Kathy
Kuang
Brown
English
306
15
September 2016
Rhetorical Analysis of “Same Love”
Heteronormativity is the notion that
heterosexuality is the norm. This sentiment has been universally omnipresent for
centuries across many cultures, including American culture. The other
ubiquitous sexual orientation is homosexuality; however, unlike
heterosexuality, the desire to be with a person of the same gender was
chastised by society. In fact, “gay is synonymous with the lessor” as mentioned
by Macklemore (RyanLewisProductions). This prejudice against homosexuality has
lasted into the 21st century; it was not until June 26, 2015 when
the United States legalized gay marriage in the nation, that the discrimination
against a couple consisting of two individuals of the same gender was finally
beginning to be resolved. Unquestionably, the LGBTQ community as well as its
supporters undertook an arduous odyssey to finally gain these marriage rights. In
the United States of America, prior to the aforementioned federal legalization,
manners regarding marriage (such as who could get married) were under the
jurisdiction of the state government. As a result, gay marriage was legal only
in certain states. It was in this context that an extremely popular song was broadcasted
in pop music radio stations to protest in favor for same sex marriage. “Same
Love”, written by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis was particularly concerned with the
registered voters of Washington, although many Americans across the country
heard it as well. Senate Bill 6239 was a proposed bill to legalize gay marriage
in Washington; it became Referendum 74 when the senate bill opponents requested
that its passage be publicly voted on (in other words, the opponents initiated
the veto referendum process in hopes that the bill could potentially fail) ("Washington Same-Sex Marriage Veto Referendum,
Referendum 74 (2012).").
Macklemore and Ryan Lewis were for the referendum, and thus, were trying to persuade
the voters and influence the outcomes of November 6, 2012, when the voters
would decide the fate (marriage equality rights) of its homosexual residents. The
manner in which “Same Love” attempts to persuade its audience is apparent in
its lyrics; Macklemore’s appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos are interspersed
and intertwined with each statement he makes.
Macklemore initiates with “When I was in
the third grade, I thought that I was gay, cause I could draw, my uncle was,
and I kept my room straight” to develop his credibility by stating his own
experience with homosexuality as a heterosexual man (RyanLewisProductions). In other words, he
initiates the song by first developing his ethos, so that his following
arguments would be more persuasive, especially since he does not belong in the
LGBTQ community, which would potentially be an adverse fact against his arguments.
He then continues with an appeal to pathos, stating that the mere idea that he
was gay caused “tears [to rush] down [his] face” (RyanLewisProductions). He
hopes to evoke some sympathy from his audience by suggesting them to imagine an
eight-year-old child crying about his potential homosexuality. Furthermore, he
includes a logical argument that the reason of his sexuality crisis was due to
a “bunch of stereotypes”; his suspicion of being gay was due to his artistic
capabilities, relation to someone who was gay, and tendency to be organized (RyanLewisProductions).
His logical argument lies in the fact that these traits are not indicative of
sexuality; for instance, anyone could be talented at drawing, but that does not
necessarily represent their sexual orientation or even superficially unearths it.
However, Macklemore claims that the stereotypes related to homosexuality have
caused these characteristics to be associated with it, even though it should not
reasonably related.
At the early middle part of the song, he again
appeals to ethos by saying “the right wing conservatives think it’s a decision
and you can be cured with some treatment and religion” (RyanLewisProductions).
He demonstrates his credibility by addressing opposing perspectives against
homosexuality, specifically republican and religious beliefs (that
homosexuality is a decision), and the corresponding notion that this “ailment”
called homosexuality could be ameliorated. By addressing these opinions, he
simultaneously proves his knowledge. Furthermore, he claims that this attempt
in altering a person’s sexuality is “man-made rewiring of a predisposition” and
that this “rewiring” is equivalent to “playing God”
(RyanLewisProductions). Here Macklemore
is unquestionably appealing to ethos; God, to those who are religious (which
most U.S. citizens are) is the almighty entity.
“Playing God” is not acceptable because only God himself should have the
power to decide a person’s life; by extension, the thought of influencing a
person’s destiny should be condemned as it is technically committing a sin directly
against God. Macklemore claims that God decided the sexual orientation of its
inhabitants on Earth. If man decided to rewire this predisposition, then he is
stating that God made a mistake, or that they outright disagree with God’s
decision. Continuing with that notion, he states that this desire to change
others is due to fear of the unknown, “America the brave still fears what we
don’t know” (RyanLewisProductions). He juxtaposes and thus highlights the irony
of the idea that America is brave, yet fears the unknown (homosexuality).
Logically, that makes no sense; thus, he causes Americans to self-reflect on
the validity of this bravery, ultimately, evoking a sense of shame and guilt.
With this phrase, he appeals to logos and pathos.
Near the later half, he continues with pathos,
and again induces empathy; he points out that the phrase “Man, that’s gay” is
omnipresent in “YouTube comments” and the entire “hip-hop” industry
(RyanLewisProductions). By pointing this out, Macklemore kindles the audience
to imagine that because many individuals say this comment, homosexuals very
likely believe that practically everyone “hates [them]” (RyanLewisProductions).
Consequently, the resulting hurt that consumes a homosexual person is probably
unbearable especially since that individual is hated for something that is
“predisposed” and that he or she is a helpless of changing
(RyanLewisProductions). Near the end of the song, he mentions this idea again,
but now specifically referring to young homosexuals, mentioning that “kids are
walking [a]round the hallway plagued by the pain in their hearts”. (RyanLewisProductions).
