Inquiry 2: Cultural/Historical Exploration
“Any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another” – Julia Kristeva
During the process of this inquiry, we will study the intertexual features of a speech. We will question the historical, cultural, and ideological assumptions of speeches by extensively researching their textual and contextual features. The inquiry will be split into two major sections: part A, a blog for annotations, connections, and research; and part B, a cumulative synthesis and reaction paper.
Understanding Intertextuality
In his recent inaugural address, President Barack Obama delivered a speech detailing his plans for the next four years of his presidency. At first glance, his remarks might be seen as highly original (after all, he is speaking about future events, policy changes, and political goals); however, in his speech, Obama invokes several phrases, ideals, and concepts that have a long, multi-authored history. Understanding texts as intertextual means that all writing contains traces of other texts. Obama’s speech—which includes quoted lines from the Declaration of Independence, celebrated and often-used phrases of democracy, and direct associations to recent and past cultural events—is full of intertextual traces. Tracking, synthesizing, and reacting to the traces found in other speeches will be the work of Inquiry 2.
First Steps
Begin by selecting a speech from American history (e.g. presidential speeches, remarks from important American figures, speeches from public activists, etc.). Although the possibilities are pretty open, I ask that your selected speech not be fictional (such as a movie or fictional book). For a database of major political speeches, see americanrhetoric.com. As with Inquiry 1, it will likely be more engaging if you choose a speech pertaining to an interesting issue or person.
Part A: Tracking the Traces – An Intertextuality Blog
For the first part of Inquiry 2, create a blog—using Wordpress, Blogger, or Tumblr—to hold and keep track of “traces” you find in your selected speech. As we work on part A, you should explore how your speech appropriates other texts, concepts, ideals, argumentation styles, and so on. To do this, you will need to research historical roots of common phrases and words, examine cultural references in depth, study the lineage of argumentation styles, and assess the overall genre of political speech writing. Although it would be nearly impossible to discover the source for all of these traces, your blog should seek to uncover some of the cultural, historical, and ideological assumptions that are inherent in all writing.
To track your traces, start by using some of the close reading techniques we used for Inquiry 1. What phrases stand out? What concepts seem to be familiar to all speech writing? What authors are explicitly mentioned? What values are praised or discredited? For a blog post, then, you might choose to focus on a particular phrase, asking several questions: When, where, and why is it commonly used? What are some of its historical roots? What concept does it easily represent? Etc. Another blog post might look at another phrase or cultural reference. We’ll talk about research strategies—where to start and where to look—in class.
Blog Post Expectations/Evaluative Criteria
Part B: Synthesis and Critical Reaction
Moving from Part A, the second part of this inquiry asks you to analyze the traces of your speech. Essentially, you should seek to synthesize and organize the findings posted in your blog entries around a central question or theme. Below are some examples:
Ultimately, you should seek to identify, analyze, and critique how speechwriters appropriate cultural texts for their own rhetorical purposes.
Expectations/Evaluative Criteria
Important Dates (tentative)
Proposal due: Feb 11
First blog entry due: Feb 20 (updated)
Final blog entry due: March 1
Rough Draft Part B: Feb 27 (updated)
Final Draft Part B: March 4
During the process of this inquiry, we will study the intertexual features of a speech. We will question the historical, cultural, and ideological assumptions of speeches by extensively researching their textual and contextual features. The inquiry will be split into two major sections: part A, a blog for annotations, connections, and research; and part B, a cumulative synthesis and reaction paper.
Understanding Intertextuality
In his recent inaugural address, President Barack Obama delivered a speech detailing his plans for the next four years of his presidency. At first glance, his remarks might be seen as highly original (after all, he is speaking about future events, policy changes, and political goals); however, in his speech, Obama invokes several phrases, ideals, and concepts that have a long, multi-authored history. Understanding texts as intertextual means that all writing contains traces of other texts. Obama’s speech—which includes quoted lines from the Declaration of Independence, celebrated and often-used phrases of democracy, and direct associations to recent and past cultural events—is full of intertextual traces. Tracking, synthesizing, and reacting to the traces found in other speeches will be the work of Inquiry 2.
First Steps
Begin by selecting a speech from American history (e.g. presidential speeches, remarks from important American figures, speeches from public activists, etc.). Although the possibilities are pretty open, I ask that your selected speech not be fictional (such as a movie or fictional book). For a database of major political speeches, see americanrhetoric.com. As with Inquiry 1, it will likely be more engaging if you choose a speech pertaining to an interesting issue or person.
Part A: Tracking the Traces – An Intertextuality Blog
For the first part of Inquiry 2, create a blog—using Wordpress, Blogger, or Tumblr—to hold and keep track of “traces” you find in your selected speech. As we work on part A, you should explore how your speech appropriates other texts, concepts, ideals, argumentation styles, and so on. To do this, you will need to research historical roots of common phrases and words, examine cultural references in depth, study the lineage of argumentation styles, and assess the overall genre of political speech writing. Although it would be nearly impossible to discover the source for all of these traces, your blog should seek to uncover some of the cultural, historical, and ideological assumptions that are inherent in all writing.
To track your traces, start by using some of the close reading techniques we used for Inquiry 1. What phrases stand out? What concepts seem to be familiar to all speech writing? What authors are explicitly mentioned? What values are praised or discredited? For a blog post, then, you might choose to focus on a particular phrase, asking several questions: When, where, and why is it commonly used? What are some of its historical roots? What concept does it easily represent? Etc. Another blog post might look at another phrase or cultural reference. We’ll talk about research strategies—where to start and where to look—in class.
Blog Post Expectations/Evaluative Criteria
- At least five blog posts during the time we spend working on Inquiry 2
- Develop engaged, critical posts (roughly 400 words each)
- Incorporate textual evidence – images, links, videos, quotes, etc.
Part B: Synthesis and Critical Reaction
Moving from Part A, the second part of this inquiry asks you to analyze the traces of your speech. Essentially, you should seek to synthesize and organize the findings posted in your blog entries around a central question or theme. Below are some examples:
- Why does Ronald Regan frequently invoke the American frontier in his “Challenger Disaster” address?
- In what ways does Hillary Clinton compare Gay Rights to Civil Rights? Why does she do this?
- Why does Frederick Douglass frequently cite the Declaration of Independence when it was so often used against the rights of slaves?
Ultimately, you should seek to identify, analyze, and critique how speechwriters appropriate cultural texts for their own rhetorical purposes.
Expectations/Evaluative Criteria
- Clear and organized argument
- Deep and thorough examination of relevant textual “traces”
- Approximately six pages (standard format)
- Incorporation of outside research
- Adherence to MLA style
Important Dates (tentative)
Proposal due: Feb 11
First blog entry due: Feb 20 (updated)
Final blog entry due: March 1
Rough Draft Part B: Feb 27 (updated)
Final Draft Part B: March 4