You are on page 1of 8

Running head: RHETORICAL ANAYLSIS 1

Rhetorical Analysis:

The One-Way Street of Integration

by Edward G. Goetz

Taylor Toronto

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

October 16, 2018


RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 2

Abstract

This paper explores the writing techniques used in The One-Way Street of Integration in

order to express the importance of the economic separation between races. The participants used

in support are Covino and Joliffe who elaborate on rhetorical constraints as well as the rhetorical

appeals. Downs also expands on the use of ethos, pathos and logos in terms of persuasion. In

addition, Rose, Ede and Lunsford share the impacts the audience has on the writer. Lastly, Klem

explains the effects genres have on the writing process. The features of study used is the paper

are the analysis of the writing techniques used by Goetz in support of the evidence from other

writers. The findings allowed to draw the conclusion that Goetz used logos in order to portray

the importance of the racial disparities when it comes to economic status.


RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 3

Rhetorical Analysis:

The One-Way Street of Integration

Covino and Joliffe (2004) claim that rhetorical constraints are the writer’s own personal

beliefs, values and biases that directly affect the audience’s likelihood of accepting or rejecting

the ideas shared (p. 332). This directly corelates to the claim made by Rose (1980) about the

audience having a large impact on writer’s block. To prove this, he surveyed many of his

students, some of which are not inhibited by writer’s block and the others are. Beginning with

the blockers, they express the difficultly in writing a hook, a sentence in the introductory

paragraph that intrigues the reader, and how that hinders their writing process. To them, the

audience is the most important thing and must be the highest priority while writing (p. 793).

Then he assesses the non-blockers whose approaches are quite different. They acknowledged the

importance of the audience, but argue that if rules, such as write to the audience, are inhibiting

the writing process then they must be ignored (p. 796). This monograph was a valuable source

based on rhetorical appeals.

In reference to Edward G. Goetz’s book, The One-Way Street of Integration, he claims

that the disparities of living arrangements between the minority races and the white population

must change by using the fair housing integrations (p. 2). The issues that spurred this argument is

the claim that the relationship between segregation and affording housing are directly correlated.

Whenever there is an attempt to create affordable housing in the nicer, ‘white’ parts of town,

those living in that desired community fight to prevent that eyesore from being built. They use

arguments like, the crime rates will increase, there is not enough parking, or this is not a suitable

place for children. The final decision of the potential housing development always goes in favor

of those with more power, causing the minorities to only be able to afford housing in the low

income, lesser parts of town furthering the divide between the races (p. 5). In response to this, in
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 4

2012 the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundation argued to bridge the gap between

priority housing, provide sustaining living conditions needed for all communities and providing a

segue for the integration of communities. They developed 3 principles in order to achieve this,

the first is “giving families a choice,” meaning improving the living conditions in the lower

income communities or facilitating the ability to move to a nicer neighborhood. The second

principle is “balancing housing investment priorities,” which relates to the unfair distribution of

governmental funds intended to provide adequate living conditions for all communities. Lastly,

“incentivizing affordable housing in higher opportunity areas,” which entails no outrageous rent

to keep unwanted people out (p. 7). The One-Way Street of Integration can be identified as a

monograph since Goetz alone provides extensive knowledge on only the subject of racial

discrepancies in reference to fair housing.

In addition, Klem (2012) claims that genre is a French word that means type or form.

Each specific genre contains different aspects that distinguishes its literacy form from other

types. Genres can also be thought to both hinder and direct the reading and writing process (p. 1).

The types of genre are, but not limited to, fiction, non-fiction, drama and poetry. According to

Vierra (2018), there are specific genres used in academics, such as monographs and anthologies.

Monographs are a comprehensive study of one specific subject matter that advances knowledge

written by one person. Anthologies on the other hand, are combined collections of different

sources on a certain subject. Using established definitions of genres and the tools of rhetorical

analysis, this monograph can be broken down in order to extract the most knowledge.

Discussion

Audience

Ede and Lunsford (1984) addressed the importance of the role in which audience plays in
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 5

composition (p. 155). They categorized the different audiences into two groups, the audience

addressed, and the audience invoked. The audience addressed is defined as the people the work

is intended for because they share the same or similar discipline to the author (p. 156). In

reference to Goetz, the Humphrey School of Public Affairs (2018) states that his domain of

expertise is political science with an emphasis on how race and economic status have an effect

on community development. In this book his audience addressed is other scholars of political

science (p. 1). In terms of audience invoked, Ede and Lunsford (1984) express that over time the

author’s work is adapted to the changing discourse (p. 160). The audience that it was originally

intended for many not be the audience viewing it further down the line. Goetz’s work has yet to

reach an invoked audience since it was published in the year 2018. According Covino and Joliffe

(2004) to audience is broken up into the primary audience and the subsidiary audience. The

primary audience encompasses those who the message is intended for the most, whereas the

subsidiary audience is the group of people who are barely affected by the motive of writing (pp

333-334). This is directly applies to Goetz in the sense that he intended for his work to be viewed

by other political science scholars, but the more who read it the more his message will be spread

even if political science is not their field of expertise.

