SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #2 - (ANTI)SIGNIFICATION
Due 3/4/15 3/6/15 by 12:00 p.m. (noon!) to by beginning of class time to Blackboard (Bb) "Assignments"
PURPOSE AND TASK
For the second short critical discussion, I will ask you to put two or more theoretical texts into conversation with each other and with other texts in order to build an argument that is inspired by our discussions of (Anti)Signification as a critical dilemma. As before, putting them into conversation requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare them, dis/agree with them, or formulate an opinion about them. It generally requires that you carefully and expertly synthesize them into a clear, thesis-driven discussion.
The readings in the second unit of the course are challenging, and in some cases mind-blowing, since they deal with the complexities of using language to describe abstract concepts. So, this assignment may seem challenging at first, since you are having to grapple with philosophical understandings of language. However, I think our case studies will help you to realize that these are theories you already encounter on a fairly regular basis as a rhetorical practitioner.
Remember that your aim with SCD #2 is three-fold:
- to craft an interesting and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading a couple of our texts or theorists together;
- to demonstrate a nuanced (even sophisticated) understanding of theorists and their texts; and
- to hone your critical writing skills in the essay format.
PROMPTS
I offer some prompts to help you get started, but please remember that the prompts are
just that—suggestions, inspirations, or jumping-off points that will
eventually lead you to a more specific realization. That more specific
realization (a.k.a., thesis statement) should not simply answer the
prompt; it should reflect a discovery that advances your thinking.
- Discuss the role of either individual or community in at least two of the critical texts listed below, using our reference texts to provide necessary background. Just as we discovered during our Agent/cy unit, the terms “individual” and “community” may not appear explicitly in the critical texts you select, so it will be up to you to show evidence of where they are implied, and to demonstrate how they complicate language (or signification). Please use a case as part of your demonstration.
- Choose one of the key terms in the title of a critical text below, then discuss its development, meaning, or significance in another text where it does not explicitly appear in the title. For example, you might take the term “discourse” from Bakhtin's title, and then consider how his text and another text treat discourse differently. Or, you might take “understanding” from Locke's title, and then consider how his text and another text articulate critical differences about understandings. The possibilities are many! Draw on reference texts to help you, and feel free to demonstrate the difference on a case study to help persuade your reader why the difference matters.
- If there is one thing that all of these authors address, it is precisely this dilemma: the presence of the thing that signifies can either guarantee or negate the signification. Using at least two of the critical texts below—and drawing on reference texts or cases as needed—discuss how your authors might answer (or fail to fully answer) this question of what it means to signify. What new meaning does “signification” take on in this unit? What does it involve? What does it make possible, or what makes it possible? Try to discover a specific piece of the dilemma, based on how two of our theorists wrestle with it.
- In “Linguistic Approaches to the Problem of Education,” Kenneth Burke writes: “Man is literally a symbol-using animal. He really does approach the world symbol-wise (and symbol-foolish)” (260). For Burke, language can only be symbolic, but symbolic of what? If no foundationalist theory will resolve disagreements over what language means, then what it is that we do when we “symbol-use”? What does this mean for the rhetorical theorist? Select two critical texts from below to compose your response. Draw on reference texts and case studies as needed.
