The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
-George Washington-
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Last Word on Bigotry
My prior post, On Bigotry, was actually the first half of an assignment for my Writing with Classical Tropes class. The assignment was to write anything we wanted, within a certain length, and I had wanted to write that essay for Under the Bridge anyway. The second half was to select one paragraph and analyze it for the tropes, or figures of speech, that are recognizable. The main tools for this exercise are A Handbook of Rhetorical Terms by Richard A. Lanham (whom Professor Shea refers to as "The Holy Richard" but I think of as "Biggus Dickus") and a website called Silva Rhetoricae, or The Forest of Rhetoric. The assignment was NOT to use any specific tropes or a minumum number; it was to write as we always do and then pick it apart afterwards. These exercises are called "lemon squeezers" by Shea (although I'm leaning toward the term "trope mope." I chose the fourth paragraph, which begins "And so they divide." The italicized tropes are defined in the text, and the above link should help if I failed to make any meanings unclear.
The writers among you may be interested in this process and, given this example, be motivated to pick apart a paragraph or two of your own? (Note: I wrote this on Word and pasted it - if you see any cyberwierdness in it on your browser - IE especially - that's most likely why.)
On On Bigotry
By Joe Serio
In my essay On Bigotry, I make the argument that bigotry is alive and well in
America, and obviously so.Of course,
there is the racial and class bigotry that permeates every corner of the world,
but the essay focuses on the recent growth of political bigotry. This manifests
itself just as racial bigotry does with political opinions – both real and
imagined – as the basis, rather than race. The fourth paragraph comes after
political bigotry is introduced and defined, and serves as a complex exemplum, or example, of how political
bigots behave.
The first sentence is wildly busy.
The first half is a clear brevitas, or
brief statement; “And so they divide.”A
series of three antitheses, or
contrasts, follow the semicolon.Atop these
antitheses lies a progressio, where I
build my point around a series of comparisons; “Republican or Democrat,
conservative or liberal, us or them.” The parallel structure, where each phrase
contains the word “or” in the middle of a three-word antithesis, is isocolon.
Furthermore, the second segment is also an auxesis,
in that I started at specific political parties, opened up to more general
political philosophies, and ended with the broadest and vaguest division
possible; “us or them.” Finally, and hypothetically, each part of the second
segment is, in itself, quite brief. Perhaps this entire sentence could be
considered a compound brevitas? (Just joking there, UtB readers!)
I begin the second sentence with anastrophe, the unusual arrangement of
words for a poetic effect; “As do racial bigots” rather than the more pedestrian
“as racial bigots do.” At sentence’s end I begin a device that I use for the
rest of the essay – emphasizing certain words with italics. Consultation with
learned council has led me to see this as a written form of augendi causa, the raising of the voice
for emphasis.This device permeates the
next two sentences, which serve as exemplum
to the second sentence.These sentences
are formed from two antitheses:
bigoted views of one side versus the other. The first part of each antithetical
sentence rests on hyperbole; in this
case, exaggerating the opposition’s faults. The second half of each rests upon euphemismus; ameliorating the home
team’s faults.It is tempting to
consider these sentences together to be another progressio, as they do offer another series of comparisons. Looking
more closely, however, these sentences compare and contrast within parallel
clauses – their this, our that - meaning I used syncrisis in both.Furthermore, I also used dialogismus in the wording, as I was speaking from another person’s
character; either a conservative bigot or a liberal one, it matters not. Brevitas
briefly returns with “They’re all liars.” Alliteration
arrives with “misquoted and misunderstood.”
The next sentence tropelessly begins
a repetition of the pattern set in the second sentence. It makes a
straightforward claim for the next two-sentence exemplum.These latter sentences
speak from the bigot’s point of view once again, in a more paraphrased dialogismus. Each sentence is a syllogism, or the political bigot’s one-premise form of the trope;
“if” this, “you must” that. Of course, giving the contrasting views one
sentence apiece formed another antithesis
between them.The structure of the
two sentences is parallel as well, with the aforementioned “if” followed by one
belief and “you must” followed by two assumed beliefs. This structure, unlike
that of the previous two-sentence exemplum,
is close enough to be defined as isocolon.
Having clearly illustrated the
division mentioned in the paragraph’s first clause, I wrap things up in classic
fashion with erotesis, more commonly
known as a rhetorical question – one that suggests its own answer. Here I
suggest not a division, but a likeness – a union, if you will - between
political bigotry and its more traditional cousin, racial bigotry.In this lay irony; for in their zeal to create differences, bigots are
ultimately all the same.
Works Cited
Lanham, Richard. A Handlist of
Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1991.
O' Tim October 22, 2009 09:49 PM PDT The last sentence is great - one for the Keeper File !
Whataloadofcrap October 23, 2009 08:07 PM PDT You began the second sentence with an ASS TROPHY??!!???
Whataloadofcrap October 29, 2009 08:38 PM PDT Hey, Joe, which doublewide in Albuquerque is yours? Let me know so I can wave as I drive through tomorrow. The horn's busted so watch for my finger!
