Brandon Chavez is a freshman majoring in History. He enjoys learning about social and political issues in other countries & places around the world. He also enjoys learning about the challenges faced by indigenous populations.
***FALL 2020 CONTEST SUBMISSION***
”Suicide rates since 1960 in Micronesia (the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands) have undergone an epidemic-like increase. This phenomenon is focussed narrowly within the 15-24-year male age-group”
Family plays a quite significant role in Micronesian society. An individual’s self-esteem is very dependent on the acceptance and support of the family, more so than any other contributing factor. A firm place and role in the family is a source of self-esteem for an individual. The significance of familial relations and approvals are shown with one of Hezel’s statistics in his data: “Over 70 percent of all the suicides since 1960 were precipitated by conflicts within the consanguineal family” (Hezel, 55).
This phenomenon of high suicide rates among the male youth in Micronesia was first noticed by Reverend Francis Hezel, a Jesuit who was the director of Xavier High School in the Chuuk islands for nearly 18 years. Reverend Hezel wrote a magazine article about this phenomenon in 1977. Dr. Rubinstein, a researcher at Honolulu’s East-West Center, and Reverend Hazel later decided to research the issue further in the following years where they collected many facts about the situation but unfortunately did not come up with any solutions at the time. A later publication by Hezel in 1989 described the magnitude of the situation in Micronesia in comparison with the suicide rates of the United States: “The general suicide rate for Truk is 40 per 100,000. The rate for Trukese males between 15 and 25 is a startling 250 per 100,000. This is 20 times the youth rate in the United States” (Hezel, 1989).
Hezel observed that these suicides can be linked to small disputes between a young man and an older family member, like an older sibling or parent. Two examples were cited by Hezel to show his observation of the trend: one 13 year old boy hung himself after being scolded by his mother and a 16 year old boy also hung himself after his father refused to give him $1.
Another trend Hezel recognized was that the suicides would be clustered in groups; the death of one young man would often lead to suicides of others in the area.
When thinking about possible causes for these trends, Hezel initially thought that the process of modernization and its pressures clashing with traditional island societies was responsible for this phenomenon. Hezel and Rubinstein looked further into the issue and found that poor family relations were a common pattern with their research.
Hezel also described another insight into the issue that he gathered from his research:
“Rather than an impulsive act, we found the suicides were often the result of a longterm intolerable situation”
Reverend Hezel’s insight reveals that these suicides in Micronesia are not impulsive, but that there is a cultural aspect to the situation, regarding a traditional island defense mechanism taken to an extreme. The word “amwunumwun” is used by the Chuukese to describe the behavior of young men using withdrawal to express shame or anger. Refusing to eat or being silent are examples of actions that these young men engage in when showing this behavior.
Reverend Hezel and Dr. Rubinstein believed that the strategy of amwunumwun became violent in the 1960s and 1970s where suicide might be considered the most extreme form of this behavior of bringing harm to oneself to save a relationship. A Chuukese suicide victim thought that being dead would repair more to a damaged relationship than if they were alive.In a later publication Reverend Hezel shed new insight on the suicide epidemic in the Chuuk islands (Hezel, 1989).
Hezel also sought to find out the significance of the types of interpersonal and familial relationships that lead to suicide in Micronesia. Below is the table of his recorded data:
The table revealed that a relational disruption or conflict between a young man and his parents was often the most common cause of relational disruption that led to suicide. Hezel notes that in suicide cases that were led by disruptions in nonfamily relationships, the victim might break off familial ties because of the shame that might be bringing to their family and fear of what their family members’ reactions woud be. The victim was ashamed of actions that could offend their family and feared a consequential disruption in familial relations.
In 2007, Dr. Mao-Sheng Ran, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, reviewed pre-existing data on the characteristics of suicide in Micronesia.
Dr. Ran’s research found another phenomena that highlights the effect of mental health on suicide in Micronesia the effect of mental health on suicide in Micronesia compared with another country such as the United States.
The bar graph above reveals an interesting and peculiar observation about the correlation between mental illness and suicide victims in Micronesia. Only 10% of suicide victims in Micronesia had psychiatric disorders, while 90% of suicide victims in the United States had mental illness. Dr. Ran states that:“Mental illness did not appear to be
an important factor in Micronesian suicides. Most of the victims have had no serious delinquency problems, psychological abnormality, or psychosis.”(Ran, 83)
Dr. Ran noted that intergenerational conflict was the most common cause that led to suicide and most suicides occured because of a conflict, misunderstanding or argument between a young victim and their parents or older relative.
The definition of anger in Hezel’s research is further explored in Dr. Ran’s review. Hezel’s publication in 1989 cited three distinct patterns of suicides which included anger suicides, shame suicides and psychotic suicides. It was previously mentioned in Hezel’s publication that anger suicides were the most prominent in Micronesian suicide cases, but this definition of anger adds a new understanding to the situation. Ran established that:”The definition of ‘anger’ was similar to the way Americans describe depression”(Ran, 2007, pg. 84). This definition of anger shows a cultural difference in how anger is defined in Micronesian society and American society.
The review also included several aspects and social changes that may be responsible for the high suicide rate in Micronesia. The first change is the expansion of a cash economy in Micronesia and the decreasing reliance on subsistence production. The production may be responsible for weakening the significance of clan and lineage activities. The decline in clan and lineage activities narrows social support for teenagers, increases reliance and dependence on parents, and increases parental-adolescent conflicts.The second change is the acceptance of suicide which can be attributed to this increase in suicide rates. As suicide becomes common among the youth, it became more acceptable and even expected.
According to Hezel, western solutions such as suicide prevention hotlines and counseling would not fully solve the suicide epidemic witnessed in Micronesia as the issue is not only psychological but also cultural. Dr. Ran offered several suggestions for future research to combat the issue. Ran suggests that there should be more surveillance on suicidal behavior in Micronesia, independent research on preventive and risk factors, and a longitudinal study on social and economic shifts affecting the male youth. Since there is not many mental health professionals available, Ran suggests that more individuals should be trained to counter the issue of suicide.
The Micronesian suicide epidemic is quite unique as the root of the issue is concerned more with the inter-generational conflict and socio-cultural elements found within Micronesian society rather than mental illness. Solutions to the issue and research on the topic cannot be treated in a western approach, as the act of suicide has shown to be woven into the youth culture of Micronesian society. Future studies, research, and clinical approaches must consider the socio-cultural elements of Micronesian society & family to make progress in combating the Micronesian suicide epidemic.
Jeffrey is pursuing a B.A. in Psychology at Stony Brook. He enjoys technology and is always keeping up with the latest hardware releases.
