Final Paper
You will compose a reflective 900 – 1,400 word essay.
25 % of your Final Grade
Formatting should be consistent with either MLA or Chicago throughout
Part I: Critical Application.
(Part I should be about 70 ~ 80% of your total word count in this paper)
In Part I of this paper, you will
(a) Describe your artifact, briefly. A description should be a fixed, neutral, characterization or “headlining” of the artifact. It is not a “summary” nor is it a chronological account of the points the artifact makes, one after the other. It is simply a way of showing the reader what you are analyzing. Identify the key claim (that is, the thesis, the telos) of the artifact. You are encouraged to consult chapters 2, and 3 and, especially, 4 in the Stoner textbook on rhetorical methods that you were given at the opening of the semester. You will find a link to the book in the Administrivia Module.
(b) Analyze some rhetorical aspect(s) of the artifact with your method. Remember: your job here is to identify the enthymemes (your method is supposed to help you do that!) and show how they are working to make the thesis more acceptable to the audience. That in a nutshell is what rhetorical critics do. Focus on the rhetorical functions!
You do that by applying your chosen method to the artifact. Remember that there are many, many methods, and each will look at the artifact from a different angle or perspective. But every method is a set of instructions for thinking about, reasoning about, examining your artifact.
You may want to look over ch. 5 in the textbook that you were given at the opening of the semester. You will find a link to the book in the Administrivia Module.
So, in this part, you simply state your method plainly, and then you apply your method properly to the artifact you are examining.
Before you can apply the method, you will almost certainly need to read more about your chosen method and come to understand it better. Locate solid sources that explain how to do your method. Read a variety of sources about how to do your method. Consult online videos from reliable sources about how to do your method. And cite!! cite!! cite!!! these sources. Cite everything when you are doing your analysis. You should review (for yourself—don’t write it here!) your Sketch Paper, part II.c. Look at the sources you used there. Those will be a good place to start
(c) Make critical judgments about the rhetorical aspects of the artifact. You must make judgments about the rhetorical functions within the artifact. Note places where the artifact functions well, and places it functions poorly.
Your judgments should not engage the topic of your artifact. For example, if your artifact is about religious views on abortion, you are not supposed to critique their views of abortion or present your own views. Rather you are critiquing the rhetorical functions within the artifact.
Whether you agree or disagree with the artifact’s position is not the question. Rather, your job is to judge how the enthymemes in the artifact support the convictions the artifact presents.
Your judgments must involve some commentary on how the artifact approached religion.
Your judgments must also involve some commentary on how your method dealt with the religious content of the artifact.
(d) Place a word count of the content (excluding headings, titles, etc.) at the end of this section of the paper. Be sure to accomplish all four tasks (a, b, c, d) for Part I as laid out in these instructions.
Digression: some important definitions.
Author: The source of your artifact: the person or institution who crafted it or is presently using it to encourage, strengthen, or challenge an audience’s convictions
Artifact: What the author produced, and what you are examining in order to figure out how the author is encouraging, strengthening, or challenging an audience’s convictions through this artifact.
Knowledge: A conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence so strong that anyone able to understand it would draw the same conclusion. Knowledge can be challenged and disputed, but only by those who have demonstrated that they understand the evidence that led to the conclusion they are challenging.
Conviction: A conclusion based on strong evidence, but not evidence so strong that everyone agrees. Convictions are debatable and the same evidence might reasonably lead to different conclusions. Convictions are usually formed in religion, politics, relationships, aesthetics.
Private Preference: A conclusion rooted only in my own desires, and seeking no further evidence or justification for its existence.
Enthymemes: Evidence that leads to convictions. Enthymemes may be based in careful reasoning about both undisputed facts and debatable ideas; or they may be based in the power of broad human experience, emotion, and reaction to situations and things; or they may be rooted in persons, texts, or institutions with a long and proven record of helping people make wise choices.
Rhetoric: The artistic use of language (broadly understood) to create, strengthen, or challenge human convictions through enthymemes.
