How does the American man use rhetorical strategies to persuade Jig, and what do these strategies reveal about gender dynamics, emotional manipulation, and communication in Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants”?

How does the American man use rhetorical strategies to persuade Jig, and what do these strategies reveal about gender dynamics, emotional manipulation, and communication in Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants”?

Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Direct Answer

In Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants,” the American man uses rhetorical strategies rooted in persuasion, manipulation, and evasion to influence Jig’s decision about the implied abortion. His primary rhetorical techniques include repetition, appeals to logic and reassurance, and minimization of emotional and moral complexity. Through these methods, he attempts to assert control over Jig while disguising his selfish motives under the guise of care and reason. These rhetorical tactics reveal deeper themes of gender imbalance, power in conversation, and the failure of authentic communication in modernist literature. Hemingway crafts dialogue that operates beneath the surface—what is unsaid is more revealing than what is spoken, exposing the subtle coercion embedded in the man’s speech.

1. Introduction: The Power of Rhetoric in Hemingway’s Minimalism

Hemingway’s writing style, often referred to as the “Iceberg Theory,” relies on minimalism and subtext, allowing meaning to emerge from silence and implication rather than explicit explanation (Hemingway, 1932). In “Hills Like White Elephants,” this minimalist approach foregrounds dialogue as the central medium through which psychological and moral tension unfolds. The American man’s conversation with Jig is not mere dialogue—it is an exercise in rhetorical persuasion, where language becomes both weapon and disguise.

Rhetoric, as Aristotle defines it in Rhetoric (trans. Kennedy, 2007), is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” The American embodies this concept, carefully tailoring his words to manipulate Jig’s emotions while maintaining a façade of rational concern. His use of persuasion is deeply entwined with power—linguistic, emotional, and gendered. Thus, the rhetorical structure of their dialogue is not only about a personal conflict but also a broader reflection of patriarchal communication patterns in early twentieth-century modernist fiction.

2. The Rhetoric of Reassurance: “It’s Perfectly Simple”

One of the American man’s most dominant strategies is reassurance, which he repeatedly uses to pacify Jig. By calling the procedure “perfectly simple,” he attempts to minimize the emotional and moral gravity of the decision (Hemingway, 1927). His use of repetition—a classic rhetorical technique—serves to normalize the idea, dulling Jig’s emotional resistance. The phrase “it’s really an awfully simple operation” becomes a linguistic instrument of pressure, designed to make her feel unreasonable for hesitating.

This rhetorical maneuver aligns with Kenneth Burke’s concept of “terministic screens” (Language as Symbolic Action, 1966), where language shapes perception. By framing the abortion as “simple,” the man constructs a verbal filter that deflects its moral implications. His reassurance is not genuine empathy but rhetorical manipulation—an attempt to impose his version of reality. As scholars such as Benson (1993) argue, Hemingway’s men often use understatement to avoid emotional vulnerability, revealing that simplicity in speech often conceals profound ethical evasion.

3. Emotional Manipulation and the Appeal to Pathos

The American’s rhetoric also appeals to pathos, the emotional aspect of persuasion. However, rather than expressing genuine compassion, his emotional appeals are strategically selective. He emphasizes his affection for Jig—“I love you now. You know I love you”—only to make compliance seem synonymous with maintaining their relationship. The emotional bond becomes conditional, weaponized as leverage to achieve his desired outcome.

In this way, the man employs what scholars term “emotional coercion” (Felski, Beyond Feminist Aesthetics, 1989), a rhetorical strategy where affection is used to suppress dissent. Jig’s silence and fragmented responses reveal the psychological toll of this manipulation. Hemingway’s sparse dialogue thus dramatizes the imbalance between emotional expression and suppression, where the man’s rational tone contrasts sharply with Jig’s intuitive unease. Pathos, in this context, functions as a deceptive tool—a means to exploit emotional dependency under the illusion of tenderness.

4. The Appeal to Logos: Rationalizing the Irreversible

The American frequently employs logos, or logical reasoning, to persuade Jig. He presents the abortion as medically safe, socially acceptable, and emotionally inconsequential. Phrases like “It’s not really an operation at all” and “They just let the air in” reduce the act to a clinical procedure, devoid of moral consequence. His argument relies on deflationary logic—a rhetorical approach that seeks to control emotion through rationalization (Burke, 1966).

This technique reflects the modernist preoccupation with disillusionment and moral detachment. The American’s rhetoric mirrors the sterile rationalism of postwar modernity, where emotional depth is replaced by pragmatic calculation. As Nagel (1972) notes, Hemingway’s characters often display “anesthetic” language—emotions dulled by linguistic control. The man’s logos-driven persuasion, therefore, represents the ideological triumph of rationalism over empathy, highlighting how modern relationships are corrupted by an imbalance between feeling and intellect.

5. Euphemism and Avoidance as Rhetorical Tools

Perhaps the most telling feature of the American’s rhetoric is his strategic use of euphemism. The word “abortion” is never spoken. Instead, he cloaks it in vague references like “the operation.” This linguistic avoidance reflects not only his discomfort but also his attempt to control the narrative. By refusing to name the act, he suppresses its moral and emotional reality.

As linguistic theorist Roman Jakobson explains in Language in Literature (1987), the poetic function of language can manipulate meaning through omission and substitution. The American’s avoidance creates a rhetorical vacuum, forcing Jig—and the reader—to confront what remains unsaid. His euphemistic strategy also aligns with Hemingway’s minimalist aesthetics, where silence becomes a narrative force. Through this rhetorical erasure, the man exerts control by defining what can—and cannot—be spoken, thereby reinforcing gendered silencing in communication.

6. The Rhetoric of False Equality

Throughout the dialogue, the American frequently insists that the decision is entirely Jig’s: “If you don’t want to, you don’t have to. I wouldn’t have you do it if you didn’t want to.” This statement, on the surface, suggests respect for autonomy. However, his tone and context reveal the opposite—it is a rhetorical performance of equality that masks psychological pressure.

Philosopher Jürgen Habermas, in The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), argues that authentic dialogue requires symmetry in communication—each participant must have equal power to express and decide. The American’s rhetoric violates this principle. His pseudo-egalitarian language functions as strategic communication, not genuine dialogue. By repeatedly assuring Jig of her freedom, he manipulates her into agreement, exploiting her emotional vulnerability. This performative equality reflects the modernist critique of interpersonal alienation—relationships reduced to negotiations rather than mutual understanding.

7. Silence and Subtext: Rhetoric Beyond Words

While the American dominates the dialogue verbally, Jig’s silences carry profound rhetorical weight. Her minimal responses—“Would you please please please please please stop talking?”—reflect both exhaustion and resistance. According to Elaine Scarry in The Body in Pain (1985), silence often signifies an inability to translate emotional pain into language. Jig’s silences, therefore, expose the limits of rhetoric—language fails where emotion overflows.

Hemingway’s manipulation of silence creates a tension between what is said and what is felt. The American’s verbose persuasion contrasts with Jig’s emotional withdrawal, emphasizing the inadequacy of his rhetorical strategies. Her silence becomes counter-rhetoric—a rejection of verbal domination. This dynamic mirrors the modernist fascination with fragmentation and incommunicability, where meaning lies in subtext rather than speech.

8. Gender and Power: The Rhetoric of Masculine Control

The American man’s rhetoric must also be understood within the context of gendered discourse. His persuasive techniques reflect patriarchal communication patterns, where male rationality is privileged over female emotion. As Judith Butler asserts in Gender Trouble (1990), language itself is a performative act that reinforces power structures. The man’s tone of reason and composure contrasts with Jig’s emotional uncertainty, reinforcing cultural binaries of masculine logic versus feminine feeling.

Furthermore, his rhetoric embodies what feminist theorist bell hooks terms “patriarchal coercion” (The Will to Change, 2004)—a psychological dominance maintained through the manipulation of emotional dependency. The American’s calm rationality masks an underlying assertion of control, as he defines both the moral framework and linguistic boundaries of the conversation. Thus, his rhetoric is not merely persuasive but hierarchical, maintaining gendered asymmetry even within seemingly intimate dialogue.

9. The Ethical Dimension of Persuasion

The American’s rhetorical strategies raise broader ethical questions about persuasion, consent, and moral responsibility. Aristotle’s Rhetoric distinguishes between ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (reason). While the American superficially employs all three, his ethos collapses under moral scrutiny. His persuasion lacks sincerity, reducing ethical reasoning to self-interest.

This ethical hollowness reflects Hemingway’s critique of postwar disillusionment, where moral frameworks have eroded, leaving individuals adrift in moral relativism (Meyers, Hemingway: A Biography, 1985). The American’s manipulation illustrates how rhetoric can become ethically corrupt when detached from empathy. His words, though polished, reveal a moral void—a hallmark of modernist alienation and emotional decay.

10. Conclusion: The Failure of Persuasion and the Triumph of Silence

Ultimately, the American man’s rhetorical strategies fail—not because they lack sophistication, but because they lack authenticity. His persuasion collapses under the weight of emotional dishonesty and gendered manipulation. Hemingway uses this rhetorical failure to underscore the futility of modern communication—where words no longer bridge human connection but deepen isolation.

Jig’s final silences mark a quiet act of resistance, suggesting that true understanding lies beyond rhetoric. As Hemingway demonstrates, persuasion without empathy becomes coercion, and speech without sincerity becomes noise. The American’s rhetoric, while skillfully constructed, exposes the moral bankruptcy of manipulation disguised as love. In this sense, “Hills Like White Elephants” remains not just a study of dialogue, but a profound exploration of how language can both express and destroy intimacy.

References

  • Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. George A. Kennedy. Oxford University Press, 2007.

  • Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Grove Press, 1952.

  • Benson, Jackson J. The Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway: Critical Essays. Duke University Press, 1993.

  • Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. University of California Press, 1966.

  • Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.

  • Felski, Rita. Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change. Harvard University Press, 1989.

  • Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press, 1981.

  • Hemingway, Ernest. Death in the Afternoon. Scribner, 1932.

  • Hemingway, Ernest. Men Without Women. Scribner, 1927.

  • hooks, bell. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. Atria Books, 2004.

  • Jakobson, Roman. Language in Literature. Harvard University Press, 1987.

  • Meyers, Jeffrey. Hemingway: A Biography. Harper & Row, 1985.

  • Nagel, James. Ernest Hemingway: The Writer as Artist. Oxford University Press, 1972.

  • Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford University Press, 1985.