due 3/5/13 by 11:00 a.m., submitted to BB Assignments
The Situation
Our theorists in this unit will tell us that there is more to arguing effectively in the political sphere than just being polemical, grossly disputatious, emotionally charged, witty, or antagonistic. For Kaufer, Jones, Killingsworth, and Ridolfo/DeVoss, “argument” and “argumentative discourse” involve engaging an audience to elicit their cooperation, influence their thinking, question their assumptions, or induce them to action. But with so many expectations on an author and text, what are some ways this gets accomplished beyond just “agreeing to disagree”?
The Assignment
I’d like you to discuss how the authors try to promote political discourse or influence public policy in a particular time or context. However, rather than just use this assignment to answer that simple
question, I’d like you to use that question as a prompt--a starting
place--to help you come to a more nuanced discovery about the concepts or our class as a result of your analysis or comparison. Please choose one of the following writing tasks:
- comparative analysis of Mario Savio’s “An End to History” with the 1969 “Letter” on Women's Rights and Responsibilities (BB)
- comparative analysis of Bullard’s lecture on “Race Response” to Hurricane Katrina with Obama’s “More Perfect Union” address
- deep analysis of Lung’s “Question of Civility: Open Letter to Hu Jintao” (BB). You can search The New York Times or Lexis-Nexis library database for “Lung Ying-Tai” to learn more about the conflict she addresses in her letter. You can also find a linked version with intertext and look up other “open letters” to Hu Jintao.
Please use at least two of our critical readings from this unit in your analysis. You might consider how the authors elicit, influence, question or induce. You might look for the stases on which the argument is conducted (Fahnestock/Secor); how writers complicate accepted definitions or employ logical reasoning (Jones); or whether they appeal to time or place (Killingsworth). You might consider the central controversy or conflict level (Kaufer), or how the writer tries to suspend or resolve it. And you might relate any of these ideas to what you already know about blogging (Rettberg; Miller/Shepherd) or remediation (Ridolfo/DeVoss). While there are no guarantees about how any text is valued, these concepts help us to build theories about how some texts can be read or received. Ultimately, your analysis should lead you to a unique realization or claim--something not obvious, but meaningful and significant.
Note: While you might use Style, Grant-Davie, or Bazerman to demonstrate small points in your analysis, these won’t be sufficient as your main critical texts.
Citations for Genre Samples
- Bullard, Robert. “How Race Affected the Federal Government’s Response to Katrina.” DemocracyNow.org. 24 Oct. 2005. Available at <http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/24/environmental_justice_professor_robert_bullard_on>.
- Lung, Ying-tai. “A Question of Civility: An Open Letter to Hu, Jintao.” 24 January 2006. Available at <http://www.openDemocracy.net>.
- Obama, Barack. “A More Perfect Union.” MSNBC.com. 18 March 2008. Available at <http://www.msnbc.com/id/23690567/>.
- Presidential Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities. “Letter to the President” (1969). In A Matter of Simple Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. iii-vi. Microform. ED 055157.
- Savio, Mario. “An End to History” (1964). Freespeechmovement.org. Available at <http://www.fsm-a.org/stacks/endhistorysavio.html>.
Evaluation Criteria
Audience Construction – Although I am the first evaluator of the essay, you should compose it for an audience somewhat broader than me. Assume a skeptical reader who needs to be convinced of your careful handling of textual and contextual evidence. You can assume some familiarity with our critical texts, but you should still find a way to implicitly communicate your reasons for writing and you should help your reader(s) understand the dilemma that prompts you to write.
Thesis & Argument – Your essay should be guided by a thesis statement (or statements) that demonstrates the complexity of your unique realization or claim, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. Think of this as your stasis—the question that you set out to answer. If you are comparing two texts, your thesis may involve discussing how they work together or what you learn about one from analyzing it alongside another.
Focus & Scope – Your analysis should make a unique claim—preferably, not too broad or general that it cannot be sufficiently supported, and not too narrow that it cannot be sufficiently developed. Your essay should demonstrate a knowledgeable (and even sophisticated) use of the concepts we are learning. If page length helps you get a sense of scope, then plan on ~3 single-spaced pages, not counting “Works Cited.”
Organization & Coherence – How you organize your analysis should ultimately reflect the claim you want to support. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points. This includes an engaging introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Offer your realization near the beginning of your essay, and consider your conclusion a synthesis rather than a summary.
Evidence & Justification – Above all, your claim should be relevant and valid to the context in which the text was written. It should provide reliable and specific examples from the genre sample(s) you examine, the critical texts we have read in class, and other relevant texts if you find you need them. It should adequately set up or introduce any quoted passages, explain outside references, and put these passages and examples into genuine conversation with each other (beyond just referencing key terms). Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details, using parenthetical citations when you paraphrase or quote from any source. Please avoid extensive block quoting.
Language & Style – Your analysis can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be checked.
Discourse Conventions – In addition to following MLA style for your parenthetical citations and Works Cited, please format your essay so that it is easy for me to read, including 11- or 12-pt. font, and standard 1” margins. Titles are paramount for foreshadowing your analysis and establishing common ground with an unfamiliar reader. The title of your analytical essay should engage us while also reflecting the argument you will ultimately make. Remember to cite or attribute visual components.
Please feel free to ask me if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you’re stuck while working through an idea. Start early!
