Analytical Essay #2


AE #2 (10%) 
due 10/21/14 by 7:00 p.m., submitted as .doc or .docx to Bb Assignments  


The Situation
Our theorists in this unit will tell us that there is more to arguing effectively in the public sphere than just being polemical, grossly disputatious, emotionally charged, and antagonistic. For McDonald, Handa, Jones, Kaufer, and Killingsworth, “argument” and “argumentative discourse” involve engaging an audience to elicit their cooperation, influence their thinking, question their assumptions, or induce them to action. They also involve understanding the medium through which arguments move. But with so many expectations on the discourse situation--especially on authors, texts, their memories and misunderstandings--what are some ways this gets accomplished beyond just “agreeing to disagree”? What does “argument” really involve when it comes to “policy”? What makes policy arguments more than just public forms of manipulation? How does one argue effectively on potentially polarizing issues?

The Assignment
For this assignment, I'm asking you to analyze how certain authors try to promote complex policy discussions or influence discourse about policy on issues that are typically "polarized." Note that I'm not asking you to resolve the polarized positions. Please choose one of the following tasks (all of these texts are located in “Cases & Genres” in Bb):

  • An analysis of Nakasa “Writing in South Africa” and “Native of Nowhere” (Case Study #2). Please use the supplemental articles on Nakasa in Case Study #2 to provide some context for when/where/why Nakasa wrote.
  • An analysis of Bullard “Race Response” (Case Study #2). Please use 1 supplemental article from the “Political Journals” or “New Services/Magazines” that are linked from our blog “Helpful Resources” page, in order to provide some context for when/where/why Bullard delivered his public address.
  • An analysis of Linzey “Moral Solicitude” or Korskgaard, et al, “Exploiting Animals” (Case Study #2). Feel free to use any other articles from within that same issue of AV Magazine to provide you with context about when/where/why Linzey and Korskgaard, et al, were writing.
  • An analysis of Rashid “9 Facts about Israel-Palestine” (Case Study #2) and JVP's “Israel-Palestine 101” (Photo Essays). Please use 1 supplemental article from the “Political Journals” or “New Services/Magazines” that are linked from our blog “Helpful Resources” page, if you need some historical and political context for understanding the issue. 

Please use 2-3 of our critical texts from the “Social Policy” sphere to aid your analysis. This gives you a lot of options. For example, your analysis might consider how the authors elicit, influence, question, mediate, or induce. Or, you might look for the principal stasis on which the argument is conducted; how writers complicate accepted definitions or employ logical reasoning; what writers expect of/from the circulation of terms; or whether they appeal to time, place, or some other shared identification or dis-identification. Or, you might consider the central controversy or conflict level, 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 as social action or citizen journalism (if one of the things you analyze is a blog). While there are no guarantees about how any text is valued, any of these concepts can at least help you to build a theory about the argumentative discourse.

Please don't just perform an analysis in order to answer the polarization question above. Instead, use that question as a mental prompt--a mental starting place--to help you discover a more nuanced or significant discovery about the complexity of social policy discourse. That more nuanced discovery will be your "thesis."


Citations for Genre Samples

 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. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points. 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 the “Works Cited.” 

Organization & Coherence – How you organize your analysis should ultimately reflect the claim you want to support. 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 discourse situation 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 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 important 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!

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)