***FALL 2020 CONTEST SUBMISSION***
Technology. Such a simple concept of scientific application can have many implications for our lives, history, and the world. When people talk about the dangers of technology, popular media has us thinking about robots, and by extension, Artificial Intelligence (AI). Media like The Matrix franchise, Person of Interest, or 2001: A Space Odyssey (either novel or film) highlight the potential that AI has in terms of changing our world through apocalyptic means, a dystopic society, etc. Would you believe me if I told you we were already, in some respects, in such a society today? For example, think of any time where you might have been discussing something in the open with a friend, but then see advertisements the next time you browse the web? Such was most likely the work of AI, or more specifically, Machine Learning (ML) Algorithms. The overhead of employing many human listeners would usually be too much, so such work would be mostly delegated to automation. This essay is a culmination of what I’ve learned from Professor Brennan’s PSY 369, Psychology in the Age of Intelligent Machines, and what I know as a computer enthusiast.
The AI singularity seems like a technological milestone that humanity may never reach. However, despite less than ideal implementations of such technology in areas like human language translation, we have progressed significantly over the course of computing history. In terms of literal definitions, automated systems can pass the Turing Test, as it was written in the 1950s. Nobody uses the Turing Test in the way it was originally written; it is more of a thematic test of achieving near-human systems. I would recommend VSauce’s video here for reference (Stevens, 2017). Some key examples of AI efforts include major companies you’ve probably heard of. Tesla is one among many automobile manufacturers developing autonomous driving (“Autopilot AI”, 2020). Google, being the technological juggernaut it is, has general AI research and development along with custom computer chips (“Google AI”, 2020). Even Boston Dynamics is using AI, with some autonomous functionalities built into the Spot lineup of robots (“Spot®”, 2020).
Most prominently, AI is in the social media we use every day, through feed recommendations and those all-important corporate advertisements that provide these services to you. Most of these efforts are not usually made with malicious intent, but their implications may be anything but benevolent. Despite me writing this essay, the majority of users will not really notice AI as it slowly creeps into our lives. It’s like the rising sun; minute by minute, you don’t notice the incoming light. But, over time, if you were to compare your first minute to your last minute; assuming the sun is up, you notice this marked change. It’s a similar concept here. Slowly, technology and AI integrates itself into our lives until we don’t see its marked change before. For reference, ask older individuals what life was like before the internet, or the proliferation of accessible personal computing. We’ve advanced from expensive IBM compatibles to Chromebooks.
The issue with AI is not so much the underlying technology, nor the idea behind it. Like many concepts, it is a good idea on paper. In practice, nobody adheres to what might make it great. In the interest of expediency and cost-effectiveness, companies push forth half-baked implementations where we see more negative consequences. AI/ML algorithms are simply algorithms. They attempt to predict, with less precision than the real world, an approximation of what should be. It’s like walking through your house blindfolded. You probably won’t fall or seriously injure yourself, but seeing with your eyes is much better than relying on memory reconstructions. It’s similar with AI. However, instead of stumbling blindly in a controlled, familiar environment, such systems are thrown into the real world. Instead of being blindfolded in your house, you’re blindfolded and randomly placed on a football field. Imagine the disorientation – you would have no idea of where you were relative to the rest of the layout of said field.
AI’s implementations in the current justice system and in job selection are akin to these blind analogies. While you might think that this is due to evil programmers, this is not usually intentional. AI algorithms are mysterious in that regard. Given current frameworks and paradigms, how it generates results is unknown. Oftentimes, this is to shocking effect with its eerily accurate predictions, sometimes from scant data – privacy violations notwithstanding. Despite this, it’s sometimes claimed as a great innovation. Finally one can get “objective” judgements and predictions.
The truth is, though, there’s no such a thing as an objective algorithm. AI is only as good as the data that it’s fed, and in some cases, the wrong data leads to a perpetuation of broken systems. For instance, recidivism algorithms are biased towards disadvantaged populations like people of color.
recidivism – a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior, especiallyto relapse into criminal behavior
In some cases, more privileged, Caucasian individuals are at an advantage given confounding lifestyle correlations tied to outcomes. For instance, an African-American who is considered high in recidivism risk will receive more scrutiny while on parole versus a Caucasian who is not. It’s ironic at times, as the end outcome can be that the African-American will obey the law and the Caucasian ends up back in prison. Despite these inconsistencies, such algorithms are pushed onto judges who don’t know any better, and innocent individuals can be caught in the crossfire (Angwin et al., 2016).
With that in mind, is there reason to panic, shout and protest? Yes and no. While it isn’t always great as I enumerated above, there are some benefits to these technologies, when used properly. An easy example of this duality is in nuclear technologies. It can be used to terrible effect, or used to generate power. AI has shown immense potential, as shown in various technology demos, or real-world implementations. For video games, AI can enable higher perceived visual fidelity with more realistic lighting or resolution upscaling, and such implementations are slowly being added to newer games and are present in next-generation consoles (“RTX. It’s On. Ultimate Ray Tracing and AI,” 2020; Battaglia, 2020). Outside of gaming, you have frame-interpolation for animations, where an algorithm attempts to make it smoother. Traditional animations like Pixar films may suffer visually from attempting this, as seen in this thread on Twitter:
For stop-motion, though, this changes the game completely. It’s much easier to just have an animation filmed at 15 fps than it is to use AI to enable a smoother, 30 fps final product (Boosting Stop-Motion to 60 fps using AI, 2020). And of course, there is the infinite comedic potential, especially with song generation or translations (The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, 2020). Outside of that, this has the capability to change the way we work literally. Imagine a richer world where AI assists in creative work, or the formulation of novel chemicals that could change lives (Conti, 2016; Hessler & Baringhaus, 2018). That’s also in the works, as well as the dystopic solutions above.
The key point of this essay is not so much to get you fired up one way or the other about AI, but to just be aware of these systems and changes in our society. Congress has tried, unsuccessfully, to consider it, and it’s our job as the greater public to be informed and act accordingly. Greater awareness can be detrimental, as seen with Brandolini’s Law. However, given how unconscious these processes currently operate, it’s best to bring them to light.
