Rhetorical Analysis Carson

Rhetorical Analysis on Rachel Carson’s “Of Man and the Stream of Time”

Introduction with Thesis Rachel Carson’s speech “Of Man and the Stream of Time” shares her perspective on man and nature, but more specifically man’s attitude toward nature. She enlightens Scripps College’s graduating class on man’s role in nature and how they play a vital part in changing the environment. She also encourages them to be the generation who face reality, accept responsibility, and make a change (Carson, 1962). Growing knowledge and striving technology causes humans to try to control the uncontrollable: nature. Carson stresses that while man is battles to come out on top, it is nature that will get the final victory. With the use of word choice, kairos, credibility,

She addresses man’s role in nature and how their decisions negatively affect the environment. She defines nature as “the part of the world that man did not make” (Carson, 1962, pg.478). Carson believes that there was a time when people superstitiously feared the earth and what is was capable of (1962). Newly acquired knowledge and evolving technology replaces this idea (Carson, 1962). People alter the earth in ways that can be harmful for the environment and have not been thought through to the end result for man and nature. Carson has a deep appreciation for the beauty, mystery in nature, and respect for life. She states that a generation ago this topic would be of little concern at most (Carson, 1962). Humanity moves from fear to forcing nature into submission (Carson, 1962). Carson expresses that nature should be approached with humility rather than arrogance (1962). She believes that many people fail to realize that beauty is a valid existence for things that we see as having no recognizable use. Carson explains that mankind fails to see the bigger picture of how very small actions disturb the natural process of something as simple as the rain patterns and the ocean tides (1962). Humanity inevitably tries to control what is uncontrollable. Perhaps humanity, rather than imposing our will on nature, should quietly listen to what our

She talks about how nature is in a fragile state because of the recklessness of humans. I absolutely agree with her statement. I agree that humans are so consumed with developing the latest and greatest, that we do not take the time to consider the repercussions of our actions. I agree that a change must happen for people to take full responsibility in regards to nature; however, I also believe that Carson’s angle of vision is extremely narrow. During her speech, she seems very condemning of humans. She talks solely about the bad humans have done and how no one realizes the magnitude of their actions. She places all blame on humans. Yes, humans are a factor in the equation, but we have also done some good for the environment as well. She chooses not to converse on any organizations that truly help the earth or people who have made a change. By doing this, it weakens her credibility because she does not provide the good and the bad of the topic. It makes it seem as if she is not interested in telling the whole truth. If she would have added the counterargument it would have made her seem like a person who reflects on all of the alternatives before arguing a side. It would have also strengthened her overall argument and appear more