The Case against Banning the Word “Retard” by Christopher M. Fairman is an article, written with purpose of making a claim against language censorship and a claim for freedom of speech. Being a professor of law and having extended expertise in the question, the author offers the audience a fine example of rhetorical argumentation, expressiveness and persuasiveness. In the article, Fairman makes a clear thesis and supports it with balanced use of appeals of logos, ethos and pathos. Such a strategy makes the writing well-grounded, developed and relatable, which contributes to its rhetorical effectiveness and fulfils its purpose.
First of all, Fairman addresses educated audience through semi-formal style, largely using logical strategy of persuasion. The article is filled with background information, situational context, expert research and personal assessment. The author uses the method of deductive reasoning. At the beginning, he hooks the audience with him not committing to the R-word pledge and then offers his thesis, which is a generalization, stating that “[i]f the history of offensive terms in America shows anything, it is that words themselves are not the culprit; the meaning we attach to them is,” (Fairman 526) so to continue with multiple examples to prove his point. Such compositional choice draws readers’ attention and engages them in exploring further details of the discussion. Following its logical structure, the author explains the topic itself, showing his knowledge of the problem’s roots. Professor establishes credibility of his figure, using phrases that show his competence in the discourse timeline and developments, using insight-giving phrases: “term "mentally retarded" was itself introduced by the medical establishment in the 20th century,” (Fairman 526) “the latest battle over the R-word kicked into high gear with a Jan. 26” (Fairman 527) etc. Unfolding the situation of the argument, the author shifts to its deep-structure reason, making a claim that “[t]he irony is that the use of "mental retardation" and its variants was originally an attempt to convey greater dignity and respect than previous labels had” (Fairman 527). Making personal statement only after proving his expertise is also a logical step. However, the statement is not too harsh or striking, since the phrase only hints the author’s position. However, an assumption can already be made, if the reader connects the use of the word “irony” with the primary thesis of the author. Later author gives more of a personal insight, referring to his own life and his encounters with the problem. After some personal observations that explicate his point of view and prove it, Fairman does not forget to restate his authority saying “[f]or years, I've been researching taboo language and its interaction with the law” (Fairman 528). Such latent reassuring adds sense of credibility when reading author’s statements. Then he makes a transition from logical strategy in favour of some emotional and generalizing statements, however later he still returns to the appeal of logic, interviewing it with supporting authorities’ arguments and examples.
Another element of logical strategy should be battling the opposing views. However, the author does not polarize his opinion and the opinion of those who support censoring the word. Firstly he mentions that he “sympathize[s] with the effort, but [] won't be making that pledge” (Fairman, 526). Taking such a stance may be intended at showing that the author has no prejudices and is objective in his evaluation and argumentation. Voicing sympathy is a powerful device, which will contribute to both perceiving the author’s logic more openly and creating author’s positive image as of a man of compassion. This way, Fairman’s arguments are free from aggressive nature, but appear rather as narrative and conciliatory. Nonetheless, later he does engage into mild condemn of the polar position, but still putting it non-damnably: “In some respects, the comparison seems overblown” (Fairman 529). Using the phrase “in some respects” makes the statement still relative and not totally disproving. This may be been done in order to keep the seemingly fully objective flow of the article. Also, the author uses the verb “seem” not to make any harsh statements about the opponents as well. Such attitude towards the opposing side is rather beneficial, as the topic is sensitive and debatable.
Appeals of personal ethos are not numerable, but valid and well-timed. The name of the author itself may evoke a positive image before eyes of professional readers. Nonetheless, the author also puts effort into creating good character and establishing credibility. He builds an article in such a way that it is readable, well-organized and thought-provocative, which already proves the audience he is a reliable source for information, insight and evaluation. Moreover, as was mentioned, he inserts reassurance of his own credibility when it is needed to support his personal judgement. In addition, he refers to private experiences, thus creating more personal connection with the audience. He draws connections to his life, still relating it to the issue. For example, he states that “[t]he term "retardation" was common in my home and life, but it was sterile and clinical,” (Fairman 528) which contributes to both his argumentation and position of being open and honest with the audience. He also expresses his experience in statements, close to philosophical. He logically connects factual events with general tendencies; he draws parallels between different cases and attitudes. In the article, he aims at creating credible paradigm of interconnections, which ensures reader feels as if referring to a man of wisdom and objectiveness. Apart from his own references, Fairman embellishes his own credibility with references to examples and authorities of different scope. Mentioning Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy, plight of David Howard and even New Zealand chapter of the Special Olympics (which is not an exhaustive list), the author manages to frame his thought and image with supporting details from other’s cases and statements.