Criticism: A process of making reasoned judgments. Note that criticism is generally offered in a way that is independent of the critic’s agreement or disagreement with the author, the artifact, or the conviction being addressed.
Rhetorical Criticism: A process of making reasoned judgments about the artistic use of language in the formation, reinforcement, or challenge of human conviction.
Method: A set of instructions for examining an artifact. Methods may or may not require the critic to assume specific theoretical perspectives.
Theory: From qewrei:n, to see. A perspective, position, point of view that guides the critic’s interpretation of an artifact and in some critical theory perspectives, becomes the method.
Religion: A structured interaction of beliefs and practices connected to realities outside of normal space-time and relating to some god or gods—beings with attributes and powers beyond mortal people.
Continue to the next page for
instructions on Part II
Part II: Critical Reflection.
(Part II should be about 20 ~ 30% of your total word count for this paper)
You need not create a smooth transition or a unified feeling between Parts I and II in your paper. Part I should conclude naturally and stand on its own even if a reader never saw Part II.
You will want to use your own critical work with your chosen method and chosen artifact as examples in this section, but you write Part II as an entirely different essay, at one level. Part II asks you to grapple with and come to conclusions about one of the central aspects of the course.
In Part II of this essay, you will:
(a) Discuss the God Problem in an insightful way. The task you are required to accomplish here is to reflect on the God Problem in specific and concrete situations.
Explain the problem and why it matters in the study of human communication.
In your discussion, consider Mark Ward’s reply.
You are required to take some stand on this debate, and to support your stand with reasoned argument. That is, you are required to create enthymemes that suggest the power of your convictions on this matter.
You should lean on, or borrow from, your experiences in trying to understand and work with religious artifacts in this class, including writing Part I of this paper.
You are welcome to write in your own voice and express your own confusions, or concerns. Those confusions and concerns should not be mere expressions of “I didn’t get it.” Rather, you should be expressing the sorts of confusions that one has after they have come to a fairly clear understanding of a complicated idea.
The task you are required to accomplish here is to reflect on the God Problem in specific and concrete situations. As noted, your Part I could be one of those concrete situations, but it does not need to be the only source of your reflections on the issue. You are free to choose any examples and artifacts that have appeared in your readings over the semester. I would encourage you to look over, especially, the texts and artifacts that appeared in our discussion of strategies the religious believer would use to communicate their faith; any posted readings from the semester that help you take a stand on the God Problem debate and explain your understanding of the God Problem are open to you. If I have posted it in the readings, you are free to use it in your reflections. You may use other sources as well, but I would encourage you to stick mostly with class readings.
(b) Place a word count of the content (excluding headings, titles, etc.) at the end of this section of the paper. Be sure to accomplish both tasks (a & b) for Part II as laid out in these instructions.
Some General Notes
Begin Part I media res. Do not write an introduction; do not attempt to capture my attention; do not waste words warming up you keyboard. Begin in a direct and straightforward academic voice:
“This paper examines “My Special Artifact” by applying my delightful method to it. My special artifact… {describe the artifact}….”
When you have completed the description, apply the method and analyze the artifact.
When you have completed the analysis, draw conclusions, make inferences, interpret, evaluate, make reasoned judgments about the patterns and perspectives your method has revealed to you. Show why your judgments are reasonable (= make enthymemes showing why I can be confident about your judgments and conclusions).
Begin Part II media res as well. Assume I am moderately well acquainted with the God Problem. You don’t have to define it at length or contextualize it. You just have to discuss it in the context of specific communication artifacts and situations. This discussion should reveal that you understand the nature of the problem and the challenges Ward brings to the Schultze’s view of the God Problem.
Stylistic Excellence throughout. In every part of the paper, your language must be grammatically flawless, crystal clear, perfectly appropriate, and well polished. I call your attention, especially, to the “Virtues of Style” document, slides 1-7, that you will find below the Final Paper instructions in the Administrivia Module. You should also review chapter 8 in the Stoner textbook that you were given at the opening of the semester. You will find a link to the book in the Administrivia Module.
