Hi all, I just completed a language analysis piece on the Chickens Range Free article in the sample exam. Feel free to pass any comments you have on my writing, including suggestions and possible improvements! Thanks.
Chickens Range Free
The recent illegal release of hundreds of chickens from cages on a farmer’s truck by animal activist has sparked community debate over the actions of these activists and the rights of animals. In her opinionative piece, “Chickens Range Free”, Jo Smith argues that animals such as chickens have rights and should thus be treated humanely. Writing to an audience of those who are not proponents of animal rights, Smith asserts that those responsible for the release of the caged chickens should not be prosecuted for their actions, and attempts to convince the reader that their actions were justified.
Smith introduces herself as a member of Australians for Animal Rights (AAR), immediately drawing the reader’s attention to her personal involvement in this issue. The reader is more inclined to trust and believe what Smith has to say as her involvement in the AAR would make her privy to the real conditions of animals and lends weight and authority to her claims that such animals are oppressed. Smith’s use of the words “freedom”, “liberation” and “oppressed” in reference to the chickens appeals to the reader’s sense of justice and desire for freedoms and also positions the reader to view the suffering of chickens in the same manner as human suffering, as the notion of being “oppressed”, along with the concepts of liberty and freedom, is associated with human suffering. Smith also lauds the actions of the activists as being for a “noble cause”, and the readers are more inclined to support the cause of the activists as they themselves would like to be associated with something that is considered righteous and good. The activists are portrayed in a positive light as being selfless and willing to “risk life and limb” for the animals, giving the reader the impression that the activists are courageous, morally upright and fighting for a worthy cause, ultimately persuading the reader to support the actions of these activists.
The local media and opponents of the actions of the animal activists are criticized and ridiculed by Smith. Smith’s statement that the media has “fallen over themselves to give air time to the critics of the action” implies that the media has been biased in their coverage of the issue and had not given an opportunity for animal rights activists to voice their views on the matter, prompting the reader to side with Smith and the activists as their views are seen to have been slighted by the media. The reader is also positioned to be more receptive towards Smith’s stance and argument. The inclusion of criticism of the activists’ actions from “a man who was walking his dog nearby” and a “talk-back radio presenter” ridicules the opposition as they are seen to have no authority or even experience in the matters of animal welfare, and seem to the reader to be ill-informed, unlike Smith. Thus the reader is motivated to adopt Smith’s stance as she seems to be well-informed on the issue relative to the opposition.
Smith reinforces her stance on the issue by introducing the notion that by mistreating animals, we, as humans, are also “doing ourselves an injustice”. Smith relates the abuse of animal rights as almost tantamount to “condoning widespread human rights abuses”, immediately evoking a sense of alarm in the reader. Not wanting their individual rights to be abused, the reader naturally supports Smith as Smith’s association leads the reader to believe that by supporting animal rights they are also supporting their own rights, and that it would lead to personal benefits on the reader’s part. Smith’s use of the inclusive “we” in “we have over-populated the planet” and “we treat ‘farm animals’ in abominably cruel ways” imbues a sense of guilt in the reader for having been partly responsible for the plight of animals, and prompts the reader to support animal rights so as to assuage their sense of guilt and shame.
Smith refers to those who support the rights of animals as “compassionate people”, and denigrates those who do not support animal rights as having a “simplistic human-centred view of the world”. The reader is thus persuaded to lend his or her support to the animal activists in a bid to be associated with those who are deemed to be “compassionate” and selfless, while shunning the opponents of animal rights as they are portrayed by Smith to be selfish and uncaring. Supporting animal rights and freeing of caged animals is made to seem like the only human and caring alternative, as Smith describes the living conditions of animals, namely chickens, to be “inhumane” – “trapped in cages only 450 centimetres in size” and “without proper ventilation”. The reader is made to see the horrid living conditions that caged chickens must endure, and automatically supports the activist’s freeing of cages chickens due to a sense of disgust and outrage at the treatment of the chickens. This is compounded by the article’s accompanying picture, which depicts three chickens being housed in a cage. The chickens seem malnourished and unhealthy, and their living conditions are seen to be squalid and here is little space for movement. The bars of the cage emphasise the notion that these chickens are being oppressed and are not liberated. The picture serves to give a shocking visual representation of the horrible living conditions of the chickens, prompting indignation and sympathy from the reader as the chickens are depicted as being mistreated, leading the reader to sanction the actions of the activists.
Having established the undesirable living conditions of the chickens, Smith continues by emphasising that animals should be treated well and have rights akin to that of humans. Referring to animals as “sentient beings” and being able to feel suffering – “can they suffer?” – the reader is prompted to both sympathise with the abused animals and to take action to prevent the suffering of animals as Smith reveals that animals have feelings and can feel emotion and pain like humans. Naturally wishing not the cause pain to any creature, the reader is positioned to support the animal activists in their bid to liberate the caged chickens. Justifying the actions of the animal rights supporters as being “humane”, the reader sides with Smith and the activists so as to associate him or herself with those who are fighting for seemingly righteous and humane ideals, one that is an “important issue” and that deserves immediate and widespread attention.
Through the use of various persuasive techniques, Smith advocates the better treatment of animals and backs the measures taken by the activists to free the caged chickens, exposing the terrible living conditions of these animals, and ultimately attempting to motivate the reader to support animal rights and the humane handling of animals.
//
I'm aware that the introduction is rather awkward, I didn't really know how to contextualise the issue.
Home
Help
Search
Login