Probably, the shortest in terms of wording are emotional appeals. The first somewhat emotionally coloured address is “It's still okay to print the R-word. The F-word? Forget it,” (Fairman 528) which stresses author’s observance of some discrepancies in the discourse. Along the way of his writing, Fairman makes some subjective evaluations, but they are comparatively rare and mildly expressive. But they do establish emotional connection with the audience. For instance, saying that “[f]ortunately, we've come a long way from those days” (Fairman 528) has two emotional addresses. Firstly, it includes emotionally marked word of “fortunately,” which shows author’s positive attitude. Secondly, he uses pronoun “we,” thus including himself into the community he addresses. Such implicit emotional inserts can be met throughout the writing, which contributes to the rational balance between three rhetorical strategies. However, pathos is not always thus implicit. Having used strategies of logic and credibility, Fairman manages to introduce his concern for the issue in emotional way in the concluding paragraphs. Such a transition closer to the end of the article offers a new dimension to the narrative, which keeps the reader focused and alert. Another example for a direct emotional address can be a question he asks, “are we not better off by purging today's insulting language and making our discourse a little kinder,” (Fairman 529) which then is developed into a persuasive paragraph. Such a shift makes the summary more expressive and refreshing. In the paragraph, he directly clears his statement, making it emotional: “[i]f interest groups want to pour resources into cleaning up unintentional insults, more power to them; we surely would benefit from greater kindness to one another” (Fairman 530). Moreover, the use of “surely” makes the statement even more emotionally marked. Generally, inserting emotion, sympathy and concern is a strong persuasive move. However, if such an emphasis is not overused, it is even more striking and effective, as the case with the article.
In this article, Christopher Fairman’s rhetorical strategy is an inexhaustible source for interpretation. Author begins somewhat traditionally, starting with a hook and then presenting his generalized primary statement. Since the rhetorical situation is presented to a broad audience of everyone concerned with the topic, such a traditional outlay is helpful and efficient in organizing author’s thought and argument. Fairman himself is a professor with profound expertise and experience in the topic of censorship of speech; the text is written, not uttered; the situation involved prolonged history and discussion. These 3 factors shape the need for the use of predominantly logical strategy, which the author does follow. After making his claim, he sheds the light to the background of the issue, driving valid and researched examples, which all are highly credible. Thus, the first part of the article is mostly formal and objective. Then, the author introduces personal judgements and references. Such alternation is good for strategies balance, as the logical part makes appeals of ethos and pathos seem more credible and free from any fallacies, as is often the case. However, one may conclude there is lack of counterevidence discussion in the writing. Fairman does address the issue of Palin and the R-word pledge but does not take polar position toward them s if they were opposite to his own argument. Such a mild position makes the writing seem more objective and less emotional. By means of analogies he somewhat disproves sharp counter position toward the issue and by means of direct emotive question makes his statement cleared. Also, these direct questions contribute to the atmosphere of the author-reader proximity and make material more relatable for a general reader. However, the author does not allow himself to deviate from the logical stem of his strategy. Only after enumerating, explaining and connecting various facts and supporting views does he return to emotional questions and evaluative sayings. Such a swinging tendency permits the article to stay vivid, grasping and thus convincing in the eyes of a reader. After the mentioned alternations of strategy’s emphasis, the concluding paragraphs appear as the concentration of all of the above mentioned. With greater portion of emotion and ethos, Fairman restates his main arguments in a concise manner, rewords and explicates his thesis. Finally, finishing with a general philosophical statement together with a pun is a strong persuasive yet entertaining move: “Words are ideas, and we should be reluctant to surrender any of them. Freedom of expression has come at a dear price, and it is not worth abridging []. That's one F-word we really can't do without” (Fairman 530). Such a conclusion is an appropriate framing for the work itself, making it appear rhetorically finished. Moreover, thus the audience gets a chance to feel accomplished, form the final impression and acknowledge the thesis better.
The Case against Banning the Word “Retard” by Christopher M. Fairman is a fine piece of rhetorical art, in which various rhetorical strategies are nicely combined. They are balanced, nicely organized, but require some effort to be followed. It is written in an appropriate tone and with adequate theoretical and practical backing from the author. The core issue is a debatable topic, and though it should be assessed “beyond the idea that most public change happens through a single author writing a single text for a single audience,” (Rivers & Weber 189) this piece is deeply thought-provoking and fulfils its purpose with a clear statement about freedom of speech.
Works cited
Fairman Ch. M. “The Case against Banning the Word “Retard”. Language Awareness. Ed. Editor’s Name(s). City of Publication: Publisher, Year. 526-530. Print.
Rivers, N. A., Weber, R. P. “Ecological, Pedagogical, Public Rhetoric.” CCC, 63.2 (2011): 187- 218. Print.