Ethos

According to Downs (2013), Aristotle defined the three essential aspects of appeal, the

first of which being ethos. Ethos is the establishment of credibility, proving to the audience that

the information about to be shared is factual and trustworthy (p. 469). Edward G. Goetz

establishes his credibility in a number of ways. According to Planning Accreditation Board

(2018), Goetz is the director of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs as well as a professor

at Humphrey School of Public Affairs within the University of Minnesota. He is an expert in the

field of poverty and developing communities in the terms of racial disparities. He has obtained
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 6

the following degrees: Ph.D., Political Science from Northwestern University in 1987, M.A.,

Political Science from Northwestern University in 1981, B.A., Political Science from University

of California in 1979 (p. 1). Goetz (2018) elaborates on his credentials by elaborating on his

work for the community development corporations in San Francisco and Los Angeles. In the

span of two years he served on the board of directors for these CDCs and produced his own

research on non-profit organizations’ effects on the communities (p. vii). Lastly, his book, The

One-Way Street of Integration was published by the Cornell University Press in 2018, supporting

the claim that the contents of the book are accurate (p. iv).

Pathos

Covino and Joliffe (2004) defines pathos as influencing people’s way of thinking by

using emotional triggers (p. 337). The use of pathos is delicate, the overuse of emotional appeal

will cause the audience will block out the message; people do not like to deal with their

emotions. In a university press, the author must be clinical in regard to their use of pathos. Goetz

(2018), provides a hypothetical situation to spark emotions while still retaining a neutral standing

on the issue. His hypothetical situation explains the response of the higher-class community

when informed of a potential of the construction of a low-income housing development in their

community at a city council meeting. The higher income residents claim that the new

development is a bad idea for numerous of reasons, including: property values declining, lack of

available parking, potential increase in crime rates (elaborating that it is not the people who do

the crimes, it is just a product of low-income communities). These people are trying to avoid this

“eye sore” from being built, however they hold no political ties to get their way. The council

members have the upmost authority in these matters, but they can still be swayed by majority

opinion in hopes they will continue to collect their votes in the next election (pp. 2-3). Goetz
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 7

takes no apparent standing in this situation, he simply states how these needed communities are

turned down.

Logos

Downs (2013) recognizes the importance of the last aspect of appeal, logos. This is the

use of logic to convince the audience to accept the claim. Goetz (2018) provides the facts in

support that equal housing opportunities for all incomes does not exist, and that it due to race.

He states that the ratio of low-income families and the available and affordable housing was one

hundred to thirty-four. The fair market rent is unfair to those low-income families who have to

pay an extra $500 that they do not have in order to meet the FMR. Goetz brings to light that the

unfair housing issue is a racial issue by explaining that the overwhelming majority of those

living in what the HUD defines as “worst case housing needs” are people of color. (p. 33).

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the main rhetorical techniques used by Goetz was logos in

addition to ethos. The intended audience is other political science scholars; therefore, the use of

logos is the most effective rhetorical tool. With scholarly writings, the use of pathos is not

recommended since emotions do not hold any evidential value. Before Goetz could provide the

logical evidence in support of his claim that racial discrimination is inhibiting lower class

minorities from better housing opportunities, he needed to establish his credibility. Once he

provided his extensive education in the field of political science with an emphasis on poverty and

developing communities in the terms of racial disparities, the information he provided would be

considered credible and trustworthy.


RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 8

References

Covino, W. & Jolliffe, D. (2004). What is rhetoric? In Covino, W. & Jolliffe, D. Rhetoric:

Concepts, definitions, boundaries. (pp. 325-344). Boston, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Downs, D. (2013). Rhetoric: Making sense of human interaction and meaning-making. In

Downs, D & Wardle, E. Writing about writing. (pp. 457-483). Boston, New York:

Bedford/ St. Martin’s.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in

composition theory and pedagogy. College composition and communication. Retrieved

from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/358093?origin=crossref&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Goetz, E. (2018). The one-way street of integration. (pp. iv-7). Ithaca, New York: Cornell

University Press.

Klem, J. (2012). Genre analysis. Retrieved from

https://jackklem.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Genre-Summary.pdf

Planning Accreditation Board (2018). About us: Edward G. Goetz, Ph.D. Retrieved from

http://www.planningaccreditationboard.org/index.php?id=11

Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexibly plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitive analysis

of writer’s block. In Wardle and Downs. Writing about writing. (pp. 782-802). Boston,

New York: Bedford/ St. Martin’s.

Vierra, P.J. (2018). Genres [Lecture].