As a student of the New York City public education system, I have always been in a diverse environment. For instance, my elementary and middle schools had an annual Multicultural Day Fair. The younger students performed traditional dances from different cultures, while the older students set up tents around the campus and presented research they had done on specific countries or an influential person. I enjoyed the Multicultural Day Fair, but I never thought of it as anything particularly special. It was just an event that I had always participated in since kindergarten. A few years into high school is when I realized that not all schools in America are as diverse as mine and how diversity can be a privilege. What diversity has taught me in terms of social interactions with people of other backgrounds is not a lesson that every person in America has the opportunity of receiving. However, in today’s world, where companies and firms can draw in employees from all across America and the world, employees may find themselves in workplaces where a majority of their coworkers are from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Schools are another part of society in which people may experience culture shocks or accidentally stumble into a cultural clash. Employers and school administrations may try to mediate these differences by encouraging either of the two strategies: color blindness or multiculturalism. The colorblind strategy advocates for people to be oblivious of race, whereas the multicultural strategy embraces race. Having been accustomed to the multicultural mindset all my life, I want to explore how the colorblind strategy compares. How successful is the colorblind strategy not only in leading people to ignore race, but also in establishing a cooperative and supportive environment?
At the 2016 Republican National Convention, Ivanka Trump introduced her father, Donald Trump, and claimed, “He recognizes real knowledge and skill when he finds it. He is colorblind and gender neutral.” Evidently, she has linked color blindness as a means of seeing a person’s true worth—what he or she can bring to the table is more important than his or her race. This very same idea is highlighted in Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. The notion that our personal attributes solely define who we are is very attractive. So, it is not hard to see why a colorblind strategy would be implemented in a company or school. But how successful is the colorblind implementation when it comes to people looking beyond a person’s race? Research suggests grim potential for the colorblind strategy. In a study conducted at Dartmouth College, researchers Dr. Jennifer A. Richeson and Dr. Richard J. Nussbaum found that participants who had been told the colorblind strategy was most ideal in a diverse setting were more likely to show signs of racial bias versus the participants who had been told the multicultural strategy was better (419-421). The research participants were presented with names and were asked to categorize them as “White” or “Black” names, and they were presented with pleasant and unpleasant stimuli and were asked to categorize them as “Good” or “Bad.” Richeson and Nussbaum observed students of the colorblind group took longer to categorize negative stimuli as either “Black” or “Bad,” but were faster to categorize positive stimuli as either “White” or “Good.” They interpreted this discrepancy as a sign of the students’ racial bias. This categorizing system may seem like unconvincing evidence of bias. However, this system, called the Implicit Association Test (IAT), is well known and utilized by researchers to find the true attitudes people do not want to admit (“Implicit Association Test”). Richeson and Nussbaum’s research suggests that even the very idea of the colorblind strategy being successful was enough to create a considerable amount of racial bias within the students. The participants in this study were participating on their own free will without any personal repercussions (Richeson and Nussbaum 419-421). So this makes me wonder, what would be the effects on workers who have to keep a colorblind mindset since their paycheck depends on it?
Dr. Michael I. Norton et al. of Harvard Business School demonstrate how color blindness affects work productivity and interactions between black and white coworkers. Norton et al. concluded that white workers were more productive with other white workers and communicated more in order to complete the task at hand (950). This ease of communication was facilitated because the white worker was more willing to use specific terms such as “black” and “African-American” when doing a categorizing activity. However, when the white workers were put in the same situation but with a black coworker, white coworkers no longer had the confidence to use those specific terms regarding race. Norton et al. explain that interactions between the black and white coworkers went further downhill as the white coworkers’ “… attempts to appear color-blind—by avoiding race—are accompanied by additional costs: less friendly nonverbal behaviors” (950). I found the results of this article interesting because it presents the colorblind strategy unintentionally becoming a form of extra-baggage in someone’s head. Instead of focusing and being able to communicate freely, a person who is attempting to be colorblind is carefully watching every one of his or her words. Now, I do not interpret (and I am sure the researchers do not imply it either) that being able to “communicate freely” means being able to mention race as comfortably as one likes. Not at all. “Communicate freely” is just everyday conversation that we should all be able to engage in. The colorblind strategy makes the everyday conversation subject to paranoia and increased self-restraint. Much like how a germaphobe is too afraid to venture outside because germs may or may not be on the next door handle, coworkers may be skeptical of those from other backgrounds because an accidental racial offense may or may not be lingering in the next conversation. As a result, coworker interactions are limited, brief, and uncordial.
It is important to note that the workers described in the above study were not committing any kind of discrimination by limiting their interactions with black coworkers. They just did not want to be put out of their comfort zone, and that in itself should be convincing enough that the colorblind strategy is flawed. However, there is more research contributing to a narrative that the colorblind strategy separates people more than it brings them together. While the research mentioned so far has been focused on coworker-to-coworker interactions and not so much coworker-to-employer interactions, the research concerning education policy is just about equally focused on teacher-to-student and student-to-student interactions. This should give some insight into how the colorblind strategy affects authority and how such effects trickle down.
Ideally, a successful educational system is one that makes every student feel welcome and comfortable to learn the material. In 2017, the United States Department of Education published a report stating, “Achieving a diverse student population in a given school building is a major accomplishment, but additional efforts are important to avoid the replication of inequities and disparities in achievement and access within a school that has a diverse student population” (18). This report takes the stance that a diverse student body will not automatically find its own way of including every student on the same path to success. Surprisingly, the twenty page report makes no specific reference to multicultural or colorblind strategies (it does not even use any form of the word “multicultural”). Although the US Department of Education report does not stress a particular strategy, it does advise school districts to consult legal experts if the school districts wish to recognize students’ race and cultural background (5). The report also emphasizes the importance of funding if a school wants to increase diversity because proper funding is necessary to enroll students from outside of their own districts (5). The US Department of Education report has made it seem that recognizing race, cultural backgrounds, and increasing diversity is quite the hassle: legal consulting, examining state and local laws, and allocating the proper funds. It may be possible that the colorblind strategy is an easier strategy to apply in schools than the multicultural strategy. A colorblind strategy ignores race, thus relieving any obligation a school administration may feel to increase the diversity of the student body. Not only does the colorblind strategy have an idealistic “I recognize people for their worth” mentality, but it can also be more practical and convenient. As mentioned earlier, this US Department of Education report was published in 2017, but the colorblind strategy and diversity in schools have been issues long before then. What is the historical basis for the colorblind strategy?
