Research Paper

              In any field today it is vastly important to understand what forms of communication exist and how they are utilized. In political science one needs to understand how communication works and specifically how it is utilized in order to understand the field of political science itself. The diverse forms of communication exhibited in the world of political science influence how information is shared, gathered and processed. The process in which political science is communicated dictates the manner in which the political world is studied. When an entire field approaches the same questions with the same context as its predecessor, political axioms attempt to emerge. Allegiance to political axioms not only shapes the field of study; they contribute considerable influence on the entire world and all who live in it. Axioms however rarely exist, and those that do exist are still commonly challenged. Understanding how communication works in the field of political science is necessary to understanding the political and social realms of today’s societies.

                In order to understand how communication works today it is necessary to first understand why it is the way it is by analyzing the history of the study of the field of political science, and the resulting application of these findings. While there is great importance in the study of politics dating back to many millennia before the emergence of the field of political science itself; the focus will reside with political science as of the 1960’s to the present day. The 1960’s proved to be a pivotally influential era for politics which would dictate how the field itself was approached for the foreseeable future. During the 1960’s the last major hegemonic struggle was in full swing; this struggle today is known as the cold-war. The cold-war did more than pit the two potential hegemons against one-another; it also served as a platform for a war of ideologies. These two ideologies served as the forefront for the conflict, and led people to the conclusion there can only be one hegemonic state. The cold-war was the power struggle between the capitalist, liberal democracy of the United States and the communist, authoritarian regime of the Soviet Union. The two nations served as temporary and short lived allies in the fight against the fascism of Nazi-Germany, which resulted in a power vacuum of two very opposing ideologies on the nature and implementation of politics. As everyone knows the U.S. was the victors, so therefore so was liberal democracy.

The field of political science began to change to reflect the personal ideological viewpoints of those studying it. Before the cold-war there was a wide array of ideological viewpoints being analyzed and criticized; the field questioned all ideology’s claims to legitimacy in the pursuit of knowledge, but as the Soviets and Americans began to challenge one-another’s legitimacy, scientists found it to be there civic duty to trade their previously ubiquitous analysis for a parochial, more patriotic one. “Hence if one were a good scientist one might be a bad citizen; and if one were a good citizen, one might be a bad scientist.”¹ The field of political science had provided exposure to the systematic flaws of a liberal democracy, however no longer is the legitimacy of liberal democracies challenged. There is no substantial challenge to liberal democracies claim to legitimacy; rather the field focuses on how liberal democracies are pursued or influenced and the ramifications of these pursuits. This unwavering support for liberal democracies has become one of the largest contributors to the way the current hegemon views and interacts with the world. Communication in the field of political science has changed equally with the field itself, and now that a historical context has been established we may analyze what the different forms of communication are, and how they have evolved in the last five decades.

 There are two primary schools of thought on how to analyze and pursue knowledge through research; qualitative and quantitative. The quantitative school of thought focuses on large scale statistics and probabilities; whereas qualitative involves a greater depth of analysis with regards to all stimuli surrounding or influencing the subject.  I will delve into greater detail about the role each of these plays and how this has influenced the field, but first a brief example of the difference. While purely quantitative research studies the emergence of Islamist extremism by way of numerical data, many have used this research to suggest Islamist extremism is the result of their religious ideology and its unwillingness to adapt. For example if 30 of the states being analyzed are Islamist majority and 24 out of the 30 are home to known Islamist extremist organizations, a conclusion associating the problem to be with Islam itself may be drawn. Whereas through qualitative research the same example, 24 out of 30 Islamist states being home to known Islamist extremist organizations, would draw the conclusion that the Islamist extremism prevalent in these states are the result of post-colonialism, American imperialism, MNC’s and socio-economic disparity and instability. Qualitative research would classify Islamist extremists as being a product of their environment, and their violent behaviors are the result of a cause and effect relationship, they are products of their environment, as opposed to the fore mentioned conclusion that violence is a product of the Islamic faith.

