In the conversation conducted by NPR’s Mellisa Block on the topic about the word ‘Thug’, John McWhorter tactfully uses a rhetoric strategy to put across his argument. From the conversation, the word has been overly misinterpreted and it was essential for a Professor of the English language to chip in in explaining the word. This was following the mention of the name to refer to the rioters in Baltimore being perceived with a racially charged meaning. A rhetoric strategy, by definition, is a persuasive way of supporting one’s claim in an argument. The primary use of rhetoric strategies causes an appeal to: one, reason (logos). Two, emotion (pathos). Lastly, ethics (ethos). For this essay, we will scrutinize how McWhorter utilized these devices for the effectiveness of his argument.
First and foremost, McWhorter’s argument is highly backed up by an ethical appeal since it is mentioned that he is an associate professor of English, as well as comparative literature at a prestigious University. He begins by historically defining the word “thug”. He says “…the word originates in India…” As such, he uses definition as a style device to support his argument that the word in context has changed meaning over time. This is an effective way of expressing one’s argument because there is evidence tied to it and hence the audience is more likely to be convinced.
Secondly, McWhorter heavily relies on logos to pass his argument across. For all the questions, he briefly but thoughtfully answers while making an appeal to people’s logic. For instance, he states that “Well, the truth is that thug today is a nominally polite way of using the N-word” this provokes the listeners or readers’ thoughts to see if this statement actually has some credibility in it. In other words, he has spelled out what most people have never said out loud, thus bringing up a train of thoughts. He further explains the logic behind other black people such as the then president, Barrack Obama, using the same word without being considered racist when he says “…when black people say it, they don’t mean what white people mean, and that’s why I think…”
From reading the interview, you can’t help but notice that McWhorter is sort of trying to seek approval from the black people. He constantly addresses them highly on the subject, rather than partly incriminating them. Any black person who is to read the interview is likely to be pleased with him for how he has handled the topic. For instance, he roots for the word thug and encourages its use, knowing that it is a term mostly used by the black people. He says “…thug is an interesting word…to hear it as more than some antique, static, dictionary definition…that’s part of the process of healing as well.” He insists on the word thug not meaning only one thing, a ruffian, so as to accommodate some positivity to the name. “Any discussion where we pretend that it only means one thing is just going to lead to dissension and confusion”
Another rhetoric strategy that McWhorter uses is comparison and contrast. He compares and contrasts the black and white perception of the word. Evidently, they both miss in the original meaning which he says it is “ruffian”. The contrast is that the black used the word to describe a hero, and it always has a “tinge of affection” however, when a white person says it, the meaning is racially charged. They use it to refer the African Americans. He thus establishes that the name has different meanings to the two races.
In conclusion, John McWhorter has incorporated rhetorical strategies in his argument, which has proven to be effective to the audience. He sufficiently used logos, pathos, ethos, and other style details such as contrast to convey his argument.
Works cited
Block, Mellisa. “The Racially Charged Meaning Behind The Word ‘Thug’” Opinion, NPR. 30 April 2015. Accessed 12 March 2018 https://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug
