Rhetorical Analysis of Ecodefense Forward! by Edward Abbey

Introduction

The article Ecodefense Forward! by Edward Abbey is as the title suggests: the author is advocating for people to protect their environment better on the foreword of the book. The audience that the author is targeting is the general American public, the readers, who he wants to realise that the wilderness, the valleys, the rivers, the mountains and other aspects of nature are their homes. Abbey uses biased language in most of the article- he identifies himself as the protagonist in environmental conservation. He is direct and critical of those who oppose keeping nature pristine. Mostly, the author is trying to sell the book, and he uses the tactic of garnering public support by identifying a common enemy; the corporate world and the politicians.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

He at times comes across as someone who is bitter at the trend by which corporates, news media and politicians seem to be indifferent about the environment; "who would sell the graves of their mothers" (Abbey 1). Abbey uses this simple metaphor to show just how much the multinational companies and other groups care about money more than the environment. The article is also titled Forward which is a play of words, a pun essentially as it serves as a "Foreword" for the actual book. The language used by the author is informal; some might think of it is crass or layman. However, the tone and choice of words is attention gripping

Despite it being straightforward concerning pointing out the groups who are at fault, for example, "three-piece suited gangsters" (Abbey 1), the message is clear although the language is certainly colorful and singular. Upon reading the article, one can understand the author's frustration. Most of the article is an appeal to people's sense of belonging; their nationality and patriotism so to say. The article opens with an anecdote which is a brilliant tactic for Abbey to introduce his main message. "If a stranger batters your door down with an axe, threatens your family and yourself... (Abbey 1)" The imagery is clear and frightening. Nobody in their right sense of mind would let a stranger harm their family in any manner. In essence, the article identifies the issue of environmental degradation and more than those points out that there are two sides; the American public who love the environment on the one hand and the business people who control the politicians on the other. As an American citizen or resident of the United States, a reader will subconsciously side with the conservationists. It seems a radical and forceful tactic by the author, but surprisingly it works quite well.

The article appeals mostly to people's feelings and emotive identity (pathos). Right from the first sentence where the author advocates for self-defense in a domestic situation, the author awakens the senses of self-protection. It is a well-worked technique as every one of us has family that we would protect from any form of harm. However, the issue is more profound than that; the family that the author mentions are our ecological environment for example "...the wilderness is as much our home..." (Abbey 2). "You won't hurt the trees" (3) is another example where the author personifies nature. The author does not treat trees as if they are just trees or non-humans; rather he gives trees human aspects. It is a unique perspective. It makes the reader think about trees as if they are people. The writing is compelling and emotive; it can make someone think "how would I feel if I was a tree." The author's use of pathos is relevant and thought-provoking. The writing is a rallying cry with the message that trees, mountains, rivers, elk and other features of the American wilderness are more critical than any human-made home.

The author also uses ethos to appeal to the readers' sense of moral obligations (ethos). The first paragraph which is an anecdote of a home invasion points out that such a case is a crime that is universal as such. Self-defense is a right that the constitution guarantees everyone. Everyone has a right to life, and the author understands this well. One feels the weight of the constitution. The constitution advocates for the sacredness of human life and the right to defend oneself and property. He examines the political situation in the country: "Representative democracy in the United States has broken down" (Abbey 1). There is no more integrity by the leaders if there ever was. The author points out that though the people elect politicians, once in office the elected officials serve the wish of their financiers rather than the electorate. It feels wrong. In this regard, the appeal to people's ethical considerations is passable, although the author does not give hypothetical "what if?" scenarios in the form of the thought except for the self-defence example. I think that two or more hypotheses presented as thought experiments would have aroused people's moral sensibilities better.

The author likewise uses the technique of identifying the common enemy, which is appealing to the readers' critical thinking and analytical skills (logos). The politicians and the corporates only care about making money. They do not care about their environment, and people live in the natural wilderness. Hence, the author rhetorically makes one think; "If these people are not for me, why should I support them." The author uses inciting language; one imagines a war cry. Also, he keeps repeating the same ideas that the wilderness is our home, and the people with money do not care about our homes. Unfortunately, the author fails to validate his points using actual statistics and results of scientific studies. Instead, he develops a bitter and contemptuous attitude towards the groups he points out as responsible for the loss of the American wilderness. "The majority of the American population have demonstrated on every possible occasion that they support the idea of wilderness preservation ( Abbey 2) is the closest thing to a statistic in the whole article. The author fails to deliver the logic using statistics but succeeds in making readers realise that the environment is an essential component of our lives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the author has an issue of environmental degradation which is a real issue. He incites people quite well especially using pathos and ethos. He uses logos in identifying that the environment is our home but not as detailed. He should have given statistical evidence and other studies to back his claims using logic. His main point for conservation is a bit repetitive also, which emphasizes on one side but has the danger of making the reader lose interest. Nonetheless, the issue is genuine enough. Even though the language is quite informal and unnecessarily personal, the message comes across loud and clear.

Work Cited

Abbey, Edward. "Ecodefense Foreword." The monkey wrench gang. Dream Garden Press, 1985.