There are many ways in which the same message can be conveyed.

The way in which an

argument is presented determines its strength to convince someone that a statement is true.

Within the articles Blue Collar Brilliance by Mike Rose, and Shop Class as Soulcraft by

Matthew B. Crawford, we can see the way in which two authors present a very similar claim,

effectively stating that the positions that we call blue collar should be given more respect from an

intellectual standpoint.  Their strategies include using their personal life experiences and the

people around them as specific examples to establish credibility, letting us know that they’re

familiar with the subject of what they’re arguing for, both present us with analogies and

juxtaposition within their arguments to strengthen their ideas, but they vary in personality,

perspective, and the specifics of their choice of topics, and the ways in which they demonstrate

their points differ.

Both Rose and Crawford demonstrate that they have an intimate relationship and

knowledge of the “blue-collar” world by establishing where they fit into it within their personal

life experiences. Where this differs is what their position was in this system, Rose grew up

within a blue-collar family, his mother being a waitress, as a sort of expert within the blue-collar

workforce to be observed and establish this view that Rose wishes to share, he would reinforce

this with the observation of his uncle, a factory worker who like his mother in her job as a

waitress would have to adapt to changing conditions and learn to move quickly. Rose would use

his view of who and what an expert was from when he was a child demonstrating the world in

which he was raised in, even if eventually he would have a career within the white-collar world

of academia as an adult, his experiences as a child would begin the article, establishing where he

existed in relationship to the people he would be advocating for. Crawford presents an expert on
the world in a different sense, as he’s someone who has gone from the world of the blue-collar to

white-collar and back to blue-collar as a more active participant. Crawford presents the white-

collar job he attained after college as something that to him was not worth the money he may

have been making from it and chooses to open a motorcycle repair shop and re-enter the blue-

collar workforce that he had experienced previously as a teenager, being an electrician’s

assistant. Crawford continues that day to day, he still had to use intellectual prowess to get him

through the day as much as, if not more than before during his time in the white-collar job, and

continues that his work did not always show the mental effort it required as he states: “When I

would come home from work, my wife would sniff at me and say “carbs” or “brakes,”

corresponding to the various solvents used. Leaving a sensible trace, my day was at least

imaginable to her. But while the filth and odors were apparent, the amount of head-scratching I’d

done since breakfast was not.” Both authors use their experience within the blue-collar

workforce as a means of establishing the credibility of their claim that the blue-collar workforce

is not given their rightful place as intellectual equals to those in white-collar positions.

The way in which Rose and Crawford argue for the fair treatment of blue-collar

intellectual prowess is by directly comparing their positions with that of someone within a white-

collar position. Pointing out their similarities and expressing the idea that the white-collar

position will have its intellectual nature being written about, such as when someone writes about

a lawyer or scientist, but the writing for that of a blue-collar occupation, it is often solely the grit

or effort that the work took, and rarely recognizes those in a blue-collar occupation as people of

intelligence. They use the example of the popular cultural iconography of the factory worker,

showing them as a strong person, but not necessarily as an intelligent person, Rose states this
within his article with the statement: “Our cultural iconography promotes the muscled arm,

sleeve rolled tight against biceps, but no brightness behind the eye, no image that links hand and

brain.” This statement is also quoted within Crawford’s article, sharing the sentiment.

A place where the two essays differ in their strategy is with that of the citation and

reference of other written material. As previously stated, Crawford makes a reference, in a direct

quote from Rose in the phrase regarding the worker with ‘no brightness behind the eye’ among

other references to various works including one of Rose’s books, and quotes from other authors

such as Hannah Arendt. This strategy works in improving Crawford’s credibility, as references

to others sharing that view can make it seem stronger, especially if they are well respected within

their field, and often if something seems to be well said, quote the statement and credit the

original author, rather than dance around trying to send the same message in other words.

The two writers’ rhetorical strategies bare many similarities, after all, one writer does

reference the other within their essay, and it does prove to be effective. The use of firsthand

experience with a topic does often lend yourself a large deal of credibility, and the authors use

this to a great extent, we can see a direct comparison of the two workforces in blue-collar and

white-collar from the somewhat unique perspective of the authors, where Rose watched those

around him participating in the blue-collar world both before and during his time in the white-

collar, and Crawford’s escape from the white-collar into a return to the blue-collar and finding

satisfaction within it, demonstrating the view that they had and why they had it. That position

also lent itself to them being able to compare the occupations of those in the blue and white-

collar workforces and demonstrate the differences in the way we see them and show that maybe
they aren’t so different in ability or skills required. Crawford’s piece reframes the words of

others to strengthen his own arguments, including, as previously mentioned, the words of Mike

Rose, and gives new life to the words in which Rose wrote. These strategies, with their

similarities and differences give a similar message, but with unique ways of doing so.