The field of political science had once focused most heavily on qualitative research, but has shifted, and with the age of technology has come the age of quantification. The emergence of a dominantly qualitative approach is a direct result of technological advances; statistical data can now be produced, compared and analyzed at a much faster rate and with “greater accuracy” every year. However this over quantification, as some experts in the field would consider it, has tarnished the legitimacy of the field itself. An absolute reliance on quantitative data has had a negative effect on several aspects of domestic and foreign policy; the field in its search for political axioms has allowed itself to operate on a system of assumptions. This is not to be mistaken as a complete condemnation of quantitative research; it serves a limited purpose in most aspects of the field. It provides considerable contributions to polling and demographic data as well as invaluable support to the in depth qualitative research.  In the field today over quantification is over evident in the forms of higher learning “This has drastically impacted the field because some graduate degrees in political science are now essentially a graduate in statistics.”² Technological advances have influenced more aspects of how this field communicates than just its influence on quantitative and qualitative research. These advances have completely changed the flow, production and exposure of information; information that may have taken hours or days to be received now can be dispersed among the world in a matter of minutes. Communication in every aspect of the field has been altered by technological advances; massively decreasing the amount of time dedicated to producing new information and therefore increasing the amount produced. This especially applies to statistical data; with the field focusing more heavily on it as well as advances in technology to increase accuracy and accessibility; predictive outcomes and analysis of probability have a much larger role in the field than ever before.  The question to ask may not necessarily be how communication works in this field; rather what is communicated and how this field has changed to dictate the nature of communication in it. The two most influential changes in this field have come in the form of the unwavering support for liberal democracies and quantitative research. These two devolutions to the field have more in common than many would assume. They are simply the byproduct of a system actively regulating the field that regulates the system itself.

Research Topic

For my research paper I will answering the question "How has the study of political science changed over the last 50 years and who stands to benefit from these changes?"

Textual Rhetorical Analysis

In order to properly understand this author or his article it is important that one must understand the different strategies utilized in textual rhetoric. There are five major strategies that are exhibited in DiSalvo’s article; context, substance, style, organization and delivery. Rhetoric has been defined as the art of persuasion, and in order to be successful an author must be mindful of these five concepts. The author’s purpose for writing this article was to persuade those in the field of political science that this field has changed drastically and that its overall devolution has proved counter-productive to the scientific community. In order to persuade the audience DiSalvo would have to be successful in the utilization of the five strategies.

Context

               The context of this article would be lost on many who do not study or understand political science. While the author does give context in the form of a brief history and an overall summary of where the field has come from and gone to; he leaves a large amount of important contextual information out on the assumption that the audience is fairly knowledgeable in the field prior to reading his article. The spoken factors of context include the current state of affairs between political ideologies and the influence bestowed by the dominant ideology, which the author eludes to the fact that this knowledge is taken for granted; it has become parochially viewed as an acceptable and inevitable truth. This context provides a necessary precursor to understand the substance of the article.

Substance

             The substance of this article is essentially an informative persuasion about the legitimacy and validity or lack thereof in the field of political science. The author makes an assertion concerning the field’s legitimacy and then argues his viewpoint with supporting evidence. In his argument he condemns much of what is considered common knowledge. Because of what the author is arguing and how it initially viewed by the primary audience; it is necessary for him to produce enough evidence to not only defend his original assertion, but to counter typical would be arguments before they are made. Therefore, producing a complete argument; for example the author makes an assertion that the field of political science lacks the contrast between Realism and Liberalism, and this lack of critical comparative analysis is counter-productive. The author then defends this assertion with another by arguing this then leaves the reigning political regime unchallenged. The substance of this article is communicated well to the field by the author’s style.

Style

             The Author does not step far outside the box of typical academic writhing for this field. His word choice is solid and complex. While some of the information cannot be digested by the general population; the vast majority of the article is communicated in a simple enough manner for all students in the field to grasp. The author structured his sentences to be moderately lengthy for the most part; there are however a few sentences long enough to make up the body of a paragraph, but this is done without the audience feeling as though one is caught on a run-on sentence. With the author using a moderately lengthy sentence structure one will find a great deal of commas and semicolons in order to properly break up the text, but as I stated before the author is careful not to make his sentences feel like they run-on.

 

 

Organization

             DiSalvo organizes this article in a couple of ways; first, the article is organized the subject headings. With headings such as “A Short History” or “The Sources of Change” the audience can easily navigate through the article for what they are looking for. This method also works to prepare the reader for the next body of text. Second, the author approaches his article very pragmatically; he presents an introduction followed by a brief history, essentially a preface, so that the audience may have a greater understanding before he arrives to his initial argument. The author then makes his argument and follows it up with supporting evidence, and in order to let his assertions resonate he concludes by drawing a few mildly controversial assumptions.

Delivery

             The delivery of this article is very straight forward; the author does not provide any visuals because given the content visual rhetoric would not serve a purpose. Rather a visual could distract from the text and hinder the audience attention. Instead the article features dense bodies of text organized with subject headings; other than that there is not much to be said of the author’s delivery that has not already been addressed.

