I remember this assignment amongst one of the very first lessons in the beginning of the semester when it came to critical analysis writing. Though I might have missed some areas that are open for interpretation in the article, I felt adequate in attempting to analyze rhetoric. All of our in class discussions about identifying the exigency of a piece and how it differed from the main idea, really helped to transform the way I read literature and even view films. Determining the exigency, the genre, audience, tone and incorporating ones own thought into deducting an analysis were all tools that I felt evolve during this course. By ordering my thoughts into a structured outline as I did with this first assignment, It helped me to see the correlation between every piece of writing I have done. The next step would be to combine all of these bullet points into one cohesive argument and deduction. As you browse through my portfolio, I hope that with each piece of writing, the amount of growth I was able to achieve this semester shines through.
“There is No Right Way To Mourn – The ‘Grief Police’ Wield Lamentable Shaming Tactics” – By Sian Beilock, February 2nd 2020. The New York Times.
Exigency – Beilock introduces the main focus of the article piece with the reminder of the late beloved basketball star, Kobe Bryant. With the use of recent events, the author immediately ties a commonly experienced formality to their main purpose for the article. The title of this op-ed allows for the readers to immediately guess at what the article is going to highlight. The author expresses their disdain for the “grief police” by stating, “Grief is no longer private these days, which lets us mourn together. But doing so also allows people to publicly shame how others deal with loss.” He goes on to explain that though there is no right or wrong way to deal with grief, there are others who will disagree. These so called “others” are solely responsible for the unnecessary guilt that is often carried after the death of someone. As stated in the article, “These “grief police” enforce murky standards of who should be sad, when they’re allowed to be and to what degree. They insist that our grief must be overwhelming and ubiquitous, and for all parts of our lives to be put on hold. This isn’t just problematic in the moment; introducing guilt into the grieving process can negatively impact others’ ability to heal.” It can be observed that the author is unbiased towards any degree of grief and defends the natural process of healing rather than agreeing with policing each and every move the individual experiencing grief might make.
Genre – Since this is an op-ed from The New York Times, the genre rests between non-fiction and fiction. It fuses facts with personal bouts of thought and emotion. We can understand the author’s stance in regards to the article while at the same time fabricating our own opinions on the topic. As evident in the following quote, “I wasn’t aware of students policing others’ grief, but the perception that this was happening still had an effect, especially given the media attention around the tragedy.”, the author incorporates himself into the piece with the use of “I”. Also, the author allows room for it’s readers to formulate their own reaction as they see fit.
Audience – The targeted audience of this article extends to anyone willing to read it. It was mainly written to address the audience whom may share the same idea that there are in fact others whom feel responsible for “policing” valid guilt and remorse of those whom have died. The audience also may be fans of Kobe Bryant, or just individuals whom want light shed on this topic in order to dissolve pre existing ideas of what remorse should look like rather than what it truly is.
Tone – There is an argumentative feel to the article as well as frustration. With the use of questions such as, “Public grieving doesn’t happen in a single community where there are shared social norms for how to react, like sitting shiva or walking in a second line. If bereaved players are slow to comment publicly, should we call them out? Must everyone who has ever met Bryant say something in public?”, we can feel the author’s raw emotions bursting through the writing. He is questioning the subject with the use of rhetorical situations in order to make a point to the audience. The author does not separate himself from the audience, but rather includes himself with the use of “we”. Overall, the article provides comfort to those whom process guilt all the while carrying on with their daily lives as they normally would.
Personally – While I read this article, i already had a sense of what the details would entail from the title alone. But as I continued to carry on with the reading, I was astounded that the author is resistant to being forced to exude grief and calls out the “grief police”. I have heard that term before, but never thought much of it. It was refreshing to be reminded that there are people out there that are unafraid to go against mass ideals as expressed on platforms such as social media. As a member of the audience, I appreciated the content of this article and was reminded myself, to not worry over how I may be perceived when I find myself experience grief.
Link to Article – https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/opinion/kobe-bryant-death.html
