CMS150 - Winter 2001

Trials of Conscience: Litigation

and the Rhetoric of Identity

You can obtain a clean text of the model analysis form at this link.

Disciplinary Questions

•  
  • In what academic discipline has the writer been trained (history, literature, law, anthropology, sociology)?

     

  • 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?

         

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?

       

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

•  
  • 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?

       

  • 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.