Refer to schedule for due dates
PURPOSE:
This assignment has two primary purposes. First, it will allow you to develop a unique and compelling analysis of how a specific argument works. Second, through your examination of the strategies employed by the author of your chosen work, you will naturally begin to think about your own writing in a more critical manner. Many of the same questions that you will, eventually, be asking of a given writer you might also ask yourself.
This assignment takes us from the emerging expressions of opinion that concluded our engaged summaries to a more informed engagement with a given text. Here you are responding to, rather than merely summarizing, the text at hand.
DESCRIPTION:
In your RA, you are to write 4-5 page analysis of a self-chosen artifact: a web site, organization, article, advertisement, speech, space, etc. This is, in a sense, the start of your independent research, and I encourage you to continue the work we began in our exploratory research posts by choosing an artifact aligned with a topic you might explore in your final research project.
After selecting your text, you will then identify and analyze the rhetorical strategies the author employs. Use the “ask yourself” guide below, as well as reflections from our conversations in class, to guide you. How, you might ask, does the writer construct her or his argument? Who is the intended or real audience? What types of rhetorical appeals are being made? Think through all the rhetorical concepts that we have been discussing in class: audience, metaphor, ethos, pathos, logos, style, tone, evidence, argumentative fallacies, etc. Now, get much more specific and ask yourself which of these the writer employs most successfully or most interestingly or most problematically. Which strategies are essential to the argument being made? How do the various rhetorical strategies work in concert with each other? Where do tensions arise in the argument or presentation?
Broadly, you will want to dwell on the question of how the author makes her or his point without getting bogged down in a mere rehearsal of what that point is. How does the given artifact strive to be compelling, interesting, important, appealing and urgent? Given your analysis, do you personally find the argument successful? Where are its weaknesses most pronounced and why? An excellent rhetorical analysis takes context into view as well. Always ask yourself in what context the argument functions and why that might be important. Remember: be as specific as possible. You should hone in one or two aspect of one particular rhetorical strategy (such as metaphor, or a specific use of pathos, or a particular fallacy) and trace it throughout the artifact. .
ADDITIONAL POINTERS:
Try to avoid using very broad rhetorical terms explicitly in your rhetorical analysis (ethos, pathos, logos, etc.). Such ideas and terms should guide your analysis and provide a ‘ghost structure,’ or implicit framework, but they shouldn’t drive the piece. Also, it’s not enough to say that that an author uses pathos. She would be hard-pressed not to. Instead, ask yourself how an author deploys a given pathetic appeal. The goal here is to use the terms we discuss in class to locate the rhetorical strategies to which you, in turn, give a new and fresh understanding and language.
This course aims to help you invent thesis statements and supporting ideas and to arrange arguments in ways that are creative and adaptive rather than formulaic and rigid. Don’t think of this assignment in terms of a set number of paragraphs (five being the old magic number) or as an opportunity to plow through the old Aristotelian appeals: ethos, pathos, logos, exit. Instead, find a way into the argument using your own language, weaving your newly acquired analytical skills into a voice and style and organization that suit your goals.
Ask Yourself… (A list of questions for your reference)
Section I Adapted from Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz:
Everything’s an Argument (2004), pages 42-45
I) THE BIG PICTURE:
Before you sit down to write your RA, map the artifact rhetorically by thinking through the follow questions (and others you come up with):
- How can I describe what this argument achieves (or fails to achieve)?
- Does the argument have a clear purpose, and does it accomplish it?
- Does the argument have a clear intended audience? Is it addressing that audience adequately?
- Which of its rhetorical features will likely influence readers most? Audience connections? Emotional appeals? Style?
- How do the rhetorical elements interact?
- Who is the (intended or actual) audience for the argument? How does the argument connect with its audience?
- What are the contexts (social, political, historical, cultural, etc.) for the argument? How does the argument fit into the world? Whose interests does it serve? Who gains or loses by it?
- What shape does the argument take? How are arguments presented or arranged? Remember: the argument, if you’re dealing with various media or creative non-fiction might be very subtle and only implied.
- How does the language or the style of the argument work to persuade an audience?
- How does the character of the author or speaker work to persuade the audience?
- Are there any argumentative fallacies, whether formal or informal? Are claims supported by evidence? Remember that an argument, in many cases, can be implicit rather than explicit.
- How do non-textual aspects of the text function, or general organization if you’re looking at something like a website?
- How is your interaction with the artifact mediated or controlled?
You might also think of questions related more fully to our course’s sustainability theme:
- How is the relationship between human begins and nature constructed in the artifact?
- How do the various facets of the triple bottom line function–that is, how do concerns about economy, equity, and environment (plus environment) interact? What about what Edwards describes as the internal Cs–consciousness, creativity, compassion (plus connection)?
- How does the artifact engage or seek to alter public sentiments or preconceptions about nature or the natural world?
- What is the implied stance of the author’s attitude towards sustainability?
Section II: Focus
After constructing your rhetorical map, you should begin your own analysis by forming a clear and specific argument regarding how you think the argument works and why. You can’t include or deal with everything, so use what is most helpful and strategic in constructing your own more focused argument. Try to find what will yield the most interesting, and, well, arguable, argument. I often use the language of story here: finding your argumentative story. This metaphor suggests a certain sense of connection, even drama, as you lay out your argument. Rhetorical appeals are not static, but evolve over the course of an artifact.
- How does the given text strive to be compelling, interesting, important, appealing, and urgent?
- Do you personally find the argument successful? You should maintain your distance and stay critical. Even if you agree with an author, you might very well disagree with their methods.
- Remember to keep revising your thesis according to the path that your analysis takes. You might not even find your ultimate thesis until the very end of this process—but keep looking for it! Writing and thinking are mutually informing processes.