetoric of various spin-doctors. Throughout the piece, Postman strategically utilizes tone, persuasive appeals, and style in order to successfully influence the way some teachers think about education. In his lecture, Postman uses irony, hyperbole, and humor in order to convey his tone of optimistic contempt. From the beginning of his lecture, Postman is able to use humor and irony to illustrate a point as well as convey his tone. Often making fun of himself, he introduces the lecture ironically stating that, no one ever said politics is a pretty profession, and if Orwell thought it could be otherwise, he was an optimist following with, I, too, am an optimist (p.21). By early on establishing this cheerful element to his tone, he is able to more effectively use hyperbole and humor to illustrate assertions later in the lecture. The audience is also affected by the humorous anecdote that Postman illustrates in his first concept. With this glorification story of a student not accepting the definition of rejection by Columbia University, Postmans optimism shines and is absorbed by the audience (p.25). One of the most useful over exaggerations which conveys his contempt is, No political practitioner has ever spoken three consecutive

sentences without invoking some metaphorical authority for his actions (p.30). This hyperbole is both funny and critical of political language, showing how Postman utilizes tone to persuade his audience. In the conclusion of his lecture, Postman once again uses humor to charm the audience, consistently developed his tone as hopeful, cheerful, and effectively expressing disdain. Embedded in many lines of Postmans speech are persuasive appeals that he uses to coax his audience through his beliefs of language significance. By harboring the power of ethos, logos, and pathos, Postman persuades on a triple front from the top of his lecture. First, exploring his uses of ethos, we see from before the beginning of the lecture a strategy used by Postman again and again. Titling his piece, Defending Against the Indefensible was his first use of many allusions in his speech (p.20-21). Later, in referencing the words of established greats such as Cicero, Wells, and Freud, he firmly establishes legitimacy for his argument by attaching well-known names in concurrence with his ideas (p. 21-22). Postman utilizes this appeal in presenting each one of his seven neglected concepts in language education, and also concludes with a quote from Ray Bradbury that exalts critical thinking (p.34). He uses allusions combined with other persuasive appeals in order to strengthen impact, as in his story attributed to the American psychologist Gordon Allport, where an obscure reference with a simple anecdote is able to advance and illustrate Postmans concept of questions further than one without these methods could (p.25). Postmans most effective allusions are those he uses in order to relate his rationale to real world examples. He does this exceptionally well in his examination of simple diction flexibility where he finds contradiction in Reagan saying it is right to place

cruise missiles in Europe, as well as saying it is right to reduce national deficit. Postman uses this example in order to portray his logic, that words that are used in almost every universe of discourse have different meanings in each, (p.26). It is also a challenge to authority, which grants his argument both its own authority and a powerful emotional response. Overall Postman is able to effectively boost status to his position through his allusions. Second, Postmans strategic use of logos is mostly characterized as simple, sound and with few assumptions. In his key rationalization that all subjects are forms of discourse indeed, forms of literature and therefore that almost all education is language education, Postman establishes the parameters in which his subsequent logic will be confined (p.23). From that foundation he is able to prove almost all of the neglected subjects worth by rationalizing their significance to education in every sphere. Postman utilizes logos most effectively when preceding an emotional call to arms, as in after rationalizing that all forms of discourse are metaphor-laden, he warns that unless our students are aware of how metaphors shape arguments, organize perceptions, and control feelings, their understanding is severely limited (p.30). By connecting his rational to an emotion-provoking assumption of the limitations of education, Postman attempts to alter the audiences perception of metaphors. Alternately, his logic does fall short during his fifth concept of reification. In this paragraph Postman fails to expand the significance of language as well as plagues his logic with assumptions (p. 31). His vague and inadequate explanation of reification combined with examples that assume more than they explain subtract from the overall logos of the piece.

Third, the valuable application of pathos to Postmans argument motivates mobilization and implication of his ideas. When he claims to have read recipes on the back of cereal boxes that were written with more style and conviction than textbook descriptions, Postman effectively relates and appeals to his audience of teachers emotions, because they have drooled over textbooks for decades (p.32). From that appeal he calls his audience into action, provoking teachers to be willing to take the time [to] find materials that convey ideas in a form characteristic of their discipline (p.32). Also, he uses personal anecdotes from his own classroom experiences in order to associate specific emotions, like frustration, with the neglect of his valued concepts (p.30). Finally, Postmans strongest emotional appeal comes in his warnings to the audience. In concluding his lecture, he stresses the importance of his concepts being included in our students education or else they will be disarmed and extremely vulnerable (p.33). Appealing to vulnerability is Postmans final effective strategy, as one he develops through his essay in describing the potential problems that come with defending against the indefensible. In addition to his tactics of tone and persuasive appeals, Postmans overall style in his lecture, embedded with rhetorical questions and emulation of his own linguistic ideas, significantly influence the audiences reaction to the lecture. In his use of rhetorical questions, Postman often provides the conclusion that the question draws, without directly giving the audience the answer. He does this most effectively in his discussion of metaphors where he questions his audience of their opinions about how a child should be taught. He does not directly answer these questions, but instead expresses that the answer to the question affects how each member of the audience will proceed as a

teacher (p. 29). Using these questions as guides to his conclusions, Postman influences his audience efficiently with his style. However, Postmans most effective use of style is his emulation of his own principles within his lecture. He does this as he begins to explain his third concept, stating, the most difficult words in any form of discourse are rarely the polysyllabic ones that are hard to spell (p.27). In this distinctive style, Postman uses his own language as an example for his critique of language. After describing the ulterior motives of every definition, he emulates his own motives in defining Reification as, confusing words with things (p. 30). Also, soon after examining the usefulness of metaphors to manipulate perceptions, he uses a long list of metaphors to illustrate the bias of any messages medium (p. 33). This highly effective stylization technique is one of the most persuasive things about the essay, because it is telling the audience how they can be manipulated, while it manipulates them. In conclusion, Postmans lecture is persuasive and provoking. He concludes his piece eloquently with calling for action from all educators, widening the scope of his argument, and adding a disclaimer that his ideas might not solve all our problems (p.34). It is through his effective use of tone, persuasive appeals, and style that throughout the lecture he creates a compelling argument for critical thinking.

Works Cited Postman, Neil. "Defending Against the Indefensible." Conscientious Objections: Stirring up Trouble about Language, Technology, and Education. New York: Knopf, 1988. 20-34. Print.