Rhetorical Analysis/Style

For this post I will be talking about Alexander's use of rhetoric from pages 170 to 221.

I found this section of the book to be well rounded as she chose to add new examples of how the justice system effects the black community. Previously I had noted that Alexander had been doing a small portion of fact dropping, but since then I have seen an increase of relevant facts and quotes. This section I found her to be exploring and explaining new ways that judicial racism effects people, not only the person being incarcerated, but friends and loved ones as well.

To me, this section of the book had a very well done question and response aspect. Alexander proposed the question "where have all the black men gone?" on page 181, and continuously gave evidence to answer the question she asked. She stated that they are mostly all in jail or prison which builds onto her argument that the criminal justice system targets African Americans. Throughout the chapter, labeled 'The New Jim Crow', she kept addressing the new problem, being the absence of black men in a family dynamic, then ties it back with her previous claims. She does a nice job of keeping the flow of the book moving, being as informative as possible. 

I first was curious as to why she would label 'The New Jim Crow' as chapter five seeing as how the book is also titled The New Jim Crow. After reading this section, in my opinion chapter five was named 'The New Jim Crow' because it shows how the unfair enforcement of laws can effect the whole black community.

Through this section she chose to reach out a little more, to expand her audience. In the beginning of the book, she builds her argument only using persuasion to feel pity for those who have been wrongly incarcerated. Now, she mentions the families of black incarcerated men, but also what seems to be the common everyday American who does not feel the justice system is racist. She states 'Upon reflection, it is relatively easy to understand how Americans come to deny the evils of mass incarceration (Alexander 182).

Her whole argument is about having the justice system be racist, but blatantly setting herself apart from someone who does not believe it is racist provides more of a realization to there being separation. It makes you question immediately if she is talking about you or if you agree with what she is claiming. I feel like this helps her argument by explaining she feels pity to those who do not understand that the system has a bias.

Broadening the amount of audience that could relate to what she was saying definitely strengthened her message. I found it to be a very good choice of hers. Another well written approach was the way in which she sectioned her passages. I touched on this a bit in my last post, but I want to mention it for a second time because I found it to be a big key of how well people can perceive her writing.

She goes along with her facts and explanations, then breaks off her paragraph to a section titled 'How it Works'. In that portion, she gives an in depth domino effect of how it can end up hurting more than just the one person being imprisoned.

Overall her rhetorical strategies she is using are doing a very nice job of getting her point across with just enough persuasion to where I feel it is not repetitive, but affective. Widening her audience was a great choice of hers to make more of her readers feel connected. Still, I am enjoying seeing how this book unfolds. Thanks for reading! :)