             The purpose of DiSalvo’s article was to persuade the minds of those studying political science to challenge the legitimacy of the current scientific community. He accomplished his goals quite well by utilizing all five of the analytical strategies; context, substance, style, organization and delivery. There are certain areas in which his arguments may have been more persuasive given additional evidence, but DiSalvo may not have wanted to stray too far from the intended subject. Overall this article proved to be both informative and persuasive; while leaving the audience with something to ponder.

Visual Rhetorical Analysis

 

                                               Visual Rhetorical Analysis

 

Visual propaganda has always been an effective form of persuasion; in a single image an entire argument can be conveyed. Some propaganda is parabolic while others are unmistakably communicating a clear viewpoint. In the world of political, religious, civil and socioeconomic conflicts (Political Science), many messages being conveyed are very powerful and ideologically driven; whether that drive involves 99%ers to the 1%, Christians vs. Muslims, or Liberalism vs. Realism there holds a very strong ideological motivator. Images are worth more than a thousand words; which is why propaganda is such a powerful and common tool in political science. From the squid stamped with the Star of David covering the earth to the fallacious misrepresentation of the Boston massacre, visual rhetoric uses a culmination of details that alone make a simple assertion, but together convey a complex argument. The image I have chosen comes from the cold war era; when capitalism and communism were pitted most fervently against one another in a war of ideologies. This ideology war never met the two largest players on the battle field, but this war was fought systematically in the hearts and minds of the two sides. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. fought several proxy wars against one-another; causing a great deal of destruction from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. These regions faced a militarily motivated ideological conflict resulting in the degradation of many of their political regimes, yet the two most powerful players never engaged in open conflict; resulting in a wide array of political propaganda. This piece of visual propaganda was utilized by the U.S. in the name of capitalism, the parochial nature and lack of pragmatism exhibited in the U.S. during the cold war era allowed propaganda like this to not only be accepted, but embraced.

The image I chose features two bodies of text; the first is in large bold letters stating “IS THIS TOMORROW”. This statement alludes to some sort of impending doom; while indicating that all is not lost yet. Whereas, the second body of text, in the bottom of the visual in bold, only about 30% the size of the first, reads “AMERICA UNDER COMMUNISM!” Even before analyzing the visual communication of the entire image, and only performing a hermeneutical analysis, one can establish the author, audience, the antagonist and their target victim, and all of this is communicated very well on a basis of context. The first body of text communicates that an impending doom is right around the corner, and America is in danger if no one tries to stop the communists, therefore establishing ones need in capitalism, the view point responsible for this piece of propaganda. The author puts the first body of text in a larger font to serve as an eye catcher and communicates a sense of emergency; this method of instilling fear of immediacy is recycled in the second body of text by ending the statement with an exclamation point. The second body of text declares who the antagonist is and who the victim will be; this is one of the times where context would help the audience with defining “AMERICA UNDER COMMUNISM!” as capitalism vs. communism.

The visual itself does a very good job communicating many of the separate issues; which appear to have a seamless causal relationship with one-another. The visuals largest graphic is the American flag in the background and it is being swallowed by flames which are enveloping nearly the entirety of the background. The symbolism of the flag being torched communicates the fall of America, as an American one should fear those who subscribe to the communistic ideology, they are an enemy whom wishes harm upon you and will see all that you know and love burn. The visual then in a very direct manner communicates the antagonistic parties and their casualties; on the far left of the page there is a conflict involving a communist (possibly Russian) and an African American and like all the conflict on this visual the antagonist is the dominant figure in this relationship. The African American most likely represents not only African Americans, but also at this time he would be a representation of the impoverished or disadvantaged peoples in America. This communicates that communism is as bad for the proletariat as it is for the bourgeoisie; this is an important argument to communicate because not only do the poor make up a large demographic, but a demographic unified in masses to one cause can have considerable influence on the regime.

 The next conflict being illustrated is of a man, once again possibly Russian, whom is choking a woman; he is communicating violence as well as perversion given his body language it is likely he would intend to rape her, which serves to make a statement about the moral depravity of a communist. This image communicates to the audience that communism will kill the weak or defenseless; women, children, the elderly and essentially anyone who relies on the defense of the American regimes security forces; persuading yet another demographic that this war of ideologies is of life and death. The final set of conflict is between a Chinese communist in military uniform, which may indicate the statement of we are militant and we are many, and a middle aged man dressed in priests robes; the priest’s arm is forced behind his back incapacitating him, followed by the arm of the antagonist wrapped around his throat. This obviously illustrates the message that communism will destroy religion; leaving the church and its constituency subject to the wrath of communists. At this time religion played an even larger role in politics and day to day life than it does today; although even today we are not entirely secularized, religion does not play as large a role. Then the final detail is not one of conflict, but rather is the following masses of the communist movement. This character is portrayed sulking and hooded, and it has been placed in the lower right corner as a way to sum up the whole message; that in the end Americans will be subject to the obedience and submission to the communist overlord; this symbolizes the loss of ones freedom in a communist regime.

