Resistance To Civil Government Rhetorical Analysis

Introduction

As I've studied Henry David Thoreau's essay "Resistance to Civil Government," I've identified the persuasive elements and analyzed a specific portion of the text to create my own argument. In this essay, I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses found throughout both responses through the lens of persuasive analysis in order to prove my ability to utilize rhetorical strategies.
Evaluation of "Analysis of Persuasive Rhetoric"
In my first analysis of Thoreau's essay, one of my strengths was being able to identify Thoreau's use of logos, or reasoning. In this instance, Thoreau draws from an example of a popular scholar, Paley, who argues: "'So long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God'" (Thoreau). In my analysis, I acknowledged Thoreau's citing of this quote and then demonstrated how he flipped Paley's argument. He reasons with the audience that doing the right thing, though sometimes unpleasant, will yield greater rewards in the long run.

Another strength in this analysis was that of my acknowledgement of Thoreau's open-mindedness as he argues with an audience.

Clearly, he is aware of who he is arguing to and builds his argument accordingly. In the example I used, I showed how Thoreau recognized that not all people would be as devoted to the cause of justice as he, but he called for all men to do their part.
A weakness in my analysis of Thoreau's work was in my choice of quotation for Thoreau's use of identification. I was trying to show how Thoreau related to the audience by showing how he addressed the audience using the word "we" rather than "you;" however, the quotation ultimately falls short of identification because it is so brief. With some added context, the quotation may have better exemplified Thoreau's ability to identify with his

audience.
weaknesses
Evaluation of "Persuasive Response to Thoreau's 'Resistance to Civil Government'"
In my second essay, I chose an argument that stemmed from Thoreau's essay, namely that people must be changed internally in order to make progress in the world. A strength in this essay was in my rhetorical competence, or my ability to remain open to my audience's opinions. I did this by comparing examples from two different Civil Rights Movement leaders, both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. While both protested the same issues, they employed radically different strategies. By acknowledging the different beliefs that my audience had, I was able to show that my argument was constructed while looking at both sides of the issue.
In contrast to my strength, I noticed a lack of logos throughout this essay. Instead of making arguments with my own voice, I overused quotes from famous leaders to express my thoughts to my audience. For example, instead of paraphrasing a portion of King's "I Have a Dream" speech, I quoted six lines. Although it was a very useful quote, the space would've been more productive had I used it to support my own argument. Overall, the excessive use of ethos overburdened my persuasive essay and caused it to lose validity.
Another issue I noticed was in my lack of purposive discourse. While I was trying to make an argument about changing others through civil protest, I neglected to realize that many of my examples involved the Civil Rights Movement. In retrospect, I should have been more careful with my words and also vocalized the fact that I was not present, nor familiar with, the type of injustices that occurred during this movement. If I had done so, I would've had more ethos (as the writer, the arguer) to express my own opinions, whether they were in line with or against different leaders.
Conclusion
In both of my essays in response to Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government," I either identified or applied rhetorical strategies in my arguments. Even though there are opportunities for areas of improvement throughout each paper, there are also several areas of strength. While neither are perfect, both show that I am capable of identifying and using persuasive techniques.