Due to being extremely sick over the last week, I have fallen on getting the first rough draft of the paper completed. Instead with permission, I will be writing the script for the speech instead. Note that originally, I believe that there was supposed to be two artifacts for the speech, however for the future I will only be incorporating the one titled “Shelter in (No) Place.”
During this speech, some of the things I worried about included not talking enough about the poster itself, but more about if I lack talking about subjects such as common place, color theory, ethos, pathos, and logos.
Today, let’s deeply explore the phrase “Shelter in (No) Place,” a powerful symbol of human resilience and societal inequality. This phrase, with just five words, holds immense meaning. It juxtaposes “Shelter,” symbolizing refuge and a fundamental right, with “No,” a stark reminder of those without shelter, exposed to life’s harsh realities.
During the pandemic, as we practiced “sheltering in place” for safety, it illuminated the plight of the homeless, highlighting societal inequalities. This paradox mirrored the disparities revealed by the pandemic, impacting us all but disproportionately affecting some.
“Shelter in (No) Place” goes beyond rhetoric; it underscores the pandemic’s universal impact, breaking class and status barriers. It reminds us that homelessness isn’t isolated but part of broader societal issues. It’s a communal failure, highlighting systemic problems needing collective solutions. Amid the pandemic, our collective health relied on caring for the most vulnerable, including the homeless.
Examining “Shelter in (No) Place” and self-isolation raises vital questions about citizenship and inclusion. What does citizenship mean when shelter for all is essential for public health? Can we claim true community when basic housing rights are denied? These questions reveal weaknesses in our civic ideals and social fabric, especially evident during the pandemic’s emphasis on collective action.
This poster and this scene elicit a profound sense of pathos. The juxtaposition of “Shelter in (No) Place” with the image of a homeless man grappling with the concept of “homeless self-isolation” tugs at our heartstrings. Pathos is invoked as we face the stark human consequences of homelessness during a pandemic. It’s impossible not to empathize and feel compassion for this individual facing dire circumstances. This image compels us to consider the emotional toll of homelessness and isolation, emphasizing the urgent necessity for action to tackle this problem.
Next, we must consider this image’s ethical dimension or ethos. Ethos pertains to the credibility and ethics of the message and the messenger. The statement “Shelter in (No) Place” challenges us to question the ethics of a society that allows such disparities to persist, particularly during a public health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. The homeless man holding the sign embodies truth and lived experience. His presence in the image lends authenticity to the message, reminding us that this issue is not an abstraction but a live reality for countless individuals. His appearance demands that we, as responsible citizens, acknowledge the moral imperative to address homelessness and ensure that everyone has shelter during times of crisis.
Lastly, let us analyze the image through the lens of logos, the appeal to logic and reason. The phrase “Shelter in (No) Place” and the scene of a homeless man engaging in “homeless self-isolation” symbolize a logical paradox. Logos, in this context, urges us to consider the inherent contradiction between the call for self-isolation as a public health measure and the reality that not everyone has the means to do so. It forces us to confront the logical inconsistency within our societal framework, where we ask people to stay home for the greater good but fail to provide shelter to those who have none. This image serves as a logical argument, a visual representation of the need for systematic change to align our actions with our principles and prioritize shelter for all.
For many of us, self-isolation means finding refuge within our homes during times of crisis. However, for those without shelter, self-isolation becomes perilous. It highlights the tragic irony that, in a world urging us to “stay safe by staying home,” a segment of our population remains vulnerable, exposed, and devoid of the refuge we take for granted. The pandemic magnified this injustice, revealing a society where the most vulnerable fend for themselves during a crisis demanding unity and compassion. It served as a reminder that our well-being, safety, and humanity are interconnected. We must strive for justice, compassion, and equality, particularly when facing crises that challenge the very fabric of our society.
1. Identify the writer’s main claim about the rhetoric, ideology, lenses of analysis, or and subtext of the piece.
I think the main claim here is that the artifact utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos (along with other rhetoric) to inspire action in the audience in relation to the pandemic.
