Professor Stephanie Rosen
Rhetoric of Health 309K
14 February 2012
Rhetorical Analysis
of “Obsession: Against Mental Health”
The
author of “Obsession: Against Mental Health,” Lennard J. Davis, is an English
professor in the
School of Arts and Sciences, a Professor of Disability and Human Development in
the School of Applied Health Sciences, and a Professor of Medical Education in
the College of Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is also
the author of numerous books and publications and the recipient of numerous
awards for these works (Welcome). In this chapter, Davis looks to analyze the
history of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and how the disease is treated
today. Davis scrutinizes the way the medical world has come to misclassify the
disease due to a lack of consideration for the biocultural component of the
disorder. Davis argues that diagnosing an individual with a psychiatric
disorder solely using tests, simple observations, and then choosing the appropriate
disease is a method that is against health (Davis 122). Davis believes that an
understanding of the history of science and medicine is essential for optimal
medical practices. Davis is persuasive with this argument through the use of
direct appeals to the reader’s logos with well-constructed arguments, the use
of ethos with well-researched information, the frequent use of rhetorical
questions, the use of analogies, and an authoritative writing style.
Davis
begins this chapter with a simple history lesson to inform the reader of OCD’s
past as a disease. This introduction sets up the basis of Davis’ main argument
about the currently flawed approach towards OCD in the medical field. Davis
quickly establishes his ethos by introducing a number of statistics about OCD
in the 1970s. Coupled with these statistics, Davis notes that OCD used to be
“’unquestionably, one of the rarest forms of mental disorders’” (121). After
presenting the reader with this history, Davis explains how the prevalence of
this disorder in our society has escalated exponentially. The way Davis
presents this information immediately instills doubt in the reader about this
unexplainable rise. Davis then proceeds to explain the medical fields flawed
assessment of disease and their severe lack of consideration for the history he
just presented with the reader. Davis’ juxtaposition of the credible sources
and statistics that he provides with his slandering of the “practices in
medicine” that “can be against health” serves to position the reader on his
side before he enters the core of his argument (122).
This
chapter is written so that it can be understood by just about any educated
audience however Davis seems to be targeting those in the medical field in
order to raise awareness about it’s flaws. Davis does a rather successful job
of constructing his arguments. His general strategy throughout the work is to
introduce an idea or perspective that is taken by those that he opposes. He
then logically deconstructs this idea until he has proven it completely wrong.
This is evidenced when he deconstructs the idea that OCD has always been
around and exists throughout all cultures. He explains how certain articles
used few sources and poor research to reach claims that OCD is pervasive in all
cultures. He establishes his ethos by referencing the footnotes of the study
and then appeals to the reader’s pathos by exclaiming, “two articles are the
sole basis for the rather sweeping claim that OCD symptoms are consistent
across all cultures and times” (Davis 124)!
Davis
also makes extensive use of rhetorical questions in order to further persuade
the reader of his point. When discussing the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive
Scale (Y-BOCS), Davis highlights its flaws and then asks multiple rhetorical
questions in a row to end the paragraph. His questions are accusatory and leading,
leaving the reader feeling that the Y-BOCS must be flawed. He continues discussing
this widely regarded yet flawed scale into the next paragraph where he wonders
how it can “be used to justify the claim of the global universality of OCD”
(Davis 125)? Once again, this technique leaves the reader obligated to answer
this question the way that Davis would himself, thus convincing the reader of
his argument.
Another
effective technique that Davis implements is the use of analogies. Davis
criticizes the way practitioners simply look at the mechanisms of the brain
when evaluating mental disorders while failing to look at historical
information about the individual. He likens this approach to a spark plug in a
car. His analogy essentially explains that understanding a disease like OCD
should be “like trying to understand how a car got to Philadelphia” where as
researchers are simply “trying to figure out how a [car’s] spark plug (the
brain) functions” (Davis 126). This analogy helps the reader relate the issue
at hand to a very simple everyday problem that is rather simple to understand.
This technique helps to strengthen Davis’ argument because the analogy he
provides is one that is hard to dispute.
Davis
finishes the chapter by looking at possible reasons why there was such a stark
increase in cases of OCD from the 1970s to the 2000s. For each possible reason
he presents, he uses the same organization that was explained before. He
presents the issue and then systematically explains why it is incorrect. The
methodical, logical structure that Davis uses to deconstruct these ideas
appeals to the reader’s logos as he/she can’t help but agree by the end. For
instance, Davis cites how “researchers will mention that previous regimens [for
curing OCD] were ineffective” (128). Davis then presents the reader with
statistics citing that previous regimens actually worked just fine, and then
finishes the paragraph warning us to “look with suspicion on how the current
moment characterizes the past” (128). This last statement is especially
persuasive due to the authority with which he says it, coupled with the ethos
he just established in the statistics a few lines before.
Davis
finishes the piece by discussing the effects of the print media on the increased
prevalence of the disease and by also addressing the idea of the “hidden
epidemic.” Davis ridicules the term and explains that it can apply to just
about any disease. He then concludes by readdressing the argument he presented
at the beginning of the chapter. He essentially argues against the idea that
the rate of OCD has actually sky rocketed and instead that various other
factors have accounted for the increase in OCD cases. These sources include the
print media, researchers publicizing the disorder for their personal benefit,
and the “me too” process where individuals think they fit the diagnosis as more
and more of their peers do. He finishes by asserting his support of the
consideration of biocultural factors when assessing disease and that “health
belongs to the promoters of an explanation as well those who oppose that
explanation” (Davis 130). Davis is effective with his arguments throughout the
chapter by implementing the use of analogies, appeals to pathos, ethos, and
logos, rhetorical questions, and effective organization in order to persuade
the reader of his ideas.
Works
Cited
Davis, Lennard J.
“Obsession: Against Mental Health.” Against Health: How Health Became the
New Morality. New York: New York UP, 2010. 121-132. Print.
"Welcome." Lennard
J. Davis. Stefanie Gold Design, 2009. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
<http://www.lennarddavis.com/home.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment