Virginia Heffernan Against Head Phones Rhetorical Analysis

Who knew that a device so small could become this big of an issue for many people around the world. The article Against Headphones, written by Virginia Heffernan in the New York Times, is an effective argument in the support of the use against headphones by using different rhetorical strategies and because the risk of an antisocial life style, living a sensory life, and hearing loss.

In the argument against headphones the author discuses a factor of the person using this device to later on developing an antisocial life style. Within the article the author quotes Llewellyn Hinkes and his view on listening to the music independently, “The shared experience of listening with others is not unlike the cultural rituals of communal eating. Music

may not have the primal necessity of food, but it is something people commonly ingest together” (Hinkes). This quote is a use of the term pathos and an appeal to the reader’s emotions. She uses the rhetorical device of pathos to get through to the readers and to warn them on what could happen later on in the future to them and also their children if the same actions continue. The audience that this author is most likely referring to and directing this particular article to is adults. Specifically parents of teenagers. The reason for this is because adults teach the children, who are the ones most using headphones in everyday life, whether if it is at home, school, or in any public environment. It is up to the parents to defuse this situation and to understand that this is a warning for preventing these children from developing antisocial characteristics. The quote also shows that the answer is not always isolation and people should share experiences together, sometimes in group surroundings.
Another point that the author makes about the use against headphones is sensory life.

Sensory life, meaning to enjoy the world and what is has to offer rather than being plugged in and isolated. The author uses pathos to help prove this point. By trying to relate to the readers and their surroundings. The rhetorical device logos is also used as well within the article because the author gives many examples that are for the claim against headphones. The author mentions how people use headphones to block out other sounds and to just be indulged in what they are listening to themselves. The purpose of the headphones is to prevent all the background noise, however, the point the author is trying to prove is that people should be well aware of their surroundings and not get so caught up in what they are just focused on. Heffernan, gives two very good examples that help support her point. She talks about how Nathaniel Baldwin grew so frustrated that he could not hear his sermons over the crowds that he designed his own amplifier, added a band then later became his own set of headphones. Even back in the day there were so many distractions and interruptions that people could not focus, therefore, leading to these headphones. Another point she makes is when she referred to the University of Western Ontario, and their studies on the middle-class men that are now using headphones, meanwhile blocking out their families. Each of these examples bring evidence to her claim and the point

that we are loosing our sensory surroundings and are trying to block out the outside world.
The author uses hearing loss as a point within her article as well.

This point is what stands out the most, and is the main and ultimate reason for this entire article. She discusses hearing loss a lot in different ways throughout her work. This is a great point, that supports the claim due to statistics and actual factual information as evidence. The author uses a lot of pathos and logos when talking about hearing loss due to headphone use. She states, “The number of teenagers with hearing loss – from slight to serve – has jumped 33 percent since 1994” (Heffernan). This quote is a great representation of logos because it is giving factual information and logic that are helping her prove her claim against headphones. She also uses pathos as well by appealing to the readers on why they should be against headphones too. The article also refers to the fact that many teenagers are starting to not hear as well and are now beginning to not be able to make out their consonants. This information is useful because it is being both ethos and pathos supporting the claim. It is ethos and pathos because the information is giving creditability to the author as well as the quotes within the article, it also is appealing to the readers who are most likely the parents of the teenagers wearing these headphones as a warning for them to watch out for their children and future issues that could occur. Throughout the article the author does approach opposing views that are for headphones, but

she never discourages the other view. She is able to confront the rebuttal and effectively refute the opposing views. For example, Virginia Heffernan states, “Indeed, the device seems to solve a real problem by simultaneously letting them have private auditory experiences and keeping shared spaces quiet. But the downside is plain, too: it’s antisocial” (Heffernan). She approaches the other point and gives their point of view, but is still able to turn it back to her own in an effective way. While reading the article, the author’s tone comes across as serious yet, respectful. She is discussing the fact that headphones can lead to hearing loss which can eventually become very serious with the world today, and she wants to be heard and send out a type of warning. However, at the same time she is very respectful in her work and makes her issue heard while being considerate towards her readers.
Through the use of different rhetorical devices, the three main points, anti social life style, sensory life, and hearing loss the author is able to make an effective claim to her readers on why to be against headphones.