2. Identify and comment on the writer’s introduction or “way in” for this piece of rhetoric. Name one thing that might be added, deleted, changed, or moved.
I think the opener to the speech is strong, but make sure a true thesis is present somewhere in that first paragraph. For your thesis, the ideas are already there– you just have to say “this artifact used x,x, and x in order to y.”
3. Warning flags: check any of the following predominant themes this paper contains that might suggest a weak introduction or thesis:
Rhetoric is everywhere___
Artifacts try to persuade us___
Life really isn’t like what the artifact proclaims__
Rhetoric has many components__
Ads are deceptive__ T
The artifact did a great job__
The artifact catches your eye__
I don’t think you use any of these!
4. Find a strong analytical topic sentence and a weak one. Explain why you have identified them as such.
One weaker topic sentence would be — “Examining “Shelter in (No) Place” and self-isolation raises vital questions about citizenship and inclusion.”– I only say this is weaker because it doesn’t have a direct transition into it, and it is vague. It doesn’t make a claim or argument.
One good topic sentence is — “This poster and this scene elicit a profound sense of pathos. “– this one is better because you mention what you are going to specifically talk about. There could still be a transition word but this is good.
5. Comment on the organization of the piece. What other possible arrangement strategies might make more of the material and develop arguments more fully? How well is the second comparative piece of rhetoric incorporated?
I think it is organized well and it flows very nicely yet it still sounds sophisticated.
6. You wanted to read more about….
I think if you are worried about not talking enough about the artifact itself, you could dive into some visual analysis of it and talk about how the colors/ font of the words/ whatever you notice on the poster make an impact on the message. But, I think you cover enough commonplaces and types of analysis.
1. Identify the writer’s main claim about the rhetoric, ideology, lenses of analysis, or and subtext of the piece: Since you set up the speech above the picture I had a clear understanding; however, you need to have a clear thesis that easily sets up your speech after the first paragraph saying “This ad (does what)” which I think you did well with the beginning of the fifth paragraph.
2. Identify and comment on the writer’s introduction or “way in” for this piece of rhetoric. Name one thing that might be added, deleted, changed, or moved: Your intro is great and sets up the piece well. I would probably include when during the pandemic this was released or who released it.
4. Find a strong analytical topic sentence and a weak one. Explain why you have identified them as such.
5. Comment on the organization of the piece. What other possible arrangement strategies might make more of the material and develop arguments more fully? How well is the second comparative piece of rhetoric incorporated?
6. You wanted to read more about….
4. A strong topic sentence was paragraph 5 because it clearly sets up that paragraph. I would say make clearer “paragraphs” with breaks, even though it is just a speech not an essay.
5. I would simplify it to main points, although the ideas are very helpful.
6. The rhetorical situation and kairos
1. Identify the writer’s main claim about the rhetoric, ideology, lenses of analysis, or and subtext of the piece.
Your main claim is that this poster helps to highlight its message through the use of rhetorical appeals and commonplaces.
2. Identify and comment on the writer’s introduction or “way in” for this piece of rhetoric. Name one thing that might be added, deleted, changed, or moved.
Your intro was good and grabbed my attention but like Allison and Conner said it would really help to have a thesis at the end of the intro to let the reader know how the message is getting its message across
3. Warning flags: check any of the following predominant themes this paper contains that might suggest a weak introduction or thesis:
Rhetoric is everywhere___
Artifacts try to persuade us___
Life really isn’t like what the artifact proclaims__
Rhetoric has many components__
Ads are deceptive__ T
The artifact did a great job__
The artifact catches your eye__
I didn’t see any warning flags, looks good!
5. Comment on the organization of the piece. What other possible arrangement strategies might make more of the material and develop arguments more fully? How well is the second comparative piece of rhetoric incorporated?
Since it was your speech the second artifact wasn’t incorporated but I think what you have is good for a speech and organized well, you also do a good job of analyzing the poster and how it appeals to the rhetorical appeals