This is NOT a plot summary!!!!!!
Here is all the information that you need to complete this assignment below.
Attached is a Sample essay that you can use to help you with how this essay is supposed to be written.
Please make sure you follow all the instructions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1.Background: In his theory of panopticism, Michel Foucault argues that “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; … it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole technique of forces and bodies” (p. 10).
In his response, in part, to Foucault’s claim that we are always already socially constructed (and thus subjugated within a dominant ideological gaze), Tobin Siebers writes in his essay, “Disability and the Theory of Complex Embodiment,” “Identity is neither a liability nor a disability. Nor is it an ontological property or a state of being. Identity is, properly defined, an epistemological construction that contains a broad array of theories about navigating social environments….[t]he structure by which that person identifies and becomes identified with a set of social narratives, ideas, myths, values, and types of knowledge of varying reliability, usefulness, and verifiability….the means by which the person…comes to join a particular social body. It also represents the capacity to belong to a collective on the basis not merely of biological tendencies but symbolic ones (p. 319). For Siebers, “oppressed social locations…stand outside of and offer valuable knowledge about the powerful ideologies that seem to enclose us” (p. 314).
In other words, while Foucault forecloses on the possibility of agency outside of the panoptic mechanism, Siebers argues that occupying a minority identity offers a unique perspective of critique. In both cases, understanding identity necessitates complex analysis and close-reading of an individual’s self-representation as well as of the societal representations of the individual. And as we read memoir pieces in this class, we are asking: To what extent can we author our own identities (via literal authorship)? Foucault and Siebers would take different stands on this question. And I would like you to enter into conversation with them by close-reading one of our short memoir pieces in relationship to this question.
Remember: Close-reading is a kind of reading that is not plot summary nor vague generalization, but a process of maintaining a focused attentiveness on how language is being used, and on how a narrative or representation is structured, not just on what is being said. In this way, you are focusing on the importance of the form or structure, the diction, the use of figurative language to reveal, critique, and/or reproduce ideological constructions of identity and, thus, to engage in the debate between Foucault and Siebers.
Your Task: For this brief essay, I would like you to close-read a passage (or passages) from one of the short memoir pieces we have explored (Clare, “Stones in My Pockets, Stones in My Heart;” Zakaria, “Terror and Passing;” or Adair, “Stigmata: A Memoir of Pain and Resistance”) – focusing on developing as nuanced, detailed, and sophisticated an analysis as possible of how the narrator’s navigates his/her/their identity. Situate your close-reading within the interdisciplinary theoretical context of this course (as articulated in Sieber’s theory of “complex embodiment” and Foucault’s theory of “Panopticism”). That is, use at least one passage or concept from Sieber’s and/or Foucault’s essay(s) as a jumping off-point for your analysis of the passage(s) from the memoir piece.
Prior to writing, work through the passages using the following process.
The opening paragraph of your essay – your one-paragraph introduction and thesis – should cover the following steps of close-reading:
- Identify the context in which the passage(s) appears and analyze its significance. In other words, where exactly does the passage appear in the piece (in the beginning, after an important scene, at the end, etc. – don’t just say “in the third paragraph,” for example) and why is its placement important? Identify the rhetorical situation, that is, who is the speaker and who the listener and what is the context of this relationship? What is being asked of us as readers?
- Identify some of the major issues, conflicts, ideas, and ideologies reflected in the language and structure of the passage in relationship to a specific aspect(s)/passage(s) from Sieber’s and/or Foucault’s essays. (This should constitute the thesis of the essay).
Then the body of your essay should be devoted to analysis. Be sure to engage in the following pre-writing exercise (leaving no word unturned):
Analyze the implications of the language in the passage(s). Ask yourself to what effect the author chose those particular words or that style in that particular excerpt? Use the dictionary! Even familiar words might have interesting etymologies or multiple meanings that the writer is using. Explore the subtler connotations of the words, allusions, expressions used. What kinds of metaphors and other figures of speech does the passage employ? Is that passage similar to or different from others, if so, how? How does the structure and word choice tie into larger issues in the piece? And how does all of this reflect or complicate Sieber’s and/or Foucault’s theor[ies] and the fundamental debate they have. This is a very key step in close-reading because you’re moving from describing the facts to inferring meanings.
After you have mined the passage (taken a microscope to it), decide which figures, structural details, word choice, you would like to focus on. For an essay of this length, you must select 3-5 details about which you can go into depth of analysis based on the specific aspect of theory to which you are connecting the passage. Remember, also to:
- Draw some comparisons and conclusions about the passage in terms of its relevance to the rest of the piece: how is it specifically related to other parts? What does it reveal about this writer or an issue that you see earlier or later in the piece? Offer a brief example. Why is that particular passage (as compared to others) important?
Format: 4-5 pages double-spaced, typed. Don’t be concerned about going over the page limit. Because this is an academic essay, use APA conventions for quoting. Assume your reader has read none of the pieces.
Criteria and Grading: I will grade your essay using the attached guidelines and 15-point scale.
Purpose of this Assignment: This assignment asks you to compose a thesis-driven argument/interpretation of a passage in relation to the rest of a piece and in relation to specific theoretical essays. It asks you to focus primarily on close-textual analysis, a skill that is fundamental to literary analysis (and, in fact, nuanced analysis of any kind of text/cultural representation) as support for your argument.
0 comments