Rhetorical Criticism Assignment
This semester you learn various ways to do rhetorical criticism as a method of critical inquiry (metaphoric analysis, basic rhetorical analysis, and framing analysis). Throughout the semester, you will read models of these kinds of rhetorical research, and we will practice doing these kinds of rhetorical criticism to analyze a variety of texts that forward arguments about issues related to post-truth society. Such practice will push you to identify the rhetorical situation in which arguments are crafted, the structure and style of arguments, the multiple rhetorical devices use to persuade, and the ethical dilemmas at play. Such knowledge will simultaneously help you develop a critical eye and learn effective strategies for constructing your own persuasive arguments about an issue related to post-truth society that matters to you.
For your first formal assignment, you will generate a rhetorical criticism paper (~5-7 double spaced pages) in which you deploy key rhetorical concepts to analyze a chosen artifact related to post-truth society & to generate inquiries about the issue/controversy you aim to write about for your final formal argument. Some of you, for example, may choose to visually analyze a political cartoon satirizing fake news, an analysis of which may lead to an inquiry into current efforts of social media giants to curb fake news. Others of you may use framing analysis to analyze a political speech publishing misinformation, an analysis of which may lead into an inquiry into debates about the normalcy of lying in the American Congress. Whatever you choose to analyze, your goal will be to analyze and evaluate the rhetorical strategies at play within a specific argument and to respond to that argument by broaching the interesting questions and ethical implications it raises about a timely and important issue that you plan to explore in your final formal argument.
To assist you in crafting a substantive rhetorical criticism, I offer the following structure for your essay. However, you may divert form this structure if you think rhetorically best. Should you take the latter route, please make sure to identify all the key elements (such as rhetorical situation, rhetorical strategies, ethical implications, etc.) being asked for in this assignment somewhere in your paper.
Introduction:
Begin your paper with an engaging lead in to your chosen issue related to post-truth society and then narrow to the specific artifact you have decided to analyze. Identify the rhetorical situation in which the artifact at hand as been crafted: author, kairotic context, exigence, genre, publication outlet, audience, and purpose. If useful, bring in secondary research to identify context and exigence so that readers can deep sense of what is going on when this artifact was being produced and why you think it is important to discuss/analyze.
At the end of your introduction, identify the means of criticism you will enact (metaphor, framing, basic rhetorical, or visual rhetorical analysis) and define what that method entails based on course readings, so your audience clearly understands what your method is. Then, articulate an overall argument about the artifact at hand that your research and criticism makes evidence. This is essential the driving point of your essay.
Because you have a lot to do in your introduction, you will likely need more than one paragraph to do this work. Your introduction, however, should not take up the majority of your inquiry paper. Please limit your introduction, then, to 2-4 paragraphs.
Body:
No matter the method you are using, you need to zoom in the rhetorical strategies at work within your chosen artifact. Deploying key concepts from our readings, as modeled in class, identify and analyze the rhetorical strategies that are at play within the artifact to help author/designer/artist achieve their purpose. Your analysis should illustrate that you understand what each of those strategies are and how they are intended to work in the artifact at hand. Evidence from the artifact should be included to justify your point about the strategy at play. Depending on chosen method, some essays may focus more heavily on one strategy more than an other, but ultimately many strategies are always at play as are various appeals. Essentially, with each strategy you need to: identify, define, describe, and analyze the effect of the strategy. It may be best to devote one paragraph to one strategy or instance of the strategy if that helps you establish a clear line of argument, a well developed analysis, and a sound organization.
Conclusion:
This conclusion should not be summative but rather generative. Rather than summing up what you have already articulated thus far, then, I want you to use this conclusion to evaluate the effectiveness of the rhetoric, based on the evidence from your analysis (in body paragraphs), identify the ethical implications of your research findings, and respond to the argument at hand by identifying important questions or insights that come up for you. To a great extent, then, readers should learn what you think about the ethical implications of the argument at hand. What is pressing about your findings? What concerns does your criticism raise that your readers should think more closely about and why? What is at stake and for whom? And what is the ultimate direction you want to take with your research now?
A Word about Citations and Outside Research
Well developed rhetorical criticism relies not only on your astute observations but your awareness of the method, rhetorical situation, strategies, and ethical implications at play in relation to your chosen artifact. For that reason, I expect you to draw on course readings and your own outside research when appropriate. For instance, when describing your chosen method, you may go back to course readings to help define/describe it. When you are identifying the rhetorical situation, you may do outside research and/or go back to readings to help identify kairotic context, define terms, etc. When you are identifying, defining, and analyzing a specific strategy, you may do both as well. And finally, you may both draw on course readings and outside research to discuss the ethical implications of your research findings. We will go over in class how to integrate and cite sources as well as avoid plagiarism do assist you with this work.