Here are your options for critical texts:
Bakhtin “From Discourse in the Novel” (259-331, excerpted)
Burke “The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'” (191-211 -- primarily his key claims)
Derrida “Differance” (278-288)Lakoff and Johnson “From Metaphors We Live By”
Lewis “What's So Funny About a Dead Terrorist?” (9-21)
Locke “From Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (814-827)
McCloud “The Vocabulary of Comics” (24-45)
Schuster “Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist (531-544)
Here are some reference pages you may find helpful:
Relevant pages from The Bedford Glossary
Bizzell/Herzberg background on “Enlightenment” (798-799)
Herrick background on “Derrida” (253-256)
Rivkin/Ryan background on “Structuralism” and “Deconstruction” (53-55, 257-261)
Smith background on “Locke” (215-218)
Here are your options for cases:
Barton “Textual Practices of Erasure” (169-199) (if you are in the 11:00 section)
Briggs When the Wind Blows
Burke “The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'” (191-211 -- primarily his analysis of Mein Kampf)
El-Rassi Arab in America (if you are in the 2:00 section)
Satrapi Persepolis (if you are in the 11:00 section)
Welling “Ecoporn” (53-77) (if you are in the 2:00 section)
a case of your own choosing (as long as you make it available to me)
Relevant pages from The Bedford Glossary
Bizzell/Herzberg background on “Enlightenment” (798-799)
Herrick background on “Derrida” (253-256)
Rivkin/Ryan background on “Structuralism” and “Deconstruction” (53-55, 257-261)
Smith background on “Locke” (215-218)
Here are your options for cases:
Barton “Textual Practices of Erasure” (169-199) (if you are in the 11:00 section)
Briggs When the Wind Blows
Burke “The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'” (191-211 -- primarily his analysis of Mein Kampf)
El-Rassi Arab in America (if you are in the 2:00 section)
Satrapi Persepolis (if you are in the 11:00 section)
Welling “Ecoporn” (53-77) (if you are in the 2:00 section)
a case of your own choosing (as long as you make it available to me)
CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is worth 150 points. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:
Argument and Thesis
For these assignments, “argument” does not necessarily mean “position” (as in, the traditional pro/con, agree/disagree, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a realization that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. Your argument should be interesting, worthwhile, and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, 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. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the result of all your thinking and analyzing, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to think about or analyze, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.
Textual and Contextual Evidence
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well, using in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your discussion where needed, especially where you paraphrase concepts. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is “common knowledge,” use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details. In a discussion this brief, please try to avoid extensive block quoting!
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well, using in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your discussion where needed, especially where you paraphrase concepts. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is “common knowledge,” use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details. In a discussion this brief, please try to avoid extensive block quoting!
Specificity and Situatedness
Some of our collective goals, as a class, are to learn to argue specifically, to question our own assumptions, and to strike a balance between letting the theorist speak to us and speaking back to the theorist. This means making careful observations, providing context details, and avoiding broad generalizations or vague claims (e.g., “Nowadays, things are much better for women writers,” or “This author completely bashed the United Way!”). It also means finding ways to engage with ideas and texts other than merely reacting to them or merely editorializing about them. Instead, I'm asking you to make situated observations (e.g., “In the kind of standpoint feminism that Seyla Benhabib writes about,” or “Ellen Barton was critical of one of the United Way's campaigns based on its flattening of disability”), and this may seem difficult at first if you've never before been asked to justify your claims in terms of the text.
Some of our collective goals, as a class, are to learn to argue specifically, to question our own assumptions, and to strike a balance between letting the theorist speak to us and speaking back to the theorist. This means making careful observations, providing context details, and avoiding broad generalizations or vague claims (e.g., “Nowadays, things are much better for women writers,” or “This author completely bashed the United Way!”). It also means finding ways to engage with ideas and texts other than merely reacting to them or merely editorializing about them. Instead, I'm asking you to make situated observations (e.g., “In the kind of standpoint feminism that Seyla Benhabib writes about,” or “Ellen Barton was critical of one of the United Way's campaigns based on its flattening of disability”), and this may seem difficult at first if you've never before been asked to justify your claims in terms of the text.
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the Oxford English Dictionary, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to theOxford English Dictionary …” You are also writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to know by the end of your introduction what their investment is in reading. Try hooking your reader(s) with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your introduction should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.
Organization and Coherence
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.
Language and Style
Your discussion 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 precise.
Your discussion 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 precise.
Discourse Conventions and Formatting
Your title should reflect what you are trying to argue and may even contain layers of meaning. Citation conventions should be accurate. Aim for ~3 pages single-spaced with your “Works Cited” in MLA format. This means that the final draft should be: Word-processed in a legible 11- or 12-point serif font, and formatted to include 1-inch margins. No cover sheet is necessary, but your name, due date, and course information should appear at the top left of the first page. Please create a header or footer with your last name and page number on all remaining pages.
Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear, or if you become stuck while working through an idea.
Your title should reflect what you are trying to argue and may even contain layers of meaning. Citation conventions should be accurate. Aim for ~3 pages single-spaced with your “Works Cited” in MLA format. This means that the final draft should be: Word-processed in a legible 11- or 12-point serif font, and formatted to include 1-inch margins. No cover sheet is necessary, but your name, due date, and course information should appear at the top left of the first page. Please create a header or footer with your last name and page number on all remaining pages.
Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear, or if you become stuck while working through an idea.
