Sunday, Oct 21 Close Reading

For my close reading this week I read the article The Census: Phantom Constituents by Brent Staples. The entire article can be found here: http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/the-census-phantom-constituents/.

     In the editorial The Census: Phantom Constituents, Brent Staples argues that prison populations are skewing the political process because prisoners are counted by the census as residents of the area in which they are imprisoned and therefore affect political representation, even though they cannot themselves vote. Staples strongly denounces this loophole in political representation and calls for it to be fixed. In the article, Staples uses subtle tricks of word choice, language that evokes guilt, and chooses only to include specific details.
     At many points in the article, Staples gives no evidence to support his claims. Normally, this would call the reader to question his statement and possibly lose trust in the whole article. However, in most of these places, Staples simply mentions, as if in passing, that the fact is "clear" or "obvious". There are numerous examples of this: in paragraph seven he begins "The obvious solution is...", the next paragraph begins "Not surprisingly," and many similar statements can be found throughout the article. The effect of this diction is that is causes the reader to accept the fact without much consideration, making him/her agree instantly with things that could be debated. This is a subtle but extremely useful technique in editorials, because it allows the writer to focus on the main points without spending time defending every detail. In addition, it is slightly condescending and gives the writer a tone of authority.
     At one point, Staples compares the prison situation to the touchy subject of slavery. He claims that counting many prison inmates for votes when they cannot themselves vote is similar to the way slaves were counted as three fifths of a person in the census but were likewise not allowed to vote. He writes,  "And it brings to mind the slave-era United States, when enslaved persons were denied the vote and counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of apportioning representation in Congress." He furthers this comparison by pointing out that many of the inmates are indeed African American. This comparison, while it makes sense, is a little extreme. It does, however, have a powerful effect and emotional impact. The statement evokes guilt and defiance in the reader, since nobody wants to appear as if they are supporting anything even remotely similar to slavery. Effectively, this draws the reader to Staples's side of the argument through disgust and guilt. 
     Staples also uses rather contrived examples to support his point. He gives a specific example of an area where the majority of the population is composed of prison inmates, and tells the story of how a candidate was elected in this area and how the situation would have been different had the inmates been counted as residents of their homes rather than the prisons. Obviously this is an extreme example. In most districts, the election situations would be little different if whichever place the inmates were considered residents of. By choosing such a specific example which is a statistic outlier, Staples legitimizes a claim that would be discredited as far from the norm had he proved other less extreme examples of the effect. 
     With all these techniques, Staples creates an effective argument without the use of excessive facts and figures. His appeal is primarily emotional, and when the article is not read closely, the techniques can completely escape the reader and change his or her opinion almost subconsciously.