CMS150 - Winter 2001
Trials of Conscience: Litigation
and the Rhetoric of Identity
Model Analysis Form
* Disciplinary Questions
o In what academic discipline has the writer been trained (history,
literature, law, anthropology, sociology)?
o In addition to his/her own academic background, does the writer
explicitly inform his/her model with concepts and theories from
other academic disciplines?
* Articulating the Model
The Thesis
Good analytical writing usually contains an explicit
statement of the author's purpose and goal in writing.
Sometimes, this statement can be very general (e.g., "to
explore whether a Marxist analysis provides a more
fruitful reading of the trials of the Christian martyrs
than traditional techniques have to date). Sometimes,
this statement can be identical to the author's thesis
(e.g., "to show that a Marxist analysis of the Christian
Bible can demonstrate the operation of class dynamics in
the provinces of the Roman empire).
You should be able to find the author's statement of
his/her goal purpose in the introduction to his/her book
or the first few paragraphs of his/her article. If you
can't find such an explicit statement of purpose, skip
to the conclusion of the book or article and see if you
find it stated there.
+ What is the writer's "project" or overall goal?
+ If the writer's thesis is different from or more specific
than this goal, what is it?
+ How does the writer propose to prove his/her thesis?
+ Does the writer explicitly invoke a theoretical model
(e.g., historical materialsm, structuralism,
deconstruction)?
+ What evidence will the writer examine to prove his/her
thesis (e.g., written texts, visual arts, inscriptions,
personal interviews of percipient witnesses)?
+ Is this evidence comparable to our primary sources
(written accounts of trials)?
+ Is this evidence from the same historical period as
the primary sources we will study?
+ Is this evidence from the same geographical region
as the primary sources we will study?
+ Is this evidence from the same culture as the
primary sources we will study?
+ Is this evidence generated by persons of the same
class, status and/or gender as the primary sources
we will study?
o The Argument
Good analytical writing argues by breaking a thesis down
into a series of small points (or mini-theses) which, if
proven, logically compel the thesis the writer has set
out to argue. In books, each chapter should present a
mini-thesis in the first few pages of the chapter (and
refer to the min-thesis again at the conclusion of the
chapter).
In academic articles, writers tend to organize their
arguments around sections (indicated by bold faced or
italicized headings) or simply around paragraphs.
+ For the book or article you are reading, write out the
mini-thesis of each chapter or section of the article.
+ Once you have written these down in order, ask yourself,
+ If the author proves each of these thesis, do I find
that they compel the major thesis that he/she is arguing
for? Explain why you find the logic of the author's
argument compelling or unpersuasive.
+ If the author's analysis depends on the use of
theoretical models or concepts, does he/she explain the
model in each chapter or section of his/her text?
+ For each chapter or section of the author's
writing, note any new theoretical concepts or terms
that the author employs (e.g., "class," or
"structure," or "narrative"). [Note, theoretical
writing should build conceptually. If the author
explains his/her use of the term "class" in Chapter
1 and continues to use it in Chapters 2-9, you
don't need to keep writing it down unless you
believe the author has changed or nuanced his/her
use of the term in an important way.]
+ Where in the chapter does the author define his/her
terms and explain his/her concepts?
o The Evidence
+ Next, write what type of evidence the author examines in each
chapter of his/her book or section of his/her article
+ For each chapter or article section, ask yourself whether
this kind of evidence lends itself to examination through the
theoretical concepts the author is applying (e.g., can
historians of "dead" cultures effectively use tools of modern
anthropologists, designed for the interrogation of many,
living, percipient witnesses? do techniques of literary
analysis lend themselves to the study of non-literary texts
like inscriptions, trial transcripts).
+ If you believe the author's theory doesn't really work for
the evidence he/she is analyzing in a chapter, stop and
consider whether this alters your overall analysis of the
persuasiveness of his/her larger argument.
* Applying the Model
o Are there differences in the evidence the author studies and our
primary sources?
+ What are the nature of the differences (time, geography,
culture, class, status, gender; or material (e.g., paintings
as opposed to written texts, folk tales as opposed to
biographies).
+ Despite these differences, do you think the author's model
(or portions of it) can be translated to apply to our primary
sources?
+ What conceptual steps or changes will you have to make to
apply the model to our sources?
+ Do any of these steps/changes undermine a step in the logical
progression of the theoretical author's argument?
+ If so, does it matter for the purposes of our analysis?
o Review your outline of the author's mini-theses and apply it to
the primary source we are reading (making any adjustments you
think are necessary).
+ After you have gone through this process, stop and ask
yourself, has this exercise helped me understand better the
trial we are studying.
+ Explain briefly why you think this process has been helpful
or unhelpful.