Sources. You will not be able to adequately accomplish the tasks of this paper without some outside research. I would expect you to need one, two, maybe three, citations just for the examples you will employ in Part II. And then you will have to cite Schultze as well as Ward. That is two more, minimum. You may need another citation in there, but that makes three—at the absolute minimum—cites in Part II. I would expect you to need an additional three to five citations in Part I to adequately cover aspects of your method in the analysis portion of the paper. So the total cites should come in around six or seven outside sources.
Rubric. Here is the general rubric that will guide my reading of your paper; it basically duplicates what you have above in the instructions of the assignment, but be sure you look at where your points are distributed.
I. Critical Application 65 points
E
G
S
N
I
I.a. Describe Artifact
A description should be a fixed, neutral, characterization or “headlining” of the artifact. It is not a “summary” nor is it a chronological account of the points the artifact makes, one after the other. It is simply a way of showing the reader what you are analyzing. Identify the key claim (that is, the thesis, the telos) of the artifact.
Make certain your writing is grammatically flawless, crystal clear, perfectly appropriate, and well polished.
10
8
7
6
4
I.b. Analyze rhetorical aspects of artifact
Your job here is to identify the enthymemes and show how they function
Correctly apply your chosen method to the artifact.
Demonstrate a thorough. well-researched, and properly-cited understanding of your method by using it correctly and acknowledging your sources
Make certain your writing is grammatically flawless, crystal clear, perfectly appropriate, and well polished.
25
21
19
16
12
I.c. Make critical judgments about rhetorical aspects of artifact
You must make judgments about the rhetorical functions within the artifact.
Your judgments should not engage the topic of your artifact; you are critiquing the rhetorical functions within the artifact.
Your judgments must involve some commentary on how the artifact approached religion.
Your judgments must also involve some commentary on how your method dealt with the religious content of the artifact.
Make certain your writing is grammatically flawless, crystal clear, perfectly appropriate, and well polished.
30
25
23
20
15
I.d.
Word Count provided for this section?
0
0
0
0
-2
II. Critical Reflection 35 points
II.a. Discuss the God Problem in an insightful way
Explain the problem and why it matters in the study of human communication.
In your discussion, consider Mark Ward’s reply. You are required to take some stand on this debate, and to support your stand with reasoned argument.
Did you reflect on the God Problem in specific & concrete sitautions/examples?
Proper citations and bibliography?
Make certain that your writing is grammatically flawless, crystal clear, perfectly appropriate, and well polished.
35
30
26
22
19
II.b.
Word Count for this section
0
0
0
0
-2
E- Excellent; G- Good; S- Solid; N- Needs Work; I- Inadequate
I received an email from a classmate of yours who asked this: Does the artifact need to be religious? Does it have to be part of a religion such as a bible? A portrait? church? rosary?
My reply, which you may find helpful:
This is an important question. Your artifact has to be specifically targeting religion. It can challenge, argue against, or celebrate religion. It can be part of a religious ritual or an article about practicing a religious faith or an encouragement to leave that religious faith. So yes, it must be anchored directly to religion in some way.
What can it be? Well, it has to be something very specific. So, “The Bible” is not really an artifact we can work with. But if you want to, for example, look at the way a specific religious text is decorated for use in a ritual (gold covers or embossed bindings), then those decorations might be a good artifact: they were crafted to communicate something about the faith.
“The Crucifixion” is too general. But any particular painting or sculpture of the crucifixion is a religious artifact: something crafted in this specific way to build or challenge faith.
“A church” is too broad, but the entrance doors to the baptismal at the Duomo Cathedral in Florence? Those doors are a religious artifact: they were put together to communicate something about faith.
Stoner TxtBook
https://app.luminpdf.com/viewer/6635a773b14269605f39e3f7?credentials-id=5fd8ddc0-8da6-4fe9-b1e2-c50a0759aa11
God Problem – Class Readings linked*
