A good rhetorical analysis begins with close, careful reading. Like any analysis, a rhetorical analysis is a three-step process:

So, let’s start by figuring out what to look for when you are making observations about a writer or speaker’s use of rhetoric. For this Workshop, we’re going to work with “Free to Be Happy” by Jon Meacham (p. 892), an essay you may have read as part of the Conversation on the pursuit of happiness.

Make Observations

Establishing Context. One of the first things you want to make observations about is the context for the piece you are analyzing—the rhetorical situation. You can use the rhetorical triangle or SOAPS from Chapter 3 to help you figure out the rhetorical situation, whichever method works best for you.

Of all the aspects of the rhetorical situation, the writer’s purpose is the most important to understand when preparing for a rhetorical analysis. Without understanding the speaker’s purpose, you can’t know if his or her rhetorical moves are working for the speaker, or against the speaker. In some cases, such as a timed writing, you may be given contextual information as part of your instructions or as background. If so, you should take note and start thinking about how that context affects the rhetoric of the text. Is the speaker a noted authority who has been invited to address a friendly audience? Is he or she an everyday citizen publishing a letter in response to a highly controversial community issue or election?

952

In situations in which you need to figure out the context on your own, you may need to do a little digging: Where was the piece published? What is the author’s background? In the case of Meacham’s essay, take into account that it appeared in Time, a weekly print and online newsmagazine, with a large audience of educated professionals. Of Time’s 25 million readers, 20 million are in the United States. Also consider that the article was one of several in a special issue on the topic of “The Pursuit of Happiness.” Moreover, Meacham is an executive editor at Random House publishing company and a contributing editor to Time. Perhaps most important, in terms of the context for this article, is that he has won many awards, including a Pulitzer Prize, for his history books. These include biographies of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and an analysis of the civil rights movement.

What does all of this information tell you? Most directly, it tells you that Meacham is a respected expert on U.S. history, so he brings authority to the writing. Particularly key to this essay is his expertise as a biographer of Thomas Jefferson.

Looking at the Text. Remember that in the Make Observations stage, you are just gathering information. So, read (or reread) the essay, noting ideas and language that stand out to you.

Let’s get into the text itself with a close reading of the opening three paragraphs. We’ll use annotations to mark what we see as we read through:

953

954

These observations, based as they are on only a few paragraphs, aren’t enough to determine exactly what Meacham’s purpose is, but we can see where he’s headed. He’s writing about the meaning of “the pursuit of happiness” today, but giving his readers a historical perspective on the idea by taking us back to 1776, and even beyond that to earlier thinkers who influenced the authors of the Declaration of Independence, including the Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Making questions out of your observations is a good way to begin figuring out a writer’s purpose. These focus your reading while leading you to further exploration. At this early stage of analysis you don’t want to eliminate possible interpretations; you want to open up possibilities.

Identify Patterns

Thus far, we have simply been making observations about the rhetorical context and what Meacham is doing as he builds his argument. The next step is to find a pattern or patterns with these observations.

If we look back at our observations, we see a series of notes about setting a scene and giving us quirky personal information about Jefferson. What pattern or patterns might link these observations—or at least some of them? Meacham seems to be humanizing Jefferson, making us see beyond the legendary Founding Father.

We also have a series of notes about tensions that all seem to relate to defining happiness as either personal delight or public well-being.

Our notes also include the observation that Meacham writes in first person—not third person, as one might expect from a scholar. He seems to be talking to his readers as though they are peers—addressing them as “we” and “us.” Does this connect to the effort he put into humanizing Jefferson?

One way to organize your observations when you’re writing a rhetorical analysis is to work with the three rhetorical appeals: ethos, logos, and pathos. For each one of the appeals, you can look for specific strategies that show that appeal in action. Here’s an example.

Given the historical nature of the argument Meacham is making, logos is a natural place to start. Look back over those names you listed in the Activity above. You’ll notice that Meacham cites the contemporary scholar Garry Wills; another well-regarded historian, Arthur Schlesinger Sr.; some Founding Fathers; and philosophers such as John Locke. What do all of these references have in common? The pattern we’re seeing emerge is that Meacham appeals to the reason of his readers by citing the evidence of authorities, both past and present. Based on this observation, we could make the case that using authority to appeal to reason (logos) is a key strategy throughout the argument.

Draw Conclusions

955

Once a pattern emerges, it’s time to draw conclusions. In the case of a rhetorical analysis, that means connecting the strategies you’ve discovered back to the author’s purpose.

Meacham appeals to a pretty well-informed and educated audience, people who know some history. He reminds them from the very first paragraphs that happiness is not solely individual (or else “property” would have been in the Declaration of Independence instead of “happiness”). He asserts that happiness is not about getting everything you want as soon as you want it. It involves “balance” as the individual’s happiness is based in “civic life.” Thus, Meacham uses logic and the evidence of authorities to counter the emotional lure of personal happiness, and shifts focus to a type of happiness that prizes “public good” over “private gratification.” Pointing out connections that link strategy to purpose is the key move in a successful rhetorical analysis.