In his writing, Mark Dowie makes a claim that people essentially are a part of nature. Moreover, he encourages people to realize that and stop labeling an interconnected Universe either as “civilized” or of “wilderness”. For the writing to be comprehensively considered, the audience is required to possess some knowledge on the topic. As the essay enumerates a number of scholars’ and tribes’ names, political statements (such as The Wilderness Act) and tackles the topic of preservation, one may conclude for whom it was written. Thus, the supposed audience are researchers (biologists, anthropologists, ecologists etc.), environmental activists, including politicians and, more generally, all the somewhat interested participants of the discussions. Considering the audience and the field of the topic, the author balances 3 rhetorical appeals rather skillfully. The writing appears logical, it addresses authority figures with adequate expertise and it is not overflown with emotion. Keeping this vital balance, the essay is persuasive and thought-provoking.
The essay can be considered credible as it has sound arguments and addresses important values in an objective manner. Mark Dowie, the author of the essay, is a researcher and award-winning journalist himself. He has deep knowledge of the topic, having written books on it, two of which are called “Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century” and “American Foundations: An Investigative History”. We can consider his main primary source to be his interviews with indigenous people. Addressing people who have primarily knowledge of the “situation” and being essential part of it is what makes the essay well-grounded. The people are multiple: Tarahumara, Ojibwey, Yupik etc. Presenting several viewpoints, the author proves they have a common stand, as “[w]e are immersed in an environment where we are at equal standing with the rest of the world” (Dowie 661). Also, considering several viewpoints makes the essay more objective. Dowie does not neglect third-party opinion as well. He pays a lot of attention to the ideas of William Cronon. The man is a respected professor in multiple disciplines, and his voice brings more credibility into the essay. George Marsh, Henry Thoreau – philosophical and diplomatic stances are also covered. In addition, closer to the end of the essay Dowie gives a personal example, without stating the names of the involved or the place of the discussion. It makes the credibility of these statements suffer. Perhaps, it was done so as those involved did not want their names to be highlighted. Thus, these statements remain persuasive and reasonably expressive, but to a certain extent lack soundness. Nonetheless, the author still succeeds at addressing important believes on the topic of the so-called “wilderness”. He takes part in the discussion that may appear to merge to notions of “natural” and “human free”. Through his and authority figure’s voices, he appeals to humane values and acceptance matters. He attempts at making the audience relate to the indigenous people, who in many cases do not even possess the word for “wilderness”. In doing so, the author avoids any bogus claims of prejudice. However, there is one stereotypical image used to strengthen his argument. He says that while watching the discussion, “one might conclude one is witnessing a clash of romantic tendencies,” (Dowie 659) implying that the real matter is not intellectual, but ideological. However, it partially is so, as naturalists are at times following not practical path, which is highlighted by the further more logical evidence. Using stereotypes can also be classified as logical fallacy of over-generalization or simplification.
Though the writer is for sure very passionate about the topic, paper’s pathos is not very much explicit. Overall, the tone of the paper largely is supported by logos and ethos. Nonetheless, the author provides examples from his interviews with indigenous tribes, which draw the audience’s attention to how personal the problem is for those people. It creates an intimate atmosphere, which contributes to the emotional perception of the essay. Readers get an insight into these tribes’ philosophy, memory and world feeling, which is an appeal of pathos. In addition, there is a label of “romanticism” mentioned above, which can be considered as a negative characteristic, used to stress subjectivity of some points of view. Apart from the interview pieces, the brightest example of an emotionally loaded sentence is, “The removal of aboriginal human beings from their homeland to create a commodified wilderness is a deliberate charade” (Dowie 660). First of all, Dowie uses the term “human beings” instead of “peoples” or “tribes” to stress that they are all individuals and of the same nature as the inhabitants of the “civilized world.” Also, the expression of “commodified wilderness” bears some derogatory meaning, which is emotionally marked. It means that we sacrifice other individuals’ rights for our own commodity of the nature image. But the most expressive terms appears to be “a deliberate charade,” which shows how deeply and thoroughly the author disagrees with this tendency. “Charade” is a word that marks something absurd is masked as pleasing or presentable. “Deliberate” implies the intention and desire of someone, who is implementing the charade. Having inserted such at times implicit emotional appeals, the author balances them with the other two. Emotional parts are not overwhelming, which is a right choice, considering the audience of the essay. Though researchers, diplomats, law-makers and others do retreat to emotion, it is sounder to use logics, evidence and authority when trying to prove your point of view in such a discussion.
The appeal of logos is the prevailing one in the essay. First of all, the layout of the essay is very consistent and stimulates logical thought. Each new topic is highlighted with a title-question, which is a nice device, used to separate the paragraphs. Also, under such titles the reader notices and epigraph, which also hints the further discussion. One may classify such a plan as both logically and emotionally triggered, since questions and epigraphs are also expressive means of artistic writing. The other characteristic of this essay’s logical nature is the cohesive interconnections between thoughts. One thought arises from the other, they are well composed, explained, proved and concluded. The summary of Cronon’s ideas is another fine device. Dowie supports his own argument by interweaving it with another scholar’s one, reaching the harmony between the two. The author also provides concrete evidence concerning the legislative act, states the years and credits almost all the sources by first and last names. There are still sources without a credit, as “a man – an educated, erudite and generous supporter of international conservation,” (Dowie 661) though it is still believable due to how detailed the narrative is. Also, he credits the primary source, most concerned with the conservation issue, which are aboriginal people. However, we may notice at least two fallacies used to support the author’s argument. He states that “wildness is conflated with wilderness, and wilderness with nature, and nature is seen as something separate and uninfluenced by human activity,” (Dowie 661) which may appear as a slippery slope and simplification, showing that merging the notions is the only reason for the present results. Also, considering that there is a full-fledged discussion on the topic, it is evident that not all the people conflate one notion with another in such a succession. Dowie also suggests that the photographers of the Yosemite Valley have read one book at some point. He makes such an assumption because their attitude is similar to what is depicted in the book. Though it may be true indeed, it is a fallacy of over-generalization, since they make have found their source for inspiration in something different that the mentioned work and there is no direct evidence for them reading the book. But the fallacies are minor, and concern the content of such statements, not their classical traditional form. Also, there is one argument mentioned, that unites the two opposing views of “civilization” and “nature” from a scientific point of view. Scientists believe the Universe was created from the same atoms during the Singularity point. Which leads to a conclusion, that we are all connected, humans, nature, stars etc. Pointing out a common ground that can be applied to the both sides of the argument, since it is pure science, is an effective logical device. It shows that the author does not neglect counter-arguments, but is objective when tackling them. We can assume that the essay has logical structure, thoughts expressed are comprehensive and internally connected.
All in all, the 3 appeals of classical rhetoric are well balanced in the writing. The essay was written for the peculiar audience, and the devices implied revolve around the audience’s needs and requirements. In terms of ethos, the authority figures possess the required expertise and knowledge of the field to be mentioned. Emotionally, the text is not over-saturated with statements of emotion, though some implicit elements are present and are effective, since they come from knowledgeable and concerned sources. Lastly, logic bounds are strong in the essay. It is well-structured, arguments are explained and proven. Some fallacies are present, but they are minor. Also, some scientific objectivity is applied and interpreted in the argument. The writing is pleasing and engaging to read, it gives food for thought and encourages change, which is its ultimate aim.
Works cited
Dowie, Mark. "Human Nature." The Informed Argument, 8th ed. Robert Yagelski. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2012. 657-663. Print.
