Rhetorical Analysis of a Protest
Object
Dates:
September
1: Website posts by 10 PM
September
7: Website comment with object choice by 10 PM
September
15: Rough draft posted to website and D2L dropbox by 8 PM
September
21: Response to group members’ drafts posted to website by 3 PM
September
26: Revision plan due as a comment on your draft by 10 PM (we’ll spend time on
this in class on the 21st and 26th)
September
29: Final draft posted to website and D2L dropbox by 8 PM
Assignment Details: This assignment is worth 15% of your final course grade
For this
assignment, you’ll be asked to perform a rhetorical analysis on a protest
artifact (text, image, song, etc.) that is working to represent a particular
identity. The analysis will address the artifact’s rhetorical situation
(audience, context, purpose) and the rhetorical strategies (ethos, pathos,
logos) it uses to achieve its purpose. The analysis should be 1000-1300 words
and use proper MLA citation format (see Purdue’s online writing lab, https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/, for a guide to MLA style). Feel
free to come to office hours at any step in the writing process if you have
questions about your work.
The
assignment has three parts: a set of post to our class website, an explication
of the artifact’s rhetorical situation, and an analysis of its rhetorical
strategies.
1. Posts with possible objects
for analysis: 20%
of final grade for the assignment
You’ll
submit three separate posts to the course website under “Topics.” (I’ll go over
how to do post to the site in class). Each post should have two labels: “Topics”
and “[your name].” Be sure to use the label for your name you created during
the first week of class.
Each of
your posts will contain one possible object for analysis and an explanation of
the object’s context. See my sample post about Citizen for a model; basically, you’ll give a representation of the
protest and then answer the questions who/what/where/when/why in order to give
us a sense of what you think it’s about, and include a note on the identity or identities with which the object is
concerned.
Your
posts need to include a range of protests: of the three posts, at least one
should cover a protest/event prior to 1990, at least one post-1990, and at
least one should have originated outside the United States. (You may hit both
of these categories with the same post.) You may also not duplicate any of your
classmates exact objects, so keep the website open as you work on this. (This
is an incentive to get to work on this sooner than later: the earlier you post,
the fewer options will already be taken.)
Your
three posts should also include at least two different types of object. Possible artifact types include, but are not
limited to: slogans, speeches, photographs, songs, instances of protest or body
rhetoric, poems, short stories, advertisements, monuments, memorials, websites,
essays, news articles, short biographies or autobiographies, short clips from a
TV show or documentary, reports of community or political initiatives, social
media accounts that can be viewed publicly. Basically, anything that you can
claim functions as an act or protest, and that is small enough to cover
thoroughly in 1000 or so words (no complete protest movements, full books, or
entire films please).
Grade
for the posts will be based on:
1)
whether you’ve successfully posted to the website and used labels (20%)
2) whether
you’ve chosen appropriate objects (30%)
3)
whether you’ve clearly explained the objects’ context (50%)
2. Rough Draft (30% of final
paper grade)
You’ll post
a complete rough draft of the paper to
the website tagged with the labels “Rhetorical Analysis Project,” “rough
drafts,” and your name. Rough drafts must be full length and contain a properly
formatted Works Cited in MLA style (see above). Take a look at the rubric at
the end of this sheet to see how I’ll be evaluating rough drafts, and be
cognizant that incomplete drafts tend to fare poorly.
3. Final draft (50% of final
paper grade)
By midnight
on March 7, you’ll upload your final draft of the paper to the D2L dropbox and
the course website, using the labels “Rhetorical Analysis Project,” “final
drafts,” and your name. Final drafts should incorporate my feedback and your
group members feedback in the ways we’ll discuss when we start workshopping.
Paper Organization
Your
paper will have two main parts: an explication of rhetorical situation and an
analysis of rhetorical strategies.
In the
explication of the rhetorical situation, you will use evidence from the object
itself to explain 1) who the intended audience is, 2) what the relevant
contexts for understanding it are, 3) what purpose it is trying to achieve, and
4) how the object is related to the identity you’ve chosen. Your analysis of
purpose should include what you take to be its goals with respect to the
identity you see the object as trying to shape/examine/articulate. You might
not do these in this exact order; depending on what you’re analyzing, it may be
easier to start with purpose and then talk about audience and context. Organize
however it seems most effective to you. Assume that your audience is, roughly,
our class: a group of people generally interested in protest movements but
perhaps not familiar with your particular protest.
In the
analysis, you’ll discuss how the creator(s) of your artifact use Ethos, Pathos,
and Logos to achieve the purpose you’ve found in the explication. (You do not
necessarily need to organize this section by these three terms, but you should
use the terms in your analysis.) The thesis of this section should state the
creator(s)’ purpose, which identity that purpose is tied to, and a list of
strategies the creator(s) use to achieve that purpose. Strong analyses will
conclude with an assessment of how effective the object was in achieving its
purpose, either rhetorically or historically.
Grading Rubrics: your drafts will be graded on the following criteria.
Rough Draft
Explication: Explication persuasively and
clearly
outlines identity, audience, context, and purpose /9
outlines identity, audience, context, and purpose /9
Analysis: Analysis persuasively and clearly
analyzes
the artifact’s ethos, pathos, and logos /9
the artifact’s ethos, pathos, and logos /9
Organization: Logically organized with a
clear thesis in the analysis section /5
clear thesis in the analysis section /5
Grammar/sentence
structure: prose
is clear,
grammatically correct, and effectively conveys
meaning /3
grammatically correct, and effectively conveys
meaning /3
Works Cited: Draft includes a properly
formatted works cited /3
Labels: Draft is labeled correctly on
website /1
Total: /30
Final Draft (50
points):
Scope of revisions: revisions were a sufficient response
to feedback from Dr. Brown and classmates, targeted
issues raised in feedback /6
Scope of revisions: revisions were a sufficient response
to feedback from Dr. Brown and classmates, targeted
issues raised in feedback /6
Clarity of
revisions: Revisions
added substance and
clarity to the paper, targeted issues raised effectively /6
clarity to the paper, targeted issues raised effectively /6
Explication: Explication persuasively and
clearly
outlines audience, context, and purpose /12
outlines audience, context, and purpose /12
Analysis: Analysis persuasively and clearly
analyzes
the artifact’s ethos, pathos, and logos /12
the artifact’s ethos, pathos, and logos /12
Organization: Logically organized with a
clear thesis in the analysis section /5
clear thesis in the analysis section /5
Grammar/sentence
structure: prose
is clear,
grammatically correct, and effectively conveys
meaning /5
grammatically correct, and effectively conveys
meaning /5
Works Cited: Draft includes a properly
formatted works cited /3
Labels: Draft is labeled correctly on
website /1
No comments:
Post a Comment