In this open letter to President Clinton, a group of concerned men have come together in the interest of the United States and its allies to urge the president to take action and address the need of a new foreign policy in the Middle East. The group pushes him to use his upcoming State of the Union address to outline his plan of handling the crisis in Iraq. However, the aim is not merely to target the President, but also to engage politically-active citizens in this call for policy change.
This letter demonstrates how easily Kinneavy's genres can blur. In his text, Kinneavy describes when a writer "embod[ies] his personal or group aspirations in a discourse, the discourse tends to be expressive." (303). This would hold true if it were not for the fact that the intended reading of this letter depends entirely on how the audience interprets it. Due to this, the focus shifts from a genre of expressive to that of persuasive. The encoders are trying to sway the decoders to follow their intended course of action. Hopefully, the writers will succeed in subscribing the readers to the determined goal.
The fact that this letter is much more focused on how the reader would have interpreted it, than what the writer actually puts on paper really is decided based on by whom the letter is written. To the general public, these names may not mean much, but to President Clinton, these names would have completely altered the way he read this piece. The audience construction is the most crucial part of a political writing (especially for one with an agenda like this). The writers of this piece know that Clinton is not on their side, and because of that, they have to tailor the letter to make it something that he may actually read without bias or constantly thinking of the writer's motives. For those not familiar with the signers of this letter, some of the notables are (among many others of the same political party): Elliott Abrams- a senior policy analyst who served for two Republican Presidents, Richard Armitage- the secretary of state who served under George W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld- the secretary of defense who also under two Republican Presidents. Due to these highly politicized writers, Clinton would have taken this writing with some serious doubt in the back of his head. This is why audience construction is so crucial. The meaning of any writing is useless if the readers does not trust the writer.
Although the explicit goal of this letter was to convince Clinton, and the American public to see the need for a change in foreign policy, this letter can also be read as an example of how a reader's stance or background can determine how a text is read. If the reader came into the text with no background knowledge of the authors, had no political stance, or personal opinions about foreign policy in the Middle East, the reading and understanding of this text would be altered dramatically. After reading this text, it is now easier to see how essential writing to the correct audience makes the utmost difference in the understood meaning of a text.
It is a really interesting point that this letter's importance lies on by whom this letter was written. Those names at the end carry complete different messages depending on the reader. With the introduction of the internet, the complexity of the matter has increased by an incredible amount. For example, President Clinton's decision making though process and even opinions may have been affected when he saw the names at the end of this letter, but also the simple fact that this letter was openly posted on the internet by itself, is another message. Even American citizens who had no knowledge of these authors could have assumed that those names carry values and persuasiveness to politicians. If the non politically involved readers interpreted this, then they might be convinced with the information included in this text. They may strongly believe that the situation in Iraq is worsening, and potentially becoming devastating. The complete opposite could be said on the other hand. There are individuals who dislike politicians for no particular reasons, and those people would be less persuaded after assuming the implications of the names at the end of the letter. Nevertheless, the explicitly intended audience of this letter, Clinton and other political figures must consider with great conviction that this letter was not sent to them but was posted on a website.
ReplyDeleteI like how you emphasize the importance of an intended audience in this letter, and the possibilities for alternative interpretations of the reading depending on the reader's background. However, is it absolutely essential for the reader to know the backgrounds of the authors for them to have the same interpretation of the reading? Is it not possible for someone to read the letter, knowing nothing about the authors or their political histories, and still walk away understanding the text the same way someone who knows the authors would? Is it possibly a necessary aspect of this style of persuasive writing that the reader can automatically accept the author's credibility based on the argument they present?
ReplyDelete