Introduction: Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat”
In the rhetorical analysis of “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author adeptly uses persuasive techniques such as vivid imagery and emotional appeal, to argue his case against the consumption of meat, skillfully navigating the nuances of ethical and environmental concerns. This is an excerpt from the book “Eating Animals” by Jonathan Safran Foer. It was published in The New York Times on October 7, 2009. This autobiographical article suggests that everything loses its value when there is “nothing to save,” even if it is life. The writer emphasizes that food is meant to be consumed for survival, taste, and nutritional value. Otherwise, concepts related to food are influenced by human thinking, emotions, situations, and religious beliefs, impacting eating habits. The central argument is that attitudes toward eating meat or being a vegetarian fluctuate over time due to these aspects of our lives.
Jonathan Safran Foer begins his narrative by praising his grandmother, a Holocaust survivor, and describing how she developed a love for food. Food became everything for her, and she became the greatest chef in the household, driven by her obsession with making children healthy. She prioritized meat, followed by chicken, fish, and then considered all vegetables important, never letting peels and crumbs go to waste. This upbringing led the author to become a casual vegetarian, despite initial reservations about his commitment.
Although he recalled childhood stories of not hurting animals, his decision to become a vegetarian did not stem from those stories. Instead, he wanted to be an odd man out, presenting himself as a vegetarian. At times, he adopted vegetarianism because he found it easy, akin to Mark Twain’s anecdote of quitting smoking daily. Other times, he viewed factory farming as a significant threat to humanity due to its impact on the environment. Occasionally, he embraced vegetarianism due to commitments with his wife. Ultimately, he concluded that their choice to eat meat was driven by taste, acknowledging their “consciously inconsistency” or being “vegetarians who, from time to time, ate meat” (Foer, p. 26).
The author cites various examples of occasions when the couple abandoned vegetarianism for social or religious reasons. In the end, he concludes that, despite warnings from the FDA and the UN Food Agency about environmental and health issues associated with consuming animals, meat remains an ingredient in their food because of the taste. This realization prompts them to reconsider their views, especially as parents. The tale of his grandmother, who stayed healthy and survived by eating everything except for religious reasons, does not persuade the rational mind of the author, as he acknowledges that the next generation may even change their dietary choices.
Rhetorical Strategies in Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat”
The author employs various rhetorical strategies to strengthen his argument, including classical rhetorical devices, pathos, ethos, logos, and Kairos. Additionally, he uses repetition, shorter sentences, rhetorical questions, and dialogues to enhance the persuasive nature of his claim, asserting that people are now occasional vegetarians and consume meat for various reasons.
Classical rhetorical devices are prominent throughout the article, contributing to the persuasion of readers that abstaining from meat is not straightforward. The author leverages ethos by citing personal experiences and family teachings. He shares anecdotes about his grandmother, a Holocaust survivor and the family’s greatest chef, emphasizing her preference for meat and fish as nutritious foods. By presenting family incidents, the author establishes himself as an authority on the challenges of becoming a vegetarian, similar to Mark Twain’s expertise in quitting smoking occasionally.
Moreover, the author uses pathos to tap into readers’ emotions. While his pathos may seem weaker at times, such as when he mentions “conscious inconsistency,” the use of anecdotes, like the one about Mark Twain, connects with readers on an emotional level. The author’s recounting of family teachings, baby sitter instructions, and his grandmother’s preferences adds a personal touch that resonates with readers’ emotions.
Ethos is reinforced by appealing to authority through references to U.S.D.A. data and the FAO of the United Nations. By emphasizing reservations about meat from factory farming and the environmental impact of genetically modified animals, the author aims to build credibility and persuade readers about the potential harms associated with meat consumption.
Logos is evident in the logical progression of the author’s arguments. He presents data, expert opinions, and environmental concerns to support his claim that meat consumption poses risks. The strategic use of repetition, shorter sentences, and rhetorical questions contributes to the logical flow of the argument. Kairos, or timing, is incorporated into the argument, aligning with contemporary concerns about food choices, environmental sustainability, and health. The author capitalizes on the current relevance of the topic to enhance the persuasive impact of his message. In summary, Johathan Safran Foer effectively employs rhetorical strategies such as classical devices, pathos, ethos, logos, and Kairos to construct a compelling argument. The use of personal anecdotes, references to authoritative sources, and emotional appeals contribute to the overall persuasiveness of the article, engaging readers on various levels.
Logos in Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat”
The author’s use of logos is indeed robust, grounded in logical reasoning and philosophical considerations. His decision to adopt vegetarianism at different points in his life, such as during his philosophy major, is portrayed as a logical response to align with his intellectual pursuits. The acknowledgment of human fallibility and changing tastes adds a pragmatic dimension to his argument, reinforcing the idea that dietary choices are subject to individual whims and circumstances. The inclusion of instances where religious considerations or social obligations necessitate a departure from vegetarianism contributes to the logical progression of his argument.
