The Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Hidden Intellectualism'

Intellectuality needs to be redefined; what does the word intellectual mean? Typically one would describe someone as either “street-smart” or “book-smart,” in other words someone who knows how to live in the real world versus someone who has knowledge about academics. But is one more “intellectual” than the other? In the article “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff addresses this issue and brings to the audience’s—the audience being experts about the subject along with himself—attention that schools are missing the opportunity to fuse together street-smarts and book-smarts to increase overall academic performance. Graff definitively presents his opinion on this topic by manipulating ethos, pathos, and logos. Through ethos his credibility

This twist reveals his logical thought process about the topic itself, “Hidden Intellectualism.” All of these at times blend together, effectively carrying through Graff’s main purpose. Speaking in regard to Graff’s credibility, throughout his article, he alludes to George Orwell, and Shakespeare, but doesn’t hesitate to mention sports figures such as Joe DiMaggio and Bob Feller. In these quotes, Graff writes, “a George Orwell writing on the cultural meanings of penny postcards is infinitely more substantial than the cogitations of many professors on Shakespeare or globalization” (265), and “I also loved the sports novels for boys of John R. Tunis and Clair Bee and autobiographies of sports stars like Joe DiMaggio’s Lucky to be a Yankee, and Bob Feller’s Strikeout Story” (265). In mentioning both spectrums of what he calls intellectualism, this provides Graff with more credibility because not only does

He explains two different kinds of people in two different neighborhoods from his childhood: “On the one hand, it was necessary to maintain the boundary between “clean-cut” boys like me and working-class “hoods,” as we called them, which meant that it was good to be openly smart in a bookish sort of way. On the other hand, I was desperate for the approval of the hoods, whom I encountered daily on the playing field and in the neighborhood, and for this purpose it was not at all good to be book-smart” (266). This backstory he shares reveals not only his past, but it helps to give him a purpose for writing. Based on his personal experiences as a boy with two different kinds of “intellectuals,” he has firsthand seen both kinds of intellectualism in action, so he can easily argue for both sides, creating a complete argument incorporating aspects of each side. Furthermore, he specifically he mentions the terms “clean-cut” boys, and “hoods.” These simple quotes using slang terms from his neighborhood exemplify his situation and brings us back to his childhood, helping the audience visualize the situation he is coming from. Simultaneously, this invokes a reaction in the audience about each distinct term, making the audience think about Graff’s argument in relation to their own thoughts and connotations of each term. Therefore,