“Plagued” is a term that describes a disease that historically caused
widespread mortality to those who contracted it; in other words, by describing
that the kids are plagued with this pain suggests that this hurt they feel is
severely debilitating, similar to the symptoms of a plague. It is so horrible,
in fact, that it even causes some to die “rather…than be who they are” (RyanLewisProductions).
Throughout the song, Macklemore persuades his
audience through arguments that are multifaceted in terms of modes of
persuasion. He initiates with ethos to develop his credibility so that the resulting
arguments would be even more convincing. However, he utilizes mostly pathos to
prompt Washington voters to approve of same sex marriage; in fact, he ends the
song with the idea that the societal disapproval of homosexuality, as fomented
by the fact that same sex marriage is not embraced by their beloved country,
has caused an insurmountable amount of melancholy. This appeal to the empathy
of the audience has proven to be effective; this social injustice was removed
on February 9, 2012 in the state of Washington and three years later, the
entire nation began to understand as well.
Works Cited
RyanLewisProductions. "MACKLEMORE & RYAN
LEWIS - SAME LOVE Feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)." YouTube.
YouTube, 02 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.
"Washington Same-Sex Marriage Veto
Referendum, Referendum 74 (2012)." Ballotpedia. Ballotpedia,
n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.
To start, beginning a paper with a definition (as I’ve been told) is sort of cliché. I completely understand why you want to mention the idea of heteronormativity, and I think it would be great to mention it – I would suggest integrating the term when explaining the context of the piece. The audience for the analysis is more academic so defining things would weaken your ethos a bit (unless you think it’s crucial and by means go for it). Going into your thesis, you accomplish the task of focusing on the ethos/logos/pathos; however, I suggest going deeper by making a claim (to the purpose, effectiveness, etc).
ReplyDeleteFor the context you mention, I see the connection you are attempting to make with the Washington vote and the song (you even go down to bill and referendum number and everything). For a song, there’s usually a vaster audience across the nation. If you wish to go further, you can point out a secondary audience.
When looking at the organization, all the pieces are there in effective order (beginning of the song to the end). The link between the rhetorical strategies (ethos/logos/pathos) and the purpose with the vote in Washington is mentioned in the final paragraph. I think it would be more effective to mention different subgoals of the purpose with each example of rhetorical strategy (like a link to a purpose to each quote).
For revising, I would suggest only local revisions. There is just needs to be removal of some definitions that aren’t relaly necessary (like “plagued”). Also, adding more connections with each example to link to the purpose and effectiveness for the Washington voting audience and secondary audience).
Lastly, the portion of the paper that reads “the resulting hurt that consumes a homosexual person is probably unbearable especially since that individual is hated” seems like a lofty generalization. If you’re focusing on society pressuring individuals to want change then that’s okay. If that’s the case then mention how other people are pressuring the homosexual individuals to feel that way, otherwise the whole sentence leaves a sort of bad connotation to homosexuality (in my interpretation).
Kathy, it’s a beautifully written paper, even if its just a rough draft, but you know what you’re doing. I like what Macklemore and Ryan Lewis have been doing in music over the last few years with their conscious approach to hip hop. It’s a really good paper and your thesis is clear and well stated so the rest of the paper becomes really easy to follow. It seems like when you start the first sentence you use what looks like a definition for heteronormativity and that’s fine, include it, but if it was me, I would start the paper with something more original, something that comes from you and then use the definition to support what you mean, or maybe just don’t define it at all. Since we’re writing for a more academic centered crowd just let the readers find what it means or assume the readers know what it means. (but your draft looks so much better than mine so don’t listen to me too much). Something I did enjoy was how you take the readers through the parts of the song and how you include pieces of lyrics and how it carries on the story and transitions things smoothly. Its nice how you specifically mentioned the bill number (which you could go look up) and then that its became a referendum and all that, very good info especially for an audience of academics. You touch on this stuff just enough to add credibility to the article and mention how Macklemore and Ryan Lewis were for this bill, but you don’t beat it to the ground, when others might, so good job on that. Also maybe elaborate more about what the lyrics you quote from the song mean or who it was more directed to, but nothing too drastic. I like what you’re doing with this so far so nothing major that needs to be changed that I can really see. You’re on the right track, keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThe structure of your argument and analysis is solid work. There's nothing macro I would change necessarily. The first paragraph gets away from you a little, or maybe it gets away from me. I think the ideas are there but they aren't very fluid which is inconsistent with the rest of the paper. "This prejudice against homosexuality has lasted into the 21st century; it was not until June 26, 2015 when the United States legalized gay marriage in the nation, that the discrimination against a couple consisting of two individuals of the same gender was finally beginning to be resolved." some of the wording is just little excessive, when you could use simpler terms. The argument you build analyzing ethos gets a little muddled. " Here Macklemore is unquestionably appealing to ethos; God, to those who are religious (which most U.S. citizens are) is the almighty entity. “Playing God” is not acceptable because only God himself should have the power to decide a person’s life; by extension, the thought of influencing a person’s destiny should be condemned as it is technically committing a sin directly against God. Macklemore claims that God decided the sexual orientation of its inhabitants on Earth." I think maybe you spend too much time disseminating his lyric, "man-made rewiring of a predisposition". I just had trouble picking apart the intention in some of the sentences like that one. Other than that the structure and the final paragraph do a good job outlining what you're saying and it's seems clear that you grasp the rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleterevision plan:
ReplyDelete1) removing some unnecessary details/explanations/warrants; consolidating some information
2) changing the hook / removing the heteronormativity idea
3) revising some of the words (word choice)
4) find a credible source for the referendum