Pathos, or emotional appeal, is a significant component of the author’s strategy. The anecdotes about his grandmother’s survival during challenging times, her reverence for food, and the emotional resonance of her words create a poignant narrative. The description of food as embodying various emotions—terror, dignity, gratitude, vengeance, joy, humiliation, religion, history, and love—invokes a deep emotional response in readers. The use of pathos is particularly effective in conveying the complex relationship between food and emotions, as illustrated through his grandmother’s experiences.
The author’s ability to intertwine personal narratives, family stories, and historical events enhances the emotional impact. The portrayal of his grandmother’s refusal to eat non-kosher meat, despite the circumstances, adds a layer of emotional depth to the argument. The timing of the article aligns with a growing awareness of vegetarianism and animal rights activism, leveraging Kairos effectively. By addressing contemporary concerns and incorporating the viewpoints of animal rights activists, the author makes his argument more relevant and resonant with the prevailing sentiments on the subject.
In summary, the author employs a balanced mix of logos, pathos, and Kairos to construct a persuasive argument. The logical reasoning, emotional narratives, and timely considerations collectively contribute to the overall effectiveness of the article in engaging and convincing the readers.
Rhetorical Questions in Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat”
The use of rhetorical questions in Foer’s writing serves as a powerful tool to engage readers and guide them through the complexities of his arguments. By posing questions, he not only prompts readers to reflect on the issues he raises but also provides answers or insights, creating a conversational tone that invites readers to consider various perspectives. The rhetorical questions act as a rhetorical device to stimulate critical thinking and involve the audience in the author’s thought process.
The strategic use of parentheses to offer additional explanations or insights further enhances the clarity of Foer’s narrative. It allows him to provide context or elaborate on specific points without disrupting the flow of the main argument. This technique aids in addressing potential questions or concerns that readers might have, contributing to a more comprehensive and nuanced exploration of the subject matter.
Repetition, particularly in the form of anecdotes or catchphrases, serves to reinforce key themes and messages within the narrative. The repetition of the grandmother’s catchphrase “Listen to me” not only emphasizes the significance of her perspective but also signals to the readers that this element is central to the narrative. It helps in driving home specific points and ensures that essential aspects of the argument are not overlooked. In summary, the use of rhetorical questions, parentheses, and repetition contributes to the overall effectiveness of Foer’s rhetorical strategy. These devices facilitate reader engagement, clarify complex ideas, and reinforce key messages, enhancing the persuasive impact of the article.
Conclusion of Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat”
Jonathan Safran Foer’s use of a first-person narrative, combined with personal and literary anecdotes, adds a compelling and relatable dimension to his argument. By sharing personal stories and experiences, Foer connects with readers on an emotional level, making his narrative more engaging and relatable. This approach humanizes the author and allows readers to see the issues from a more personal perspective.
The anecdotes, particularly those involving his grandmother and his child, serve as powerful illustrative examples that anchor his arguments in real-life situations. The grandmother’s love for food becomes a metaphor for the complex relationships people have with what they eat. The intergenerational aspect, involving his child, adds a layer of universality, as many readers can relate to the challenges of making food choices for their families.
The incorporation of Mark Twain’s anecdote about quitting smoking introduces a touch of humor and further reinforces Foer’s point about the challenges of maintaining a strict dietary commitment. It serves as a relatable comparison that adds a literary and historical dimension to his argument.
By blending personal narratives with literary references and anecdotes, Foer employs a multifaceted approach to persuasion. This strategy helps him connect with a diverse audience, allowing readers to see themselves in the stories he shares and encouraging them to reconsider their own relationships with food. The first-person narrative, enriched with anecdotes, contributes to the overall effectiveness of Foer’s rhetorical strategy in making a persuasive case about the complexities of dietary choices.
Reference: Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat”
Foer, J. S. (October 7, 2009). “Against Meat.” Retrieved on March 15, 2022 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11foer-t.html?_r=0
Relevant Questions about Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat”
- How does Jonathan Safran Foer establish ethos in “Against Meat,” and how does his credibility as an author contribute to the overall persuasive impact of the essay?
- Identify examples of logos in Foer’s argument against meat consumption. How does he use logical reasoning, evidence, and appeals to support his claims, and how effective are these strategies in conveying his message?
- Analyze the use of pathos in “Against Meat.” How does Foer appeal to the emotions of the readers, and what specific language or anecdotes does he employ to evoke an emotional response? Discuss the role of pathos in strengthening Foer’s argument against meat consumption.