Dr. Subini Ancy Annamma and co-researchers of the Stanford Graduate School of Education argue the persistence of the colorblind mindset in education is a result of the misinterpretation of a dissenting opinion from the famous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case (147). The lone dissent in the case by Justice John Marshall Harlan stated, “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law” (559). Annamma et al. see these two lines of Harlan’s dissent to be the root of colorblind policies not only in schools, but also in society in general. Annamma says it is important to understand that just because Harlan says all the laws of the land are colorblind does not equate to Harlan believing race is irrelevant in all matters (Annamma et al. 147). However, it would appear that Harlan’s dissent has indeed been taken as an advocacy for the colorblind strategy for an all-purpose use. In the years following Plessy v. Ferguson, “[a]ccording to the liberal discourse that has developed in the post-Jim Crow era, a good citizen is colorblind” (Choi 56). So, color blindness has become a methodology of progressives to combat the idea of “separate but equal.” While well-intentioned as a means to combat discrimination, the colorblind strategy in contemporary times has actually been shown to encourage discrimination and discourage inclusiveness in schools.
In a 2016 article published in the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, Yale University researchers Aragón, Dovidio, and Graham defined inclusiveness as a means “to increase retention and enhance the achievements of people of color and women in STEM education, research, academic, and public sector careers” (201). Aragón et al. focused on the attendance of teachers to the National Academies Summer Institutes on Undergraduate Science Education, which aims to promote inclusive teaching methods in schools. According to the post-attendance data, teachers who endorsed the colorblind strategy were less likely to implement inclusive teaching methods and activities and were more easily convinced that an inclusive education was a bad idea. The teachers who endorsed the multicultural strategy had the exact opposite results—they supported inclusive teaching and were not easily convinced that an inclusive education was a bad idea (210). Based on the results of Aragón et al., I interpret the colorblind strategy as a mindset that minimizes the needs of different groups. Schools may inadvertently leave some students behind because recognizing the students’ differences would disrupt the schools’ commitment to the colorblind strategy.
While I am alarmed that teachers of the colorblind mindset would so easily dismiss inclusive programs, I am not surprised that teachers of the multicultural mindset were open to more inclusive teaching practices. Relating back to my own personal experience, I see now the efforts my elementary and middle school teachers made in order for every student to feel included. For example, whenever a cultural holiday would be approaching, our teachers would ask students of that culture to explain the importance of the holidays and traditions involved. It was not awkward or a forced one-off moment in class. The teachers would try to incorporate the holiday into the day’s lesson. In hindsight, I see how important such activities were to making us feel that we all had an equal opportunity to contribute to the class. We were not just students listening to the teacher—we had something to offer. Applying the evidence provided by Aragón et al., I can presume that if my school had embraced the colorblind strategy, no such activities would have taken place. We would have lost out on a chance to build a personal connection to our teacher and class.
Inclusiveness may not be a priority for teachers of the colorblind mindset, but the reduction of discrimination in schools is a common goal for both the colorblind and multicultural strategies. In spite of that, the colorblind strategy has been found to decrease students’ ability to recognize discrimination when they see it. In a study of elementary grade students, Dr. Evan Apfelbaum et al. of Northwestern University investigated how the colorblind and multicultural mindsets affected the students’ responses to various scenarios (1587). In one scenario, a white classmate physically harmed a black classmate and then justified his actions by stating the black classmate would play rough too since he is black. Only 50% of the colorblind group of students said the black student had been discriminated against. In the multicultural “value-diversity mind-set” group, 77% of those students reported discrimination (1589-1590). Based on this data, I cannot trust any pro-colorblind school administration that touts a decreased rate of discrimination or bullying on the basis of race. I have no way of knowing whether the colorblind strategy actually decreased acts of discrimination or merely decreased the rate of reporting of such acts.
On the other hand, if a school following the multicultural strategy reported a decrease in discrimination, there is data suggesting the multicultural mindset was actually responsible. In an article published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Dr. Frances E. Aboud and Dr. Anne Beth Doyle assessed the attitudes and interactions of high- and low-prejudiced students. After discussing race with low-prejudiced students, the high-prejudiced students “became significantly less prejudiced in their evaluation” of others, especially if the low-prejudice students expanded on the similarities among people of different racial backgrounds (161). Aboud and Doyle’s advice: allow students to talk about race and start the conversation early on. If left unattended, students with prejudices and racial biases can grow up and allow these negative ideas to manifest and grow stronger. An open dialogue of race is essential to ridding students of any prejudices they may have. A colorblind school would frown upon discussions of race, and the students are deprived of an opportunity to learn how their prejudices were misguided. This not only affects a student’s behavior (whether or not he or she will discriminate), but also how he or she will interpret other’s behavior (deciding whether or not another student’s discrimination is wrong).
Of course, it is not to be implied that colorblind students are prejudiced and that is why they do not report discrimination. Dr. Janet W. Schofield of the University of Pittsburg offers insight into the minds of the students who are aware of discrimination but decide not to report it. Schofield studied middle schools that insisted their student body were colorblind. Her data is especially valuable because Schofield did not impose the conditions on the students. The behavior she observed was the result of a long term institution of the colorblind strategy (268). To put in perspective of how long the colorblind strategy had been imposed on these students, one student was bewildered when Schofield told him Martin Luther King Jr. was African-American (280). In one school, Schofield noticed students had a harder time reporting any kind of problems—not necessarily problems of discrimination, just basic classroom complaints—because the students did not want to use race as a description. Schofield acknowledges that students in this particular middle school “[w]ere well aware that making references to race displeased many of their teachers and might also offend peers” (273). As a result, students, fearful of retaliation for identifying others by race, were hesitant to come forward when real problems arose. The students were clearly aware of their teachers’ colorblind expectations and—given the teacher-student relationship—conformed without question. The colorblind mindset does not solve the issue of discrimination in schools; rather, it merely shoves it under the rug and forces students to turn a blind eye.
We can now see the parallelism between the workplace and the school setting. Schofield showed us that in colorblind situations, students will be mindful of their every word when reporting to teachers because they fear their teachers’ discipline. Recall Norton’s et al. study in which white coworkers became less friendly and communicative in order to appear colorblind; they too were filtering their words of any suggestions of race. Although differing in age and circumstance, students and workers manifest similar behavior when in colorblind situations. Both inhibit their everyday behavior in order to spare themselves an unpleasant reprimand from the authorities who implemented the colorblind policy. Given this parallelism, we can now return to previous studies and make a few assumptions. Apfelbaum et al. found students of the colorblind mindset to be oblivious of clear cases of discrimination; thus, workers will also be incognizant of racial injustices in the workplace. Aragón et al. exhibited colorblind-endorsing teachers to be opposed to inclusive teaching strategies; thus, colorblind-endorsing employers will also show distaste for programs to coalesce diverse workplaces.
