Lyons 1

Rick Lyons

Emma Bruce

ENC 2135

8 December, 2023

Rhetorical Analysis of Field Artifacts (Revised)

In the sphere of urban planning, there have recently been more and more calls for the

densification of municipalities, which in many places are suburb and car-centric. A natural

complement to this call, therefore, is the call for infrastructure that favors alternative modes of

transit over cars, such as walking, biking, and public transportation. On one side of this issue,

there are those making this call, who argue that less car-centric infrastructure, or possibly the

complete removal of car infrastructure, would improve quality of life, efficiency, and the

environment. My first artifact, “How Much Public Space We’ve Surrendered to Cars,” an

illustration by artist Karl Jilg which was commissioned by the Swedish government, takes this

position, and has an audience composed of citizens interested in urban policy. As such, this

illustration was likely targeted initially at Swedish citizens, but its promotion on social media

included a larger audience. However, there are also those who argue that it would be bad, or

perhaps impractical, to focus on eliminating cars as a method of transport in our urban

environments. My second artifact, written by Noah Smith and posted to the website

Noahpinion.blog, is a blog post titled “We Will Not Ban Cars,” which argues the latter point

(specifically in the context of environmental policy) and has an American audience which is

likewise interested in urban policy. The illustration compels its audience to support infrastructure

which removes focus from cars, while the blog post sways its audience to support the use of
 Lyons 2

electric vehicles. Both of my artifacts use rhetoric to push their audiences toward their intended

goals and my paper will analyze that rhetoric, so that the approaches and reasoning of two sides

of this issue may be better understood.

My first artifact, "How Much Public Space We've Surrendered to Cars," is a cartoon

illustration by Karl Jilg and was commissioned by the Swedish Road Administration. The

illustration shows a typical city block, except that the space between sidewalks has been replaced

with a vast chasm instead of a road. Pedestrians can be seen keeping to the narrow sidewalks,

except for a man who is crossing a wood plank placed over the chasm. The intended audience is

likely made up of citizens interested in urban planning, particularly the aspects of it involving

transit, however the government commission of the piece could also mean that the audience is

not, on average, slanted one way or the other, as it would be more general. This piece was, at

first, likely intended for Swedish citizens specifically, but the piece gained popularity on social

media, where more people from different countries saw it. Its broad applicability seems to have

made it appealing to that broader audience, especially Americans. Those who agree with the

message of the illustration are likely to favor denser, pedestrian-centric design in urban planning.

The piece wants the audience to recognize how much space is wasted on cars and how restricted

pedestrian movement is because of that. By painting this in dramatic terms, the piece moves the

audience toward that recognition and in favor of less car-centric infrastructure. The fact that this

piece was commissioned by the Swedish Road Administration may lend some credibility to the

author among the audience. However, those who are skeptical of government intervention in

such affairs may view the author less credibly as a result. Additionally, the Swedish Road

Administration’s commission may have varied impact on an American audience, which might

range from indifference to captivation, depending on that audience’s attitude toward Sweden. On
 Lyons 3

the other hand, the issue depicted in the illustration is arguably even more applicable to

American urban design than Swedish, which may have increased its effectiveness among

Americans.

This artifact strongly appeals to a sense of pathos in its audience. By replacing roads with

chasms in the piece, the author impresses upon their audience the appreciable amount of space

that is consumed by cars, especially in juxtaposition to the narrow sidewalks that pedestrians are

crowded onto. This compels the audience to wonder if there might be a more efficient use of that

“wasted” space, such as for buildings or other transit methods. There may also be an allegory, in

the difference between the space dedicated to cars to the space for pedestrians, to the amount of

attention respectively placed on each by urban planners. The man walking across the plank is

perhaps meant to show how crossing a busy road, like crossing a chasm, is dangerous, though the

former may not seem as such to an audience until it is analogized to some other hazardous

activity. These dramatic comparisons, by tapping into the audience’s emotion, move them to

recognize the ill effects car-centric design and to protest them. It could also be said that the

previously mentioned considerations of wasted space the piece inspires is a logical appeal, as it

invites the audience to allocate, in their minds, their idea of what could replace a road to better

effect. In using their reasoning ability, Jilg further pushes his audience against car-centric

infrastructure. Finally, as was touched on in the above paragraph, the endorsement by the

Swedish Road Administration could appeal to the audience’s sense of ethos, depending on their

inclinations. Furthermore, its relevance to American infrastructure, whether intentional or not,

could make the piece especially relatable to an American audience.

My second artifact, by Noah Smith, is an article posted to his blog on the website

Noahpinion.blog, and is titled “We Will Not Ban Cars.” In the article, Smith critiques the view
 Lyons 4

that removing cars from urban environments entirely is a feasible approach to reducing carbon

emissions. Smith begins with a qualifier; he claims that he disdains cars and their ramifications

on American infrastructure. He goes on to show examples of his peers and social media

expressing similar sentiments, and how they use those sentiments in support of the idea that

electric vehicles (EVs) are a nonviable solution to the climate crisis, and that to “ban cars” from

cities is the only way forward. Smith, however, disagrees with this idea, and believes it’s simply

not feasible to radically alter American urban design in such a way. His first major point entails

using Japan as an example of ideal urban design. Being very centered around public transit,

Japan is presented by Smith as a best-case (but still unrealistic) scenario for future urban

development in the United States, an upper bound of sorts. He then shows that even in a country

such as Japan, cars, statistically, are commonly owned and often used, so to eliminate cars is an

impossible goal even in the best possible scenario. Therefore, Smith argues, we should instead

focus on transitioning to EVs to avoid climate disaster. He addresses common arguments against

