Rhetorical Analysis: Danger Of A Dominant Identity Essay Example

Danger of a Dominant Identity, written by David Brooks a journalist for The New York Times, was published shortly after the election of 2016. Brooks begins the article by mentioning the inaccuracy of pollsters assuming most Latinos would vote against Trump and most woman would vote for Clinton. The author mentions pollsters reduced individuals to one single identity and were proven incorrect. Brooks continues discussing a single identity and how categorizing individuals under one identity is one of America’s biggest issues. Brooks writes this article with the intended audience being every individual living in the United States. Brooks finalizes his article by stating due to a single identity many Americans do not recognize their own country. Brooks alludes rebinding the nation to the concept of finding shared identities rather than comparing and reducing a person to one identity (Brooks). Through the usage of rhetorical analysis, an emotional biased tone, and controversial statements/language Brooks conveys the reader how dangerous a dominant identity is in our society.  

David Brooks utilizes three rhetorical appeals ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade the reader of the danger of a dominant identity in America. Brooks is an American political and cultural commentator working with the New York Times that is a worldwide readership magazine. Brooks establishes credibility based on his background and newspaper source. Additionally, Brooks creates credibility on his article by implementing a philosopher's theory towards his argument. David Brooks states the philosopher Amartya Sen argued that the mentality of a one identity society is flammable to the world. Brooks states that, “people with this mentality tolerate dishonesty, misogyny, and terrorism on their own side because all morality lays down before the tribal imperative” (Brooks). Thus, using an expert’s theory to support his argument creates a sense of credibility in the article and assists to convince the reader of the argument presented.  

The appeal of emotion is strongly implemented throughout the article Danger of a Dominant Identity. Brooks uses Donald Trump’s statements as prime examples of what reducing human beings to one identity looks like. Trump generalized Muslims as dangerous, Mexicans as alien, and views every African American living in inner city poverty. Trump’s statements are stereotypes a single identity creates, which provokes an emotion of frustration towards the reader. Furthermore, Brooks articulates emotions when mentioning due to a single identity and failures on civic education Americans are not recognizing their own country. Brooks then continues to say the most heard words he perceived on election night was “This is not my America” (Brooks). This provokes emotions because the reader will think a single identity is causing American identity to be lost and it needs to be revived. Brooks effectively utilizes the rhetorical appeal of pathos to persuade the reader why a dominant identity is dangerous.  

The rhetorical appeal of logic is the least used in Brooks article, Danger of a Dominant Identity. Brook's introduction begins by discussing pollsters reducing complex individuals to a single identity. Pollsters believe that all or at least most Latinos would vote against Donald Trump. As well as all or most woman would vote for Hilary Clinton during the 2016 election. Pollsters categorized Latinos and woman under one identity and assumed most would vote for the representative of their identity (Brooks). However, it is a fact that many Latinos did indeed vote for Trump as well as many women voted against Clinton, which is the opposite of what the pollsters believed.         

The usage of a passionate and biased tone is also an effective appeal Brooks utilizes to persuade the reader of the danger a dominant identity creates. Throughout the article, Brooks establishes his argument from the beginning and effectively delivers it till the end of the passage. It is clear to the reader that Brook is against reducing individuals to a single identity. However, the reader only views Brooks' argument as Brooks does not offer any counter arguments, therefore creating a biased tone. Without a counter argument, the reader is only being persuaded on a one-sided argument, Additionally, Brooks uses a passionate tone based on the language he incorporates in his article. 

Lastly, Brooks choice of language contributes to the effectiveness of his argument. Brooks believes reducing individuals to a single identity is one of America’s crucial issues today. He classifies the problem as a “mess” and states, “the only way out of this mess is to continually remind ourselves that each human is a conglomeration of identities, ethic, racial, professional, geographic, religious, and so on” (Brooks). When Brooks declares the nation is under a “mess,” the reader will start reflecting on how they contribute to a single identity and believe America is broken and needs to be fixed. To further his argument of America being a mess with a single identity, Brooks emphasizes the importance of reviving America’s identity. Brooks states, “Now many Americans don’t recognize one another or their country” (Brooks). This use of language provokes emotions of urgency and anxiousness. Brooks is persuading the reader that a single identity has completely transformed America to the point its own citizens do not recognize themselves or their own nation. Moreover, Brooks believes individuals who categorize people under one identity are clueless. Brooks mentions, “unfortunately, if you reduce complex individuals to one thing, you will go through life clueless about the world around you. Peoples' classifications now shape how they see the world (Brooks). David Brooks emotional language and choice of diction strengthens David Brooks' argument on why a dominant identity is dangerous.  

In conclusion, David Brooks effectively delivers his argument to his intended audience. Brooks discusses politicians, pollsters, comedians, and the entirety American society categorizing multi-dimensional individuals to a single identity. This generalization is one of the biggest problems facing America today. Though Brooks lacks logic in his article his argument is backed up by emotional appeal and use of language. Using rhetorical appeals, an emotional biased tone, and the usage of language and diction Brooks effectively creates an argument on the dangers a dominant society has on America.  

Works Cited: 

Brooks, David. “The Danger of a Dominant Identity.” The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-danger-of-a-dominant-identity.html. Accessed 23 Mar. 2022.