do a meta-analysis of the conspiracy theories we’ve discussed in class. Students can certainly utilize conspiracy theories that we have not talked about, but our broader goal is the same. Each student will produce a paper that examines the major common elements between all and significant chunks of conspiracy theories. This will require you to fully utilize the two major components of persuasive analysis that we’ve covered this semester, historical context/origin and the rhetorical situation. If you are ever in doubt, start with the readings that are still available in our modules from the beginning of the class. This meta-analysis will dissect the conspiracy theories in a way to develop a broader understanding of the rhetorical, or persuasive, elements. We have been trying to promote an understanding of larger elements that contribute to how audiences relate to specific conspiracy theories in class, and this paper will have each of you do that in a more significant way. While addressing similarities between a couple of conspiracy theories is an incredibly valuable exercise, the most substantive and meaningful element of persuasion need to focus on successfully generalizations that utilize specific parts from a number of conspiracy theories. How do the theories relate to each other and give us a better understanding of believers, critics, and other audiences? All groups are key players in a rhetorical analysis of conspiracy theories. You should also incorporate elements of the psychology of conspiracy theories that we have done some basic work on in class. This work will ultimately culminate in a 4-6 page paper. The criteria for evaluation are as follows, but also include all the elements mentioned above:1) Background analysis – in order to understand conspiracy theories, one has to know where they comes from and their origin story. You should focus on context and use in public discourse. I want to reiterate the importance of also looking at the historical and cultural backdrop of when these conspiracy theories were created and grew in popularity (i.e. the Cold War and JFK’s assassination, military technology and significant development paired with aliens, etc.).2) Rhetorical analysis – did you follow the steps of meaningfully exploring historical context and the rhetorical situation? Did you do a shallow job of identifying important rhetorical elements or did you delve into the larger cultural influence and meaning of the conspiracy theories? Did you focus on the elements of persuasion (emotional, logical, and credible) as they pertain to these conspiracy theories?3) Basics – did you fulfill the expectations regarding page length? Is the paper readable and utilizes (more often than not) proper use of grammar and syntax? Is the paper organized in a way that flows meaningfully through the analysis? Does it synthesize the key ideas in a way that doesn’t sound choppy? Did the ideas and intersections receive equitable focus and discussion in the paper?
