A Modest Proposal Rhetorical Analysis

Both Swift and Kingston, authors of “A Modest Proposal” and “On Discovery” respectively, use irony to expose realities regarding a particular social construct. For instance, the narrator of “A Modest Proposal” proposes the slaughter and trade of beggar infants as a solution to Ireland’s overpopulation. Overlooking the flagrant moral injustice of murdering thousands of children, the narrator casually discusses how infant carcasses make for “dishes of excellent nutritive meat”, “admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots” (166 idk how to cite). Swift clearly uses verbal irony to reveal the upper class’ blatant disregard for the poor of Ireland, and thereby exposes the discrimination inherent in the Irish social hierarchy. Meanwhile, Kingston’s

“On Discovery” focuses on the social construct of gender. Kingston’s essay follows a man named Tang Ao as he undergoes a cosmetic transformation by following traditional Chinese cultural practices. The women who transform him “plucked out each hair on his face, powdered him white” and “painted his eyebrows like a moth’s wings” among other things, such as foot-binding (132 idk how to cite). Ironically, after the transformation’s completion, other men regard him as a woman, remarking on his feminine beauty, in spite of the fact that he remains, biologically, a male. Through this use of dramatic irony, Kingston shows how the social construct of gender lies rooted in culture, not biology. Thus, both Swift and Kingston employ irony to reveal realities about different social constructs.
Also in conjunction with Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” uses irony to shed light on the nature of oppression.

As a satirical criticism of the Irish social hierarchy, “A Modest Proposal” extensively uses verbal irony to expose the oppression faced by the poor. Prioritizing his proposal over all else, the narrator dismisses all other proposals, like “introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence, and temperance” to the upper class, and “teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants” (169-170 idk how ot cite). With consideration to the author’s bitterly sarcastic tone, Swift clearly intends to vilify the upper class’ wasteful squandering and cruelty towards the poor by deeming these perfectly reasonable proposals as mere expedients. Swift thereby exposes this case of oppression as a result of the selfishness of those in power. On the other hand, Orwell’s memoir shows a very different side of oppression. Though he believes British “imperialism” against the Burmese “was an evil thing” and “was all for the Burmese”, Orwell nevertheless acknowledges that “the British Empire is dying”, and thus needs to expand in any way it can (145). When faced with the choice of shooting a rampaging elephant, he suddenly feels pressured to do so by “an immense crowd… all happy and excited”, even though he does not want to (148). Though the elephant ultimately calms down, Orwell fears the ridicule he may receive if he does not demonstrate

paradigmatic British authority, and shoots the innocent elephant anyway. The Burmese, starved and oppressed by the British Empire, look beyond the slaughter of the peaceful creature, and “stripped his body almost to the bones” for its meat (151). Orwell observes three instances of oppression driven by fear and necessity - rather than by a wasteful, omnipotent power, as in Swift’s essay -, all of which contain situational irony. Though it claims to be a perfect, all-powerful Empire, the British Empire oppresses the Burmese out of fear for its waning size; though Orwell wants to help the Burmese and spare the elephant, he, the oppressor, feels driven by the oppressed to shoot the creature out of fear for his reputation; though the Burmese themselves suffer from British oppression and condemn it, they abandon their morals in pursuit of survival when presented the prospect of the elephant’s meat. Thus, both Swift and Orwell use irony to reveal the nature of oppression in two separate cases: Swift using verbal irony to expose a wasteful potentate, and Orwell using situational irony to expose a vicious cycle of oppression bred out of fear and necessity.
Finally, between Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” and Hughes’ “Salvation”, irony serves to effect disillusionment.

As a functionary of the “unbreakable tyranny” that the British empire holds over the Burmese, Orwell guiltily regards himself as a reluctant oppressor (145). Nevertheless, when pressured by the excited, starving Burmese to shoot an elephant, he realizes that “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (148). In an ironic twist, Orwell now recognizes the Burmese people’s power over him, as they push him to demonstrate the authority expected from one aligned with their oppressors. Orwell’s experience with situational irony disillusions him to the reality that oppression operates in multiple directions. Similarly, Langston Hughes also encounters situational irony that brings him to a disillusioning realization. As a naive twelve-year-old in his narrative, Hughes takes his aunt literally when she tells him that a church revival will bring him to Jesus Christ. However, at the revival, Hughes never actually sees any sign of Jesus, and watches his friend impatiently “get up and be saved”, suggesting he, too, cannot see Jesus (97). Abandoning all hope of the advent, Hughes also pretends to see Jesus, and wonders why “God had not struck Westley”, his friend, “dead for taking” God’s “name in vain” (98). Here, Hughes encounters situational irony because he suffers in spite of his faithful disposition, while his lying friend receives praise

instead of punishment. As a result of the situational irony, Hughes becomes disillusioned to the falsity of organized religion, as after the event, he “didn’t believe there was a Jesus any more” (98). As sufficient evidence across the two essays show, Orwell and Hughes use irony to illustrate disillusionment.