Rhetorical Criticism: The Authors on 9/11

On September 11, 2001, radical extremists successfully carried out a mission to inflict terror on America by hijacking numerous commercial airplanes and crashing them into American landmarks. In the awakening months following that day, Americans everywhere needed unity in the media, the church, and their government. However, authors such as Susan Sontag and William Bennett challenged these needs by shoving partisan politics into an already crowded situation. Instead of offering solace, they imposed onto the American public thoughts of a deficient and indecisive Presidential Administration or a desire for vengeance and retribution. The purpose of this response is not to question or prove that statement but to rather measure and discuss each author's rhetoric used in his or her article and its effectiveness in persuading its particular audience.

To begin, Susan Sontag's editorial entitled "Thoughts on September 11, 2001" is as robust as any. The strong tone introduced through the first sentence lays the foundation for delivering her intended message. Negative ideas like "slaughter" and "reality-concealing rhetoric" flourish through the remainder of the article, but seem to breed here. Attracted by such offensive concepts as "monstrous dose of reality" and "self-righteous drivel," her readers must continue the read.

Among the onslaught, Sontag seems to approach the liberal readers designated to The New Yorker. Only they can relate to the concepts expressed throughout the entire column without feeling completely annihilated or utterly appalled. Clearly this article is not for the conservatives or those in public office whom would be offended by remarks that claim their task is "a manipulative one [...] promot[ing] candor." No, only liberals can adhere to such ghastly comments.

However, the article's significance is above and beyond merely satisfying its liberal readers. Sontag's message strives to properly inform the American public of the reckoning at hand. According to her ideology, the media and public figures focus on abstract terms and ideas that mask the truth and infantilize the American people. They claim 9/11 was an attack on "liberty" or "civilization" instead of a "consequence of specific American alliances and actions." Additionally, they attempt to perform "psychotherapy" on a supposed "strong country" and conceal their opposition so that they may stand behind unity. In writing this article, Sontag hopes to assure the American people that "everything is not O.K." and that they need to "not be stupid together," but instead must overcome ignorance and grow to more than just simply "strong." To deliver this message, Sontag utilizes a particular rhetorical strategy dependent on forceful appeals and a vigorous mind.

As her article progresses, Sontag's use of rhetorical appeals becomes more prominent. Although a strong application of pathos is not often justified, Sontag seems to arouse her readers with pathos driven statements such as "The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantize the public" and furthermore "we have a robotic President." The function of pathos is to appeal using emotion and Sontag accomplishes this admirably, in regards to her target audience, by evoking passion and sentiment through such statements. Beyond pathos, ethos (appeal based on character) makes its illustrious appearance. Clearly, Sontag's writing displays her familiarity with the media and current events. This awareness undeniably contributes to her credibility and knowledgeable persona. Furthermore, the powerful presence of pathos strengthens the ethos. Where her logos (appeal based on logic) is lacking, it seems pathos and ethos pick up the slack and intertwine to build Sontag's informed character. This quality closely relates her to the readers who now feel uninformed as she asks "How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq?" With this relationship established, readers desire to be enlightened further.

By the end of Sontag's piece, kairos is its only questionable aspect. Being a mere 11 days after the infamous strike, are Americans ready for such brutal criticism? Ultimately, America's cultural climate has changed remarkably in those 11 days. They no longer feel as "untouchable" and this article can add to that reaction as it demonstrates manipulation in the government and a lack of consideration in the media. Still, in its defense, the ending thought of "grieving together" and making America more than just "strong" offers a sense of unity for the American public. Perhaps the other appeals undermine that message.

In analyzing additional rhetorical editorials following 9/11, William Bennett's "Faced with Evil on a Grand Scale, Nothing Is Relative," significantly etches its own niche. Considerably different than Sontag's piece, this article begins with a more consoling tone. Its initial attraction depends on stating the substantial changes America will have to endure and insinuating that "universal questions" will be answered throughout his column. Reminiscent of Sontag's piece, this attribute entices his readers to continue.

Unlike Sontag, Bennett is a conservative writer with a published article in the liberal LA Times. Notably, this detail directs his message to the opposing audience which makes them more difficult to sway. His appealing tone and recognition of changes in the first paragraph serve as tools to overcome this obstacle. Liberal readers would most likely not consider finishing the article if he had began with a powerful conservative approach. With that being eminent, one should also note that his message is likely to transform as his thoughts progress.

As anticipated, Bennett's message is later conveyed with a more conservative approach. For instance, remarks such as "It has been said that these attacks were the inevitable reaction to a modern-day American imperialism," and "This is nonsense. America's support for human rights and democracy is our noblest export to the world," display the conservative side that is absent and somewhat opposite in Sontag's article. Nonetheless, Bennett has an underlying point outside his conservative views. In respect to his ideology, and with evidence provided by his title, he carries the message that good and evil are universal, more specifically across cultures. He demonstrates his point with the example of 9/11 as he writes "The use of commercial airplanes as missiles, guided into buildings where civilians work, is evil," followed by "And what they did was wrong, not wrong given our point of view or because we were the victims or because of our Judeo-Christian tradition but simply wrong." Additionally, statements like "We have engaged in a frivolous dalliance with dangerous theories-relativism, historicism, values clarification," and "we should see these theories for what they are: empty," further support this claim. Apart from that, Bennett seems to be using all of his ideas and concepts to justify war or retaliation. "And so we must respond to these attacks and prevent future attacks," is a direct representation of this idea. At its conclusion, the article's message has remarkably morphed into a support for violence, as if trying to convince the liberal readers of the LA Times to join the battle.

This strategy almost works if not for a slight misuse of rhetorical appeals. To elaborate, Bennett's pathos is powerful in terms of being emotive, but is met with a mild tone that proves it less effective than Sontag's. Furthermore, Bennett's ethos destroys his pathos. Few liberal readers are not going to completely dismiss his article as conservative blubber. "The goal of the hijackers was the intentional destruction of innocent life so as to strike fear into the heart of America," might go over well for conservatives but not the liberal readers he is trying to motivate. However, a positive aspect of Bennett's ethos exists. With quotes from other authors and the mention of several theories, he seems to have a knowledgeable character. This ultimately persuades readers to trust his thoughts and consider his opinions. Somewhat outside the rhetorical appeals, Bennett's kairos shines the most. Conveniently, his article is published nearly three weeks after the strike. This allowed for the grieving to wind down and the thirst for blood and vengeance to prevail. This greatly aids his intended message as it is neither too early nor too late to speak of retaliation.

In constructing rhetorical criticism of Sontag and Bennett as rhetorical writers of 9/11, I have come to the conclusion that a strong tone and informed character directed to the right audience outshine a more subtle tone directed toward an audience with opposite views. I believe each piece is substantial and has its own message clearly, delivered but it seems a more shocking, offensive approach causes the message to spread. However, one must realize that in any situation regarding politics, a political bias will be present and sway opinions either way. Ultimately, an author must use rhetorical appeals to overcome that bias and in my opinion, Sontag is successful.