A Modest Proposal Rhetorical Analysis

“A Modest Proposal” is a satirical argument written by Jonathan Swift in 1729. In the argument, Swift is seemingly offering a revolutionary solution to Ireland’s potato famine and overpopulation. On the surface, Swift appears to suggest that the best solution for their problem lies in cannibalism. More specifically, in his plan, poor families will fatten up their babies and sell them for a profit to more wealthy Irish citizens. That way, the lower-class will end their poverty and the upper-class will benefit from the introduction of a new dish which is sure to become a delicacy. In his time, Swift’s argument was taken literally, and a general outrage spread across Ireland. However, if one reads carefully, Swift uses some rhetorical strategies

that make it clear that he is using this argument to prove a greater point.
One such strategy employed by Swift to craft this farcical argument is his use of very emotionally specific words and phrases that immediately grab the reader’s attention.

When describing the people of Ireland in their deplorable conditions, he writes, in a fairly sarcastic tone that, “mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihoods, are forced to employ all their time to beg” (3). In this particular part of the argument, he specifically chooses not only to say “livelihoods” but “honest livelihoods” which would seem to suggest, given his ironic tone, that he doesn’t believe that these women are honest at all. He seems to be suggesting that they are, therefore, part of the problem. Furthermore, he goes on to describe the mothers’ begging as

“lawful”
(4). By pointing out the obvious (yes, begging is legal), Swift seems to want us to question its legitimacy as a way to earn a living. It’s legal, but is it smart? Finally, Swift refers to some Irish couples as “breeders,” which is truly an insult. Of all the words he could have possibly chosen to describe lower-class citizens with too many children to support, he demeans them by saying, “I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders” (4). Not mothers. Not women who experienced the pains of birth. Breeders. Swift’s diction here clearly shows he has no respect for these women or their husbands. They breed without giving a thought to how these children will be supported or taken care of. Parents think about their children’s well-being. Breeders do not. Swifts’ diction suggests that the lower-class is the root of Ireland’s problem. There is famine because, for one reason, there are too many people whose parents can’t take care of them. He stems off from this initial point about breeders to make the claim that the Irish should put those extra children to good use – eat them!
At this point in the argument, readers should have already begun questioning Swift’s legitimacy. He claims, “a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food,” which is dropped like a bomb on the readers, seemingly out of nowhere (6). Nothing Swift has said up until this point has suggested cannibalism, which is a common element of comedic writing – surprise the reader with something they never expected – and he did. Swift uses other comedic writing strategies to make his argument over-the-top, such as hyperbole. Swift doesn’t hesitate to give us the gory details about how the Irish should use children to feed themselves. He even points out (several times) that they should be served on special occasions. They would be delicious “stewed, roasted, baked, or broiled” or even in a “fricassee or ragout,” Swift argues (6). If this isn’t exaggeration, Swift is just a demented man. He goes on to suggest that children would be a good substitute for bacon, which was apparently in short supply at the time (12). When it doesn’t seem as if the argument could be more absurd, Swift hits the reader one more time with an
unexpected claim: “Those who are more thrifty… may flay the carcass; the skin of which artificially dressed will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for gentlemen” (8). So not only should the Irish eat their own children, but they should also use their skin to make accessories. Wear them around and display them proudly. Anyone in their right mind would see that this is complete foolishness. Even if people did decide to cannibalize their own kind, surely they wouldn’t parade the fact around in front of decent society. These hyperboles and other exaggerations are just one way Swift uses comedic writing to show he has other motives for this argument.
Nothing seems to be quite as horrible as raising children for slaughter, but yet, on nearly every page of the argument, Swift seems to somehow do just that.

He discusses the youth of Ireland as if they’re livestock, and he makes the comparison very clear when he writes, “butchers, we may be assured, will not be wanting; although I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife as we do roasting pigs” (8). This metaphor – children as livestock – is just another comedic writing technique Swift uses to hint that he is not serious about cannibalism. While reading this passage, one can almost imagine children in a pigsty, awaiting a buyer to take them to the butcher to be prepared for dinner. It would be a funny image, if it weren’t so gruesome. Swift extends the metaphor later in his argument when he claims, “Men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, or sows when they are ready to farrow” (12). In other words, men would look at their wives as just another animal on the farm, producing offspring for the profit of the family. This image may not be meant to have the same comedic effect as the previous comparison to children and pigs, but it serves to demean and dehumanize the “breeders” because they are, in Swift’s opinion, doing nothing to help

themselves.
If nothing else from the argument proves Swift’s farcical tone, then the allusion to
Psamanazar should. Granted, in modern times, people won’t be familiar with the name of the famous imposter who convinced many prominent men that he had witnessed the benefits of cannibalism in foreign lands, but the Irishmen and women of 1729 should have had some familiarity with him. In his argument, Swift alludes to Psamanazar as a credible source who glorified cannibalism and sang its praises, even though he is well-aware that the man was a fake. No one who is trying to make a legitimate argument would use a phony exemplar like Psamanazar to justify his claim unless he wasn’t really serious about anything he claimed. This is just another way of knowing Swift wasn’t seriously considering cannibalism. Combined with ironic statements such as, “I can think of no one objection that will possibly be raised against this proposal,” any reader should have known that Swift wanted his audience to read between the lines of this argument to see the greater message. (Of course, any decent man can see that there would be several moral objections to his proposal!) So what was Swift’s overall message?
As he stated in the very beginning of the argument, Swift sees a problem with the lower-class in Ireland. They cannot support themselves, much less the children they bring into the world. (Swift also makes some underhanded statements about the lower-class Catholic population, who had large families.) His over-the-top claims just serve to make the really dense (slow-witted) individuals in Ireland see that they were only contributing to the problem by creating more mouths to feed and then doing nothing productive to help support them. His hope was probably to draw people in with his outrageous argument, and then open their eyes to the real problem. He even refers to several realistic, plausible solutions to Ireland’s problems toward the end of the piece in hopes that some readers would recognize their merits and potential. Swift was not a barbaric man suggesting human consumption. He was just a concerned individual hoping to open Ireland’s eyes to the problems they faced and possible outcomes of remaining stagnant and doing nothing productive to help save their country.