To Speak or not to Speak, a Rhetorical Analysis

Safwat Saleem opens his 2016 TED Talk, “Why I keep speaking up, even when people mock my accent”, by questioning the sociological definition of normal in today’s society. Saleem is an animator and voice actor, and he details the criticism he’s encountered while using his Pakistani accent to voice his characters. Saleem argues that “normal is simply a construction of what we’ve been exposed to” (Saleem 8:50) and because many people are unaccustomed to a Pakistani voice actor, it is thus considered foreign to them and not normal, leading to rejection of Saleem’s work. Saleem challenges this notion however, by putting forth the argument that we as a society can accept this definition of normal and consequential lack of societal progress, or we can challenge ourselves to open our minds beyond this notion of normal and see people for who they truly are regardless of background. In the end, Saleem’s goal is to convince his audience of the latter, and through a personal narrative used to connect both minority and majority groups, he sets out to bridge the gap between what we as a society deem as normal. Ultimately, however, the success of Saleem’s argument is dependent on how well he can appeal to the various social groups in his audience and overcome the constraints of their divergent, preconceived notions and beliefs.

Saleem’s motivation to speak stems from both a personal and societal point of view. He has personally faced criticism and discrimination for not fitting the “normal” definition in his work as an animator and voice actor. This is due to his prevailing Pakistani accent that some people may find off-putting because they aren’t accustomed to it. Additionally, Saleem is motivated by the societal obstacles minority groups face “because of our (society’s) expectations of what is normal” (7:15). These are the motivating factors that have driven Saleem to deliver his speech to a diverse audience at the TED2016 event. Saleem’s audience is wildly varied, with people from all backgrounds and beliefs in attendance. Thus, it’s important for him to reach all groups if he’s going to be effective in his message. Saleem’s message will most likely resonate best with people who’ve experienced discrimination before, but he will have a harder time reaching those who haven’t experienced it first-hand. Therefore, his main audience members of the majority because they’re the ones mostly to blame for society’s skewed perception of normal. Saleem must attempt to convince these people who haven’t been direct victims of discrimination that it is indeed a critical societal problem that requires rethinking of our everyday behaviors. This is the group that will be hardest to reach because they relate the least to the plight of discrimination and relate the most to the notion of “normal.” Saleem spotlights this idea when he says, “we think it is normal that a white employee is a better hire than a black employee. But studies also show that discrimination of this kind, in most cases, is simply favoritism, and it results more from wanting to help people that you can relate to than the desire to harm people that you can’t relate to” (7:18). Here, Saleem gives a logical reasoning as to why our society has developed this discriminatory view of what’s “normal”. Our ability to relate to the ones around us directly influence our behaviors, subconsciously or not. This appeal to logos, or logic, resonates well with the audience because it gives scientific insight into an issue that may be difficult for some (especially the majority) to relate to if based purely from an emotional or anecdotal viewpoint. Saleem continues to deploy this strategy with the statistical example of the lack of diverse representation in children’s stories. By giving this example, the audience is given a logical example of the origins of how our society determines what’s normal and what’s not. With this, his argument becomes full circle, and the audience can now see how exactly this cycle of discrimination rises and continues.

Even though Saleem has a sound logical argument, that alone won’t be enough to overcome the constraints of his audience’s preconceived views. One thing Saleem fails to address in his argument is the overt racism, hate, and bigotry that is internalized in some people. His argument that many types of racism is actually blind favoritism is valid in most cases, but it fails to recognize that in some cases, racism is deliberate and rooted in one’s hateful beliefs. Although this is a small subset of the population, this group is a large part of the problem. This forms one of the core constraints of his argument that, no matter how many facts, metaphors, and emotional appeals he makes, it simply is not possible to change some people’s minds, especially if they have deep rooted discriminatory beliefs. When Saleem says, “I can accept the preexisting notion of normal — that normal is good, and anything outside of that very narrow definition of normal is bad. Or I can challenge that preexisting notion of normal with my work and with my voice and with my accent” (9:00), he is laying out two choices for the audience. But ultimately, it is up to the individual to challenge their own beliefs, and if someone refuses to diverge from their “normal” because they actively dislike what lies outside of that, Saleem’s argument fails. His argument would’ve been sounder had he’d addressed this material issue in some form, but leaving it unaddressed could lead some to cast doubt on his argument. Throughout the speech, the text does a solid job of appealing to the different types of people in his audience through the range of appeals being made. By varying between emotional and logical appeals, the call to action will resonate better based on what’s important and what make sense to each individual in the audience, especially if trying to reach an audience that might be a little unfamiliar with the themes being discussed. Despite the speaker’s claims being mostly successful, the argument operates under the assumption that people are inherently good, and discrimination is, most of the time, a consequence of unintended favoritism. But a lot of discrimination in the real world doesn’t fall under this category, which raises questions on if the audience can accept the premise that people are inherently more good than bad. All and all, Saleem is mostly successful in overcoming the constraints of his audience’s views, but I think there is still a problematic subset of the population that will reject his argument entirely. Because of this, he doesn’t fully achieve his goal of convincing the audience to rethink their societal “normal” but is able to convince most people to at least reflect on their behavior and question whether its cooperative for society. Therefore, Saleem’s argument holds merit and is constructive, but because of some of its shortcomings, it’s not entirely effective.