EVs having to do with their similarity to regular cars in current emissions, but points out that,

unlike gasoline-fueled cars, EV emissions are linked to grid emissions, and for this reason he, as

well as researchers and the Biden administration, are optimistic about EVs as a method to

mitigate climate change, in conjunction with a decarbonized grid. Smith concludes with

somewhat of a concession, stating that it may be a good idea to ban cars from specific areas in

our cities, but that this needs to be done with due caution and consideration, citing negative

examples where those were lacking. He warns against slogans like “ban cars” and reiterates the

need for a pragmatic approach to the situation. Smith’s aim, ultimately, is swaying his audience

toward favoring EVs as a method of combating climate change over unrealistic solutions like

banning cars. Smith’s audience, considering the focus and slant of many of his articles, is
 Lyons 5

presumably made up of Americans who are very interested in urban affairs and likely lean

toward policy which promote density and walkability. His seeming enthusiasm for the Biden

Administration could be an indicator that his audience leans Democratic as well. The platform

Noah Smith posts to, Substack, is an emerging one, so it's likely that his audience is younger

than average. Smith’s long history of commentating on economic matters in various newspapers

lends him credibility to his audience, as well as the concessions and qualifications he makes

inside the article, which appeals to their sympathies. However, the previously mentioned

enthusiasm for Biden’s Administration may alienate some readers of his article who are not

similarly enthusiastic.

Noah Smith strongly appeals to ethos throughout his article. The qualifier at the

beginning of his article and the concession toward the end give the impression that his opinion is

nuanced and worth considering, and his citing of peers he respects shows that he is not merely

straw-manning arguments in favor of banning cars; that his response is a measured one. These

things give a lot of weight to Smith’s assertions and thereby move his audience toward favoring

other solutions. As discussed in the above paragraph, Smith also cites scientific researchers and

the Biden Administration in support of EVs, whose authoritative weight also appeal to his

audience’s sense of ethos. If those in the audience are inclined to trust these figures, their added

support to Smith’s arguments will also compel his audience to recognize the value of EVs.

Smith, like most of his audience, is an American, so his shared experience with them could grant

him further credibility, and his audience further reason to appreciate EVs. Additionally, Smith

appeals to his audience’s sense of logos. When he brought up Japan, for example, he used logic

to show that even in an ideal scenario it would not be possible to eliminate cars as a method of

transportation. This logical reasoning taps into the rational sensibilities of Smith’s audience, and
 Lyons 6

in so doing pushes them to accept his points. Smith also cites statistics in support of his

arguments quite extensively, using them to show the difference between the United States and

other countries in relevant metrics, for example. Beyond giving credibility to his argument, this

use of statistics also incites the reasoning ability of his audience, inclining them to accept his

positions as true. So, as has been demonstrated, Smith appeals to both the sense of ethos and

logos of his audience, and thereby influences them toward advocating for EVs as a necessary

means of reducing emissions and pushes them against banning cars in urban design.

As is evident, Noah Smith’s article strongly relies on appeals to ethos, which stands in

contrast to Karl Jilg’s piece. Though the latter’s commissioning by the Swedish Road

Administration might give it some authoritative weight, it is not nearly as much as Smith’s piece

obtains, in the eyes of his audience, through its qualifications, concessions, and citations,

especially given the fact that the latter was aimed specifically at an American audience.

Additionally, Jilg’s piece is far more reliant on appeals to pathos than is Smith’s piece, as the

dramatic illustrations it features impress more upon those sentiments in his audience than does

anything in Smith’s article. This could very well be a result of the difference in mediums

between them. It might be difficult, for instance, to appeal to ethos through a mere illustration in

the style of Jilg’s piece, as words cannot be used liberally, and visual elements instead must be

relied upon, whereas in the case of Smith’s medium, writing, it could be a task as simple as

citing statistics or figures of authority, tasks which are far easier to do in words. Appeals to

pathos, on the other hand, are perhaps easier to do in Jilg’s medium, as the nature of illustrations

makes their emotional elements more immediately apparent to most than could be the case with

writing. However, both pieces do appeal to their audience’s sense of logos. Noah Smith, for

example, uses facts, figures, and logical reasoning, while Karl Jilg invites his audience to
 Lyons 7

consider the wasted efficiency of car-centric infrastructure. So, despite their difference in

mediums, both artifacts do have a shared appeal in that respect.

The artifacts described in this essay can be said to differ in their views somewhat, with

the illustration being solidly against cars in urban planning and the article being more pragmatic,

but they both contribute to an ongoing discussion over the issue of cars as a mode of

transportation. The discourse between their viewpoints through those genres may aid the

resolution of that issue as the points each make are carefully weighed and considered. Karl Jilg’s

genre, with its strong appeals to pathos, can help grip the imagination of people who may

otherwise be uninterested in such things as articles and papers. Noah Smith’s genre, with its

strong appeals to ethos and logos, can help provide more nuanced opinions for an audience to

consider, and engage their ability to reason. Both genres are necessary if active engagement in

the conversation, where passion and reason are merged, is to be achieved.

 Lyons 8

References

Jilg, Karl. How Much Public Space We’ve Surrendered to Cars. 2014, Swedish Road

Administration.

Smith, Noah. “We Will Not Ban Cars.” Noahpinion.Com, Substack, 9 Mar. 2021,

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/we-will-not-ban-cars.