Nuts and Bolts of the Assignment
Audience: Your audience for this rhetorical criticism is your peers and instructor who have been reading alongside you all semester. You can assume we have knowledge about the rhetorical concepts you deploy in your paper, but you must strive not to confuse us with the theory (by say identifying ethos as a key strategy but going on to discuss emotional appeals, for instance).
Purpose: Your objective with this assignment is threefold: a.) to demonstrate your rhetorical knowledge by deploying rhetorical concepts to develop a deep, sophisticated, convincing rhetorical criticism of your chosen artifact; b.) make an overall argument, supported by your analysis, about the rhetorics deployed in the artifact; and c.) to identify your ethical concerns raised by your research and why such concerns matter to contemporary U.S. society (and beyond perhaps). NOTE: In relation to a.demonstrating rhetorical knowledgeyou might think of this paper as a test; rather than giving you an exam, then, on rhetorical theory, I am ask you to demonstrate that you understand it, have picked up on some of the key methods and concepts, and can put that theory into action in your rhetorical criticism.
Logistical guidelines:
5-7 pages finished prose, double-spaced
Crafted in a Word Doc (or equivalent format)
First and Final publishs Uploaded to Assignment Page on Canvas
First publish Due: Oct 9 (Sun), 11:59 pm
Final publish Due: Oct 16 (Sun), 11:59 pm
Inclusion of Works Cited (MLA format) for secondary sources
Peer editing workshop is required in order for final publish of essay to be accepted!!!
A Student Writing Sample
A writing sample of rhetorical criticism may help you see how these expectations are embodied and what an A-level rhetorical criticism looks like. Read the writing sampleDownload writing sample closely and consult the assessment criteria below to see why this is a grade-A essay.
Evaluation: Your grade for this assignment will be dependent on your ability to achieve the three-part goal described above, which necessitates projecting a credible ethos through deep research, properly cited sources, and clear, concise writing.
A level essays follow the guidelines above to offer a compelling and deeply informed rhetorical criticism that bleeds into a generative inquiry about an issue related to post-truth society. Rhetorical knowledge demonstrated on the page is outstandingthe method of rhetorical criticism is clearly identified and explained, rhetorical situation of the artifact at hand is clearly identified; specific rhetorical strategies are clearly identified and analyzed; an overall argument about the rhetorics at hand is clearly articulated and supported by evidence from artifact and analysis; and ethical issues raised by the artifact are deeply interrogated. Essentially, author does a remarkable job making a persuasive argument about the rhetorics and ethics at play and generating a productive line of inquiry that emerges through their rhetorical criticism. Writing is clear, coherent, and polished. Application of concepts is explicit and prevalent and demonstrates clear understanding of those concepts. Risk taking with both analysis and inquiry is obvious.
B level essays are well above average in nearly all the above counts. However, the analysis may contain less-fully-sustained and/or theoretically informed moments of explication. In addition, an overall argument may weekly stated and/or supported; productive line of inquiry in conclusion may not be fully realized and more explanation could have been included to clarify stakes of inquiry at hand. Also, issues with grammar may keep essay from being eloquently and clearly articulated. Risk taking with analysis and inquiry is obvious, however.
C range essays are passable and often promising, but have multiple key areas that need major improvement to deepen analysis and generate a productive line of inquiry: a more rigorous application of key concepts from course readings; stronger explanation of rhetorical situation and deeper analysis of rhetorical choices; a more explicit and well supported overall argument; more substantive explanation of ethical concerns; and/or clearer presentation (structure, prose style, grammar). Rhetorical knowledge may even be compromised in one or two instances through misunderstanding of certain concepts and/or strategies. More risks could have been taken in analysis and line of inquiry.
D level essays show potential with major revisions. The essay may exhibit an inaccurate consideration of rhetorical situation, an underdeveloped analysis; an unarticulated and/or unsupported overall argument; a lack of comprehension and application of concepts from course readings; a minimal addressing of ethical concerns; and numerous issues with grammar that impede comprehension. Essentially, this essay does not exhibit adequate rhetorical knowledge and/or identify a productive line of inquiry.
F papers did not follow directions for assignment or resulted from a neglect to turn in essay on time or at all. Plagiarism may be an issue.
Recent Comments