Thoughts In The Presence Of Fear Rhetorical Analysis

Manifesto Analysis

“Thoughts in the Presence of Fear” is a manifesto written by Wendell Berry, dated October 11, 2001. It is a post-September 11 manifesto for environmentalists. Berry uses terms such as “we” and “they” as he expresses his ideas, regarding how our optimism for a “new economy” was founded upon the labors of poor people all over the world. I will conduct a rhetorical analysis of four sections of Berry’s manifesto; Sections XI, XII, XIII, and XIV; and discuss his use of ethos, logos, and pathos. Berry uses pathos more often in his paper, to instill feelings of guilt and fear in his readers. While many areas of his paper can be thought of as logos, Berry makes little use of ethos.

One of Berry’s topics that comes close to a use of logos is found in Paragraphs XI and XII, where he makes the case of an inescapable choice that we have to make. One choice is that we can continue to promote global and unlimited free trade, which must now be protected by a huge, expensive, and worldwide police force, maintained by several or all nations. Such a police force would only be effective as it “oversways the

freedom and privacy of the citizens of every nation” (Berry). The second choice is that we promote a decentralized world economy, which would assure every nation life-supporting goods and self-sufficiency. Berry claims that this would not eliminate international trade, but would tend toward a trade in surpluses after local needs have been met. I have determined the aforementioned topic to be logos because of Berry’s means of reasoning. He implies that attempting to promote free trade, while also forming the perfect security to protect it, is impossible and will all be in vain. His implied logical approach to the situation is to promise the same amount of prosperity to every nation and region.
In Section XIII, Berry uses one of his many examples of pathos. He states that one of the gravest dangers to us, besides more terrorist attacks, is that we will attempt to continue the corporate program of global free trade, regardless of costs to freedom and civil rights, without self-questioning or self-criticism. By making the points about self-criticism and civil rights, Berry is trying to make his readers feel guilty about continuing our lifestyle. Berry tries nurture that guilt with fear, claiming that such a decision is a grave danger, second to terrorist attacks. By utilizing feelings of both fear and guilt, I believe that Berry intends for his readers to contemplate his words. The longer we contemplate his words, the more likely we are to embrace and agree with what he is trying to say.
Berry later makes the point that citizens and officials must avoid using rhetoric in place of thought.

The talk we hear from politicians, bureaucrats, and commentators tends to distill the issues we must confront to those of unity, security, and retaliation. It is difficult for citizens to be aware of what is taking place in Washington in times of crisis, because of these talks. In my own opinion, Berry could have helped to prove his case by providing examples of the oratory we hear from politicians or bureaucrats. He could have also sought the thoughts and opinions of ordinary citizens, in regard to their views on what the politicians say. Furthermore, Berry could have provided politicians’ thoughts on the 9/11 attacks, and compared them to the opinions of citizens on said attacks. A use of ethos such as this would have greatly benefitted Berry’s

case.
If Berry would like to emphasize his message using imagery, he could search for or create a picture depicting the fall of the World Trade Center, along with a picture depicting the horrified citizens who bore witness to the events. Including such an image at the beginning of his paper would remind his readers of the fear and sadness we felt on that day. That fear would stick with us as we began to read his paper, and we would have been more likely to embrace his ideas.
While I can understand the message he is trying to send us, Wendell Berry seems too one-sided to bring it across. Berry tries to deliver insightful views through his paper, and ultimately wishes for our country to change its policies so that people everywhere – from our own and from other countries – can develop a better way of living. However, the talk from politicians is driving us away from such ideals, as he claims. If Berry would like to truly convince his readers, he could outline examples of speeches from politicians, and counter them with evidence or argument of his own. Furthermore, Berry could define actions he himself has taken or is willing to take to support his cause. His lack of evidence leaves me thoroughly unconvinced for the moment.