My personal experience convinced me that the multicultural strategy is effective in creating a cooperative and supportive environment. Examining the evidence, it is difficult to say the same for the colorblind strategy. Schools and businesses may find the colorblind strategy attractive due to its convenience and historical context, but they should consider the actual ramifications of imposing it. Is the colorblind strategy successful in making people oblivious of another’s race? No. The colorblind strategy encourages internal racial bias in coworkers. Given the similarities between worker and student behavior in colorblind situations, it is reasonable to believe that students would just as likely develop internal racial biases in school. Is the colorblind strategy successful in establishing a cooperative and supportive environment? Being that the colorblind strategy deters everyday conversation and work productivity, synergy may be hard to find. How does the multicultural strategy fare, provided the research and not just my personal experience? From the same studies, multiculturalism does what the colorblind strategy cannot. Inclusiveness is prioritized, and discrimination is recognized and—most importantly—reported. Multiculturalism does not mean students or coworkers have to address ethnicity in every conversation, but at least multiculturalism allows for that conversation to happen. Multiculturalism can disprove prejudices and improve our understanding of those who are culturally and racially different from ourselves. Acknowledging the research, the colorblind strategy would be an ill-advised imposition in both schools and workplaces.
Aboud, Frances E., and Anne B. Doyle. “Does Talk of Race Foster Prejudice or Tolerance in Children?” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, vol. 28, no. 3, 1996, pp. 161-170. EBSCOhost, doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.28.3.161.
Annamma, Subini A., Darrell D. Jackson, and Deb Morrison. “Conceptualizing Color-Evasiveness: Using Dis/ Ability Critical Race Theory to Expand a Color-Blind Racial Ideology in Education and Society.” Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 20, no. 2, 2017, pp. 147-162. Taylor & Francis Journals, doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016. 1248837.
Apfelbaum, Evan P., Kristin Pauker, Samuel R. Sommers and Nalini Ambady. “In Blind Pursuit of Racial Equality?” Psychological Science, vol. 21, no. 11, 2010, pp. 1587-1592. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41062417.
Aragón, Oriana R., John F. Dovidio, and Mark J. Graham. “Colorblind and Multicultural Ideologies Are Associated With Faculty Adoption of Inclusive Teaching Practices.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 3, 2016, pp. 201-215. PsycARTICLES, doi:10.1037/dhe0000026.
Richeson, Jennifer A., and Richard J. Nussbaum. “The Impact of Multiculturalism Versus Color-Blindness on Racial Bias.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 40, no. 3, 2004, pp. 417-423. Science Direct, doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002.
Schofield, Janet W. “The Colorblind Perspective in School: Causes and Consequences.” Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. Eds. James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks. 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005, pp. 265-281.
United States, Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. “Improving Outcomes for All Students: Strategies and Considerations to Increase Student Diversity.” Diversity & Opportunity, 19 January 2017, ed.gov/diversity-opportunity.
In 2014, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio launched Pre-K for All to encourage “free, full-day, high-quality pre-K.”1 The program increased enrollment in Pre-K among different communities, especially within low-income families. Its success led to the creation of 3-K for All1 and yielded similar outcomes: “[o]f the 52,741 children enrolled in pre-K, 37 percent were Hispanic, 30 percent [B]lack” with no ethnic majority.2One would expect that a student body with multiple ethnicities represented would have access to a teaching curriculum tailored to different backgrounds. The Pre-K for All handbook’s page 21 includes a list of “ emotionally responsive books about being safe” which says otherwise.1 Of the three books presented, all are written by white authors. This booklist is not an anomaly; authors of color are missing from the handbook and the curriculum itself. An analysis of the Pre-K For All curriculum reveals that “there are 0 Black authors, 0 Native authors, 0 Middle Eastern authors, 1 Latinx author, 1 Asian author, and 40 white authors” of the 42 total texts available.3 The number of white authors to authors of colors writing for younger ages is grossly disproportionate. It exemplifies the concept of a dominant culture – a “relatively small social group that has a disproportionate amount of power” – represented by the 17% of white students enrolled in the program.4 Some may argue that this is not an issue since there are Black characters in some texts. It is important to consider that “20 of the 22 books that center Black characters are written by white authors”3 who have not genuinely experienced life from the standpoint they’re writing from. The author may thoroughly research what would be their character’s background beyond the book and consult individuals who identify with the character’s community. Regardless, they may still inadvertently overlook or dismiss important details about the culture or traditions associated with their character’s identity.
The Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies textbook defines institutions as forms of stratification among individuals by “gender, class, race, ability, and sexuality”.5 The Pre-K for All curriculum is, unfortunately, another example of an institution prioritizing white students over students of color. As coordinator Natasha Capers of the Coalition for Educational Justice phrases it – how can students of color “create a world view” from the books they read “[i]f they never see themselves in it”?4 Teaching students of color with textbooks and educational sources that do not reflect the perspective and struggles associated with their ethnic background is unfair and demeaning. Returning to the idea of the curriculum as one aspect of an institution, the common thread is neglecting authors of color and perspectives of BIPOC by BIPOC in favor of instilling at a young age that the normal “thought and behavior” is to exclude, misrepresent, and misunderstand BIPOC.5 Although the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in 1954, racial discrimination continues well into the 21st century since we are still “teach[ing] these expectations . . . to younger generations” with alarming confidence in the school system to change course.5 BIPOC students should have the opportunity to see themselves represented in the education system as their white classmates do. That liberty should extend beyond elementary school as well.
Education as a service to the LGBT community fails to deliver similarly in the reading curriculum. In the Ready NY CCLS and EL Education middle school curriculums, “there are no main characters that identify as LGBTQ+.”3 It would be beneficial to increase the representation of BIPOC and LGBTQ+ communities as written by individuals who identify with either or both within school curriculums.
 NYC Department of Education. (n.d.). 3-K for All & Pre-K for All Handbook for District Schools and Pre-K Centers. New York, New York: NYC Department of Education.
At first glance, it may seem odd to compare Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and E.B. White. Other than spending their childhoods in Westchester County, New York, what else do they have in common? Ocasio-Cortez is a current United States congresswoman, representing New York’s 14th district. For many, she is a symbol of change: she defeated her well-established primary opponent despite being outspent 18-1; she is the youngest woman to serve in the US Congress; she sponsors bills considered to be radical, such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for all; and she even has an asteroid named after her (Hajela; Mosher). On the other hand, White can be seen as a standard bearer, an idealistic image of an Ivy League-educated white male who came to age before any of the two world wars. Even during the Great Depression, White lived comfortably as a writer for the New Yorker (Heitman). As a co-author of the prolific style guide, The Elements of Style, White has set the bar for writers for decades. His books, Stuart Little and Charlotte’s Web, have influenced countless children as they learn to develop their own styles of writing. Dr. Laura Lisbeth of Stony Brook University characterizes White’s influence as “a tradition in Anglo-American literacy,” for The Elements of Style “certainly turned the English language into a personal expression of his idiosyncratic preferences” (Lisbeth).
