Editor's Choice
What language devices, besides anaphora, does King use in this excerpt from "Letter" to support his argument?
"In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."
Quick answer:
In his "Letter," King uses rhetorical questions to challenge the logic of condemning non-violent actions for inciting violence, emphasizing that the perpetrators of violence should be blamed instead. He employs allusions to revered figures like Socrates and Jesus to draw parallels with the Civil Rights movement, suggesting that opposing it is akin to opposing truth and justice. King also uses analogies and appeals to authority, aligning his movement with historical and religious figures to strengthen his argument.
In this passage, King uses the language device of the rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is a question that has only one possible answer and is asked to elicit a pre-ordained response. King here asks a whole string of rhetorical questions. Of course we do not condemn a man for having money because he is robbed or Socrates and Jesus for speaking the truth because it led to their deaths. We condemn the robber and the people who killed Socrates and Jesus. These rhetorical questions expose how absurd it is to condemn non-violent action because it might lead to violence. If people react to non-violent protest with violence, the violent people should be punished, not the non-violent protesters.
King also uses allusions, or references, that align the Civil Rights movement with innocent and revered people who were persecuted, such as Socrates and Jesus.
By “language devices,” I assume you also...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
mean rhetorical strategies. King’s writing is very clear and methodical. First of all, King restates what he claims is a criticism of his movement—that it has “precipitated violence.” The the extent that this is an over simplification on his part of particular criticisms, we can think of this as a kind of “straw man” argument, that is, a proposition created in some measure by King for the purpose of arguing against. His refutation of this criticism is done byanalogy, or by comparing his movement to other historical figures (like Socrates and Jesus). This has the added advantage of appealing to authority—by aligning his movement wth Jesus, he is in a small way suggesting that to oppose him is to oppose Christianity.
King uses several allusions in making these comparisons—his mention of hemlock, the poison used to kill Socrates, and, in particular, his mention of the crucifixion suggests that his opponents would also blame Jesus for his own torture and death. Finally, King cites court rulings that say, in effect, that society must “protect the robbed and punish the robber.” The final line is especially effective, in that it redefines the terms of the disagreement: King and his followers are the “robbed,” and the people arguing against him are “robbers,” or criminals.