Rhetorical Analysis of Steven Wise's Drawing the Line
This paper presents a rhetorical analysis of selected chapters from Steven Wise's Drawing the Line (2002), focusing on chapters two, three, eleven, and twelve. The analysis examines how Wise constructs his argument that humans and non-human animals are far less different than commonly assumed, using first-hand observations of animals such as Koko the gorilla, parrots, and dolphins. The paper evaluates the rhetorical effectiveness of Wise's appeals, his measured and non-inflammatory tone, and his application of the concept of "liberty" to non-human animals. It concludes that, regardless of one's position on animal rights, Wise presents a well-studied and carefully reasoned case.
- Introduction: Overview of Wise's book and chapters reviewed
- Rhetorical Analysis: Wise's tone, language, and first-hand credibility
- Conclusion: Overall assessment of Wise's persuasive argument
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper stays tightly focused on rhetorical strategy rather than simply summarizing the book's content, distinguishing between what Wise argues and how he argues it.
- It highlights a specific and memorable rhetorical move — Wise's deliberate use of the word "liberty" in relation to animals — and explains why that choice is significant and potentially jarring to readers.
- The paper acknowledges opposing viewpoints fairly, noting that critics exist without dismissing them, which strengthens the analysis's credibility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates ethos-focused rhetorical analysis by evaluating the credibility Wise builds through first-hand animal observation rather than secondary sources. Rather than accepting or rejecting his claims on their merits, the writer assesses how Wise's methodology and tone function to persuade a skeptical audience.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that situates Wise within his broader body of work and identifies the four chapters under review. The central section delivers the rhetorical analysis, covering Wise's argumentative tone, choice of language, use of concrete examples (Koko), and first-hand credibility. A brief conclusion evaluates the overall persuasiveness of Wise's approach while acknowledging that counter-arguments remain possible.
Introduction
The book under review is Drawing the Line by Steven Wise. Wise has written two notable books on animal rights, and Drawing the Line is one of them; his prior work on the same general subject was titled Rattling the Cage. This analysis focuses on four chapters in particular: the second, third, eleventh, and twelfth. Those chapters address several interconnected subjects, including who qualifies for liberty rights, Koko the gorilla, and the question of legal rights for non-human animals. While many people may assert that the animal rights debate is straightforward — and that no animal holds the same or even a similar status as humans — the debate is actually quite deep and expansive. Wise does a masterful job of laying out his case for animal rights across these chapters.
Rhetorical Analysis
One quality that is prevalent throughout all four chapters — and the rest of the book — is that Wise's position on animal rights is firmly in favor of the animals. The animals he discusses include gorillas (most notably Koko), parrots, dolphins, and even his own family dog. His rhetoric in the chapters under review largely centers on the argument that humans and non-human animals are not nearly as different or disparate as many might assume. For example, Koko may appear to many observers to be simply a gorilla and nothing more. However, she has been given a specific name, she is able to communicate with humans quite effectively through sign language, and she possesses many of the same faculties and abilities as humans. Wise is able to deploy his rhetoric with particular force because he is not analyzing these animals from a distance. Rather than merely reviewing the work of others, he is directly present with the animals he studies, enabling him to make first-hand observations (Wise, 2002).
The second, third, and twelfth chapters follow much the same theme: the exploration of animal rights and the slow, skepticism-laden progress of that field. It is argued in these chapters that it is both foolish and potentially unethical to dismiss the rights of animals outright. Wise acknowledges that many people regard humans as superior beings with inherent dominion over animals — a view entrenched even in religious tradition. What makes Wise stand out rhetorically, however, is his deliberate use of the word "liberty" in connection with animals. This is a jarring choice for many readers, since the concept of liberty is widely assumed to apply only to humans. Nevertheless, he presents a compelling and thorough argument grounded in his first-hand observations and studies.
Many readers without an open mind might be aghast — or even offended — at what Wise is suggesting. Yet Wise takes great care to simply state his assertions and ideas on the subject. He is not incendiary, rude, demeaning, or otherwise improper in the way he presents his arguments. He is not a writer who merely assembles personal opinions and publishes them. He has clearly invested considerable time studying the subject. His approach to animal cognition and behavior is methodical, and his conclusions emerge from sustained, careful engagement with the animals in question rather than from armchair theorizing (Wise, 2002).
References
Wise, S. (2002). Drawing the line. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.