'A Rhetorical Analysis Of Malcolm Gladwell's Blowup'

When complicated systems fail catastrophically, there are processes that aim to fulfill three general objectives. One, is to assign blame, another, to understand what happened and what why it happened. Last, is to fix the specific feature or problem so that disaster will not happen again. In the article “Blowup” published in 1996 by The New Yorker, author Malcolm Gladwell examines catastrophes such as the Challenger explosion, and the near-disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. He begins by defining the “rituals of disaster,” [1] a modern process in which physical evidence is collected and scrupulously analyzed to form a conclusion, and further explores the sociological aspects surrounding disasters, tying them to the human

experience. In his writing, Gladwell methodically uses ethical and logical appeals in conjunction with pathetic appeals to engage the audience, and challenge their preconceived perspectives on catastrophes. It is important to note where this article was published. The New Yorker is a highly esteemed magazine that publishes material with the expectation it will be read by a well- educated audience. It aims to be entertaining and informative, with founder Harold Ross describing it as "[...] intellectual delight to those capable of intellectual pleasure." [2].

The New Yorker’s target audience is largely composed of middle to upper class metropolitan Americans, many of which would be businessmen. It is also important to note the author, Malcolm Gladwell, and when it was published. Although Gladwell is now highly decorated and widely recognized author, “Blowup” was one of his first publications in The New Yorker, he had yet to establish himself as the icon he is today. Despite this, Gladwell’s now iconic style is evident. He captures the audience, changing their frame of reference in an entertaining way that invokes deeper thought on the issue, allowing audiences to form their conclusions given their new information and prspective. As is with many of his articles, Gladwell begins by presenting an encompassing concept, “Who can be blamed for a disaster like the Challenger explosion, a decade ago? No one according to new risk theorists, and we better get used to it.” [1] He does this to establish an overarching concept so his audience can better understand each aspect of this idea as he explores them in a way that is accessible to his

audience. It also creates coherence as he explores each idea. Gladwell treads a proverbial line between intellectual and entertaining by mining scientific data, presenting it in an interesting way, void of scientific jargon. This can be seen when he presents what “[...] Yale University sociologist Charles Perrow has famously called a “normal accident” [...] the kind of accident one can expect in the normal functioning of a technologically complex operation” where he further explains it, comparing it to “[...] last year’s hit movie “Apollo 13” [..] a perfect illustration of one of the most famous normal accidents[.]” [1] By refraining from scientific terminology, the primary audience, businessmen, follow his writings easier. He again appeals to this demographic when demonstrating the theory of “risk homeostasis.” After briefing the reader on the experiment, he explains, “As economists would say, they “consumed” the risk reduction, they didn’t save it.”