Comfortability would not be an accurate descriptor of Ocasio-Cortez’s life. Despite rising from poverty and winning her own voice in the United States Congress, her troubles as a young, idealistic woman of color were far from over. On July 23, 2020, Ocasio-Cortez gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. She reprimanded her colleague, Representative Ted Yoho, for his offensive remarks that he delivered to her personally on the steps of the Capitol Building. Ocasio-Cortez rebuked not only Yoho’s remarks, but also Yoho’s compliance with a culture that has served to the detriment of women throughout American history. In 1941, almost 80 years earlier, White made his mark in literary history and published his essay “Once More to the Lake” in Harper’s Magazine. In the essay, he details his vacation to a lake in Maine with his son. White weaves in and out between the past and present, merging them together and revealing how some things never change.
As different as Ocasio-Cortez and White are, a common theme between these two works is the past and how it affects our present and future. Because the barrier between past and present is fluid for White, he uses the past as a way of telling the story of the present. Nostalgia would not be enough to describe White’s attachment to his childhood: he actively lives in both worlds. Ocasio-Cortez uses the past not as a point of nostalgia, but as a point of reference from which society should use to change the future. Unlike White, Ocasio-Cortez does not wish to live in the past. She would rather live up to her reputation and change the future for the next generations of women. Both White and Ocasio-Cortez share a common theme, but differ in how they examine the implications. Using rhetorical devices such repetition, parallelism, anadiplosis, and antimetabole, Ocasio-Cortez and White engage their readers with cohesive and rhythmic sentences that display the authors’ control over their narratives. By having this control, both writers can focus their readers to the details and emotions they wish to convey. In return, the readers have confidence in how each author interprets their relationships with the past.
Prominent rhetorical devices used by Ocasio-Cortez and White are parallelism and repetition. In the opening of Ocasio-Cortez’s speech, she describes exactly what Yoho had said to her. She says, “[H]e called me disgusting, he called me crazy, he called me out of my mind, and he called me dangerous” (00:14-01:43). The repetition of the opening, “he called me,” creates an intensity that is palpable to the reader. Even to those in the audience who are already aware of the incident involving Yoho, there is an anticipation built up because of Ocasio-Cortez’s wording. To those who are not aware of Yoho’s remarks, this repetition would be even more enthralling: ‘He did what? He called her what?’ This kind of excitement provides emphasis to Yoho’s comments. There is particular stress on “crazy” and “dangerous.” The parallelism allows the reader to find cohesion (Kolln and Gray 129, 152-153). The remarks Ocasio-Cortez relays to her audience are not broken up by different structures or introductions. She consistently states, “he called me.” This, in effect, keeps the reader focused and attentive to the string of offensive remarks, instilling outrage and disappointment.
A second instance of repetition and parallelism in Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks comes soon after the first. She denies that Yoho’s comments hurt her personally. She says, “Because all of us have had to deal with this in some form, some way, some shape, at some point in our lives” (01:43-03:11). As she repeats “some,” she implies that Yoho’s remarks are not an isolated event; rather, his remarks come in a long line of incidents that Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges she shares with “every woman in this country.” Thus, her use of “all of us” and “in our lives” allows her to build a relationship with the women in the audience. When considered together, the two quotes accomplish three things: instill anger in the audience towards Yoho and disgust towards his remarks, imply Yoho’s remarks are not isolated and are an unfortunate consistency throughout Ocasio-Cortez’s life, and build a shared experience with Ocasio-Cortez’s target audience, which is actually split. She is simultaneously addressing men and women to different effects: men are meant to feel guilty and responsible, while women are meant to feel sympathy.
In his essay, White observes his fellow campers and writes, “This was the American family at play, escaping the city heat, wondering whether the newcomers at the camp at the head of the cove were ‘common’ or ‘nice,’ wondering whether it was true that people who drove up for Sunday dinner at the farmhouse were turned away because there wasn’t enough chicken” (3). Here, White exhibits parallelism in structure. His use of gerunds provide a sense of eloquence and activity. Given White wants to reminiscence in past experiences and merge them with the present, eloquence and activity are welcomed sentiments for the reader. White does not provide the kind of repetition that Ocasio-Cortez has. However, White’s objective of describing the experiences at the lake is made stronger without repetition. Although repetition does not imply the experiences themselves were repetitive, it may lead the reader to believe they were. Ocasio-Cortez uses repetition to make it apparent to her audience that Yoho’s remarks have been a repeated occurance in her life. Thus, repetition may not serve White so well in this manner. After all, why would someone feel nostalgic about a camping experience that feels repetitive? Repetitive would be counter to White’s portrayal of activity and eloquence. Even though White and his son engage in almost routine activities—fishing, swimming, boating—White’s recollection of his childhood negates any sense of the story being repetitive. He says, “You remember one thing, and that suddenly reminds you of another thing” (1). He adds, “I kept remembering everything…. It was like the revival of an old melodrama that I had seen with childish awe.” (4-5). By continuously remembering the first time he ever experienced these activities, White allows himself to reconnect to the “childish awe” those first experiences instilled in him. He is not so much repeating activities, but instead repeating positive emotions. As for the reader, they can see a parallelism in his wording as well as the parallels between White’s past and present but without any perception of repetitiveness.
Both Ocasio-Cortez and White portray themselves as being in control of the narrative. Both of them make their statements from personal sentiments, but from different sources. White derives his purpose from the personal bonds he has forged with his son and his own childhood: years could not separate White from his affections for his childhood memories, sentiments he hopes to pass on to his son. Ocasio-Cortez makes it evident she derives her purpose and conviction from personal wounds: “he called me.” Both Ocasio-Cortez and White build shared experiences. Ocasio-Cortez shares her experiences with the women in her audience. White shares the experiences with himself (past and present), his father, his son, and the other campers.
