I was attracted to this article as soon as I read the title. My grandma experienced the inequality of driving in Saudi Arabia first hand when her and my grandpa lived in the country. I've been interested in the subject matter ever since she shared her experiences with me, and decided this article would be perfect for my first blog analysis. The New York Times' Editorial Board, the authors of this editorial, is assumed to be experienced in writing editorials. Also, given that The New York Times tends to have a more democratic outlook in general, The Editorial Board is most likely liberal and it is expected for this to reflect in the text. As far as the topic goes, I suspect the author chose it due to the interest in the fight for women's rights around the world, not only in Saudi Arabia, but then singled in on the country because of the recent legislative activity that has occurred. The editorial was most likely intended for a more liberal, non-Muslim, feminist audience. This would indicate the strong stance taken in the article, as the authors wouldn't have been so direct had they been writing to conservative Muslims. The purpose the article is to call attention to the recent changes that have been occurring in the Saudi state and to gain support for the women who are fighting for these changes. The author even makes a point to give the date on which the law should go into effect: "June 24", and to praise a group of women "known as 'the drivers'" for their impact on the situation. Women's rights in Saudi Arabia is the broad topic of this piece, but being more specific, it is about the recent progression of women's driving rights in the state. A forthright and cynical tone is established in the very first line of the text when the author expresses how "it's difficult not to be a bit sardonic about women in Saudi Arabia getting the right to drive." It seems as though the authors are speaking indirectly to the Saudi government in a derisive way, and they aren't shy about their opinion.
The article begins with a sort of mix between formal and non-formal voice. The diction, putting words like sardonic, nonsensical, and onerous into use, gives the writing a more formal feel. However, the syntax has the opposite effect. The use of contractions, beginning a sentence with a conjunction, and the inclusion of phrases such as "after all" provide the reader with a more informal relationship with the authors. This back and forth formality continues throughout the text and is most likely an attempt by the authors to reflect both the important and preposterous state of the subject matter. Established right off the bat is the authors' position on the topic. They are strong supporters of women's rights and are perhaps disgusted by the restrictions the Saudi government places on its female residents. The previously mentioned diction, in addition to describing the Wahhabi as "ultraconservative", is the most obvious indicator of this perspective. The position is reinforced throughout the editorial being that only one side of the argument is presented. The authors are sure to state the positive implications of Saudi women earning the right to drive, yet fails to mention why it has taken so long to propose such a law and the law's relationship with the Sunni religion. This editorial is specifically successful when it comes to drawing a response from readers. Throughout much of the piece, the authors appeal to the audience's sense of gratitude. One line in particular almost accusingly targets the Saudi government as "denying women such an everyday function as driving." Because this is the truth, and the reader most likely drives a vehicle every day, it draws a gracious response from them because they don't have to comply to such laws, but also raises the reader's attention due to the familiarity of the topic. Just before this line, the author also appeals to credibility twice. The first time comes when they name the specific date that the law is planned to go in effect. The presence of an exact day brings a sense of realness and urgency to the editorial. The second appeal to credibility is when the editorial board references Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman "who is said to view greater participation of Saudi women in the workforce..." By sharing an opinion with the Prince of the country being addressed, the authors become more believable and respectable. Lastly, the writers appeal to logic when they discuss the event in 1990 when "47 women staged a protest..." The use of facts and the series of events evoke a response of reasoning from the reader. The Editorial Board was semi-successful in this editorial. It developed a strong argument using diction and syntax, and appealed to the reader's senses of gratitude, credibility, and logic. However, it failed to present a counter-argument which leaves readers wondering about the missing information. Had the author presented this opposing side and provided a well-written rebuttal, the argument would have been much stronger and the audience would have been more likely to side with them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAveri Childress; high school student, culture addict, softball player, artist Archives
February 2018
Categories |