The two works differ in how the reader assesses Ocasio-Cortez and White. The reader is meant to feel sympathy and reverence towards Ocasio-Cortez — sympathy for her years of being the recipient of offensive remarks, and reverence for her bravery and solidarity with her fellow women, a stance that many would argue is long-overdue. The reader feels more inclined to involve themselves with Ocasio-Cortez’s narrative, whereas the reader may feel more inclined to ‘sit back and watch’ the narrative being portrayed by White. White’s narrative is unique to himself not only because it is, of course, his personal story, but also because his story evades the circumstances of his time. As White and his son have a nostalgia-filled summer escape to the lakes of Maine, the world is in its second world war, and many sons are dying far away in unfamiliar places. White is afforded the privilege to take his reader for a ride as he navigates his way through past and present experiences that are out of the readers’ control. Ocasio-Cortez, representing herself as a casualty of another person’s privilege, wants to apply the past to the future. The future is never certain and she is addressing all generations of Americans, men and women as well. Ocasio-Cortez forces the reader to think with her about the implications of the past. She has a universal message, whereas White’s message is most definitely not shared amongst the readers of his time.
In the use of parallelism, an author may feel inclined to also build up to a climax. The term climax used here should not be confused with the climax in a sequence of a story, but it does bear resemblance. Just as a story can develop to a critical moment for its plot, a sentence or set of sentences can end itself with a climax of ideas (Kolln and Gray 49-51). For example, observe how Ocasio-Cortez uses parallelism in this sentence: “I could not allow my nieces, I could not allow the little girls that I go home to, I could not allow victims of verbal abuse and worse to see that, to see that excuse and to see our Congress accept it as legitimate and accept it as an apology and to accept silence as a form of acceptance. I could not allow that to stand which is why I am rising today to raise this point of personal privilege” (04:35-05:49). The parallel structure and repetition introduce a series of clauses with “I could not….” The repeated use of the opening is an example of anaphora (Kolln and Gray 130). The parallelism builds up until Ocasio-Cortez reaches the climax: She could not allow that to stand, and she goes on further explaining her purpose before the House. The climax is the definitive statement. This is where all the repetition and parallelism has led to. This is the most important statement. This is “why [she is] rising today.”
White also creates a climax in his sentence: “We caught two bass, hauling them in briskly as though they were mackerel, pulling them over the side of the boat in a businesslike manner without any landing net, and stunning them with a blow on the back of the head” (2). White uses climax to narrate a specific instant with his son. This is another use of parallelism (continuous use of gerunds) that culminates with the climax of killing the fish. The reader is drawn into this action sequence that is resolved by a climatic finish. It is climactic both rhetorically and in terms of the sequence of events. Both Ocasio-Cortez and White create a climactic point to show their readers that they have reached a control over the ideas, and they are steering the readers toward an end goal. Ocasio-Cortez’s climactic end goal is to show purpose for speaking. White’s climactic end goal is to finish an action sequence.
Another way Ocasio-Cortez and White take an authority of their narrative is by using short sentences. In order to dispel Yoho’s use of his daughter and wife as part of his apology for his behavior, Ocasio-Cortez issues this statement, “I am someone’s daughter too” (05:49-07:12). She then goes on to claim she will not anguish herself waiting for Yoho to properly apologize: “I will not do that to myself” (07:12-08:18). Short sentences gravitate more attention than longer sentences (Kolln and Gray 29-30). Here are clear instances of Ocasio-Cortez using that fact to her advantage. There is no surprise that both sentences begin with “I.” Ocasio-Cortez wants her reader to feel the impact of these short, yet meaningful sentences. What made her write such short sentences in the midst of her longer remarks? Obviously, it comes from personal conviction: “I am…,” “I will….” Similarly, White uses short sentences. When he describes the nature of the lake, he says, “There had been no years” (3). White wishes to be firm and declarative to his readers in his recollection of events. He asserts with confidence that nothing has changed. The emphasis in the sentence falls on “no.” This strengthens the readers’ trust in White’s narrative. Another short sentence by White is a deliberate fragment. Within his remembrance of the lake, he adds, “Peace and goodness and jollity” (4). White only wants to encapsulate the serenity of the experience. This serenity must not be shared with any other ideas because it is personally significant to White. Thus, a short sentence suffices.
Both Ocasio-Cortez and White use short sentences to command authority from their audiences. Ocasio-Cortez obtains authority through justified defiance and strong will. White obtains authority through his confidence in detail and assessment. Of course, the authors do not blatantly say, “I am defiant,” or “I am confident in my recollection.” Good narrators will show, not tell. Through short sentences, Ocasio-Cortez and White show these sides of themselves without explicitly telling the audience.
Throughout their respective pieces, Ocasio-Cortez and White enhance their writing with a play on words. The first device is anadiplosis. This is used when one clause ends and another begins with the same word or phrase (“Anadiplosis”). There are two instances where Ocasio-Cortez uses it in her speech. When she begins a fiery condemnation of men using derogatory terms towards women, she says, “It happens when individuals who hold the highest office in this land admit, admit to hurting women and using this language against all of us” (09:06). In the course of her speech, Ocasio-Cortez insinuates that Yoho has not only wronged her, but also wronged women across the country; he adheres to a terrible culture that has treated and continues to treat women so poorly. Insinuation is one thing, but now Ocasio-Cortez puts special emphasis on “admit” by ending the first clause and beginning the second with the same action. In Ocasio-Cortez’s mind, the act of Yoho admitting he has used derogatory terms towards women is not best served by saying it once. She needs to say it twice and add how Yoho’s admission is an affliction towards “all of us” women. In the second clause, “admit” is not the only word that has emphasis. “Us” also has stress on it, creating an even greater sense of solidarity with her female audience.
Contrast her first use of anadiplosis with her second use of it: “Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man, and when a decent man messes up as we all are bound to do, he tries his best and does apologize” (08:18-09:06). “Decent man” is clearly in the limelight of Ocasio-Cortez’s sentence. This is another instance of showing, not telling. Ocasio-Cortez has branded Yoho as the opposite of a decent man because he admits to his actions but refuses to take the proper responsibility for them. Yoho is evasive and not forthcoming. Characterizing him as such without explicitly saying so can be created by Ocasio-Cortez’s use of anadiplosis. The emphasis and stress allow the reader to infer the intention behind her words.
White uses anadiplosis in a manner similar to Ocasio-Cortez’s second use of it. Towards the end of his essay, as White begins to make his final assessments of the camping experience, he states, “This was the big scene, still the big scene” (5). It is a conclusive statement, in which White reaffirms that the present lake and camping experience resembles the experiences from his childhood. There is emphasis on “still” and, of course, “big scene.” The reader can feel the confidence White instills in his statement. There is no uncertainty. An alternative way White could have written this sentence is, “This was the big scene, [and it] still [is] the big scene.” We can see here how White uses ellipsis to leave out phrases that are understood (Kolln and Gray 132-133). This omission allows the sentence to be more precise and controlled by White.
Ocasio-Cortez’s use of anadiplosis is to uphold Yoho to his actions, turn her audience against him, and place herself on the moral high ground. White does not use anadiplosis to reflect badly on anyone else. Rather, he uses anadiplosis to reflect on his own ability to recall detail and connect to the past. Nonetheless, their uses of anadiplosis aid in their ability to command the narrative and direct the readers towards sentiments the two authors want them to feel. This is an indispensable tool, not only for politicians like Ocasio-Cortez, but also for storytellers like White.
An additional rhetorical device involving repeating phrases is antimetabole. This time, however, the repeated phrases are in reverse. For example, Ocasio-Cortez explains the wife and daughter excuse is a fallacy: “And so what I believe is that having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man” (08:18-09:06). Ocasio-Cortez reverses “decent man” and creates two different meanings. Her proposition can be more definitively stated as, “Having a daughter does not transform a man into decency. Having a wife does not show the decency of a man.” The use of antimetabole is a witty way for Ocasio-Cortez to explain herself. The purpose of her speech is to condemn the idea that having a daughter or wife excuses inappropriate language towards women. The antimetabole accomplishes this and has the added benefit of being catchy and quote-worthy. Politicians are always searching for the one-liner or debate hook to jab at their opponents. It is evident to the audience that Ocasio-Cortez has found hers.
White also uses antimetabole but more subtly. White says, “I began to sustain the illusion that [my son] was I, and therefore, by simple transposition, that I was my father” (2). White has reversed “was I” from one clause to the other. The purpose of White’s essay is to illustrate how the imagery and sentiments of the lake remain constant, but the roles are transferable: he becomes his father, and his son becomes him. White’s use of antimetabole is an eloquent way of stating this occurrence. Recall how White’s repetition and parallel use of gerunds added an eloquence to his wording. The antimetabole reaffirms that eloquence and engages the reader with the abstract idea of transposition.
Ocasio-Cortez’s use of antimetabole puts her in a position to judge. Her moral high-ground gives her that responsibility. Her self-identification as a fellow victim gives her the right to confront the culprit. As stated earlier, White exhibits eloquence in his imagery and eloquence in how he describes such imagery. This duality adds to the fairy tale-aspect of his story. Fairy tales, or children stories, usually involve a lot of flowery language to charm the reader with the ‘magic’ of the scene. White authored many children’s books, but he may have excused this essay from that flowery diction. His use of antimetabole helps get similar ideas across to his audience. Without antimetabole, Ocasio-Cortez’s idea would be more lengthy and less characteristic of a political speech, and White’s ideas would lose the essence of eloquence and charm he had been establishing throughout the essay.
The last major rhetorical tool that Ocasio-Cortez and White share is the use, or lack of use, of conjunctions when creating a series. Polysyndeton is the excess use of coordinating conjunctions, while Asyndeton is the absence of coordinating conjunctions (Kolln and Gray 128-129). Ocasio-Cortez uses asyndeton as she depicts Yoho’s actions as having greater repercussions than he may have assumed. She says, “In using that language in front of the press, he gave permission to use that language against his wife, his daughters, women in his community, and I am here to stand up to say that is not acceptable” (07:12-0:8:18). The list is composed of wife, daughter, and women in the community. Ocasio-Cortez does not put “and” before “women in his community.” Ocasio-Cortez implicates Yoho’s actions as an offense to a never-ending list of women in America. The asyndeton does not give any emphasis to each listed object (wife, daughter, women in community), but it implies the list of victims can go on and on. ‘Victims’ is a strong word, but given the circumstances, it would not be a far cry to assume Ocasio-Cortez wishes to portray women as victims of never-ending misogyny from men. This misogyny coincides with the use of the asyndeton: never-ending misogyny equates to a never-ending list of victims.
White uses polysyndeton in his essay. In the beginning, he describes why he prefers to go to the lake than the ocean. He claims, “I have since become a salt-water man, but sometimes in summer there are days when the restlessness of the tides and the fearful cold of the sea water and the incessant wind which blows across the afternoon and into the evening make me wish for the placidity of the woods” (1). Here, White uses an excess of “and.” The polysyndeton allows White to list three aspects of the ocean (restless tides, cold water, and wind) without sacrificing emphasis on any one of the three. The excess “and” adds rhythm to the sentence, as the reader bounces from one idea to another. The sentence is lengthy, but White can focus the readers’ attention to the details he feels important to him. White begins his essay by describing a trip to the lake in Maine when he was a young boy, but now he has “since become a salt-water man.” White is his own man now with his own preferences and judgements. He can go where he pleases. So what would compel him back to the lake? What would override his preferences that he has accumulated in the years since boyhood? Evidently, it is the restless tides, cold water, and incessant wind of the ocean. All three can be so brutally harsh that they convince White to turn his back on his own present-day preferences and return to the sanctity provided to him when he was a young boy: a sanctity from his past.
Ocasio-Cortez and White—separated by decades, circumstance, and purpose—show that rhetorical devices are not limited by genre or style. Kurt Vonnegut said, “Find a subject you care about and which you in your heart feel others should care about. It is this genuine caring, and not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style” (qtd. in “Quotable Quotes”). Ocasio-Cortez and White, when writing their respective pieces, did not think to themselves, ‘I will use parallelism and anadiplosis to convey my ideas.’ It was the passion that led them through their drafts: Ocasio-Cortez’s passion for change and White’s passion to enjoy the memories of his childhood.
In a chapter of Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Craig Hulst writes, “The rhetorical situation of a piece of writing is everything surrounding it—who the audience is, the purpose for writing it, the genre of the writing, etc.” (88-89). The difference in rhetorical situation between Ocasio-Cortez and White is obvious, but the rhetorical devices they used empowered both authors to control the events around them and command the narrative. The reader trusts White’s recollection of his camping experience, and the reader understands how White jumps between past and present and realizes the end of his childhood and the beginning of his son’s. The reader can feel the frustrations in Ocasio-Cortez’s speech. The reader grows disappointed with Yoho’s poor excuse and the culture he perpetuates. The reader can focus on the implications of the issue Ocasio-Cortez addresses, and she engages them to think about how to prevent the future from being a repeat of the past. Some readers may believe White’s essay is an example of his privilege or that Ocasio-Cortez’s judgement is incorrect, but there is no dispute that the correct rhetorical tools gifted the two authors with the means to make their case in the first place.
“Anadiplosis.” Literary Devices, go.shr.lc/2Zia6Ul. Accessed 6 Aug. 2020.
“Antimetabole.” Literary Devices, go.shr.lc/30RgT6D. Accessed 6 Aug. 2020.