Visual propaganda has played a very large role in several conflicts because of just how much can be said through a single image or phrase; for example the holocaust was driven largely by the textual propaganda of John 8:44 “you are from your father the devil” in reference to the Jews, and the visual propaganda of a squid covering the earth marked with the Star of David. These forms of persuasion are very powerful and leave the audience to ponder and interpret these messages in the frame that the author has chosen; while providing the illusion of free thought. The image I chose was utilized during the cold war era and played a large role in the way the citizens of the U.S. viewed and interacted with people of Eastern Europe and Russia. Their parochial views and sometimes violent actions were considerably motivated by fear; fear which was bred through images such as this.

DiSalvo Summary

Jacob Robinson

ENG 250

Summary assignment

 

 

In Daniel DiSalvo’s The Politics of Studying Politics: Political Science Since the 1960’s he describes the evolution of the study of politics; the shifting paradigms and research methods of the 1960’s to current. He explains that until recently political science was not commonly studied at universities; now most universities have a political science program. One would think that with this vast change in the number of people studying political science that the field would therefore gain legitimacy through peer review and the considerable amount of research being done. DiSalvo then delves into the philosophical difference between liberal democracies and true political research and analysis. He focuses heavily on the moral obligation of a true scientist to be willing to challenge liberal democracy, and pulls into question the validity of the majority of political scientists and their research because of this inability to ask real questions. With the field favoring liberal democracy there has formed illegitimacy in the way research is done and what is focused on.

            The author believes that around the 1960’s the field of political science began to change; primarily the focus of political research devolved from the analytical methods of qualitative research to quantitative research. This focus on quantitative research is still overwhelmingly present today. The change in political study during that era can be understood through the context of it being a post-WWII world. After the war there was a power vacuum for political ideologies, the prevailing ideology preferred by most of the western world was liberal democracy. The author asserts that at the end of the Cold war several developing nations began adopting and utilizing democratic systems of government, so the focus on qualitative criticism of liberal democracy has nearly disappeared altogether

 As a political scientist you are stuck with the dilemma of critical analysis of liberal democracy, which may, and in many cases did, lead to findings that are in direct contradiction with the scientists’ love of democracy; in which case many scientists would either approach the findings with a prejudicial bias or not publish their research in an attempt to keep their  precious liberal democracy from coming into question. Or on the other side of the dilemma one must cast aside their intransigent thought process’, and cognitive dissonance that inhibits critical ideological analysis “Hence if one were a good scientist one might be a bad citizen; and if one were a good citizen, one might be a bad scientist” (DiSalvo,135).

 This war of ideologies has had a considerable effect on the field of political science today, pre 1960’s many had begun calling into question the legitimacy of liberal democracies, and exposing several of the systems flaws, but with the war of ideologies political scientists became defensive of their ideologies and so the field changed with them. Now rarely is critical analysis of a democracy seen. Instead the field focuses on how democracies change or how other ideologies change into a democratic system. This one sided way of viewing politics excludes one of the two most largely recognized political perspectives, realism. Political scientists today favor the perspective of liberalism over realism twenty to one. This is a problem because it restricts critical thought, so debates are no longer right vs. left; rather left vs. far left. The author believes that when you lack legitimate critical analysis, then the “reigning political regime” will survive unchallenged, and therefore its possible corruptions unscathed. In the 1980’s political scientists placed an abundant focus on behavioral predictions in an attempt to discover or establish a set of laws like that of Newton. Today there is only theory, yet the search for political axioms continues, the emergence of a school of thought concerning individual actors has made it that much more difficult, but that’s kind of the point.

In conclusion writing in the field of political science is highly controversial, and has undergone several ideological and philosophical changes in the last five decades. These changes have not only set guidelines for political scientists today, but actively restrict knowledge and research in the field. Some scientists seek to “develop “laws” of political behavior” (DiSalvo,133); while others seek the furtherance of liberalism and the avidly defend liberal democracies regardless of their research’s findings. DiSalvo argues that this field has become oversaturated with parochialism which leads the majority involved with or affected by this parochialism to be subject to the reigning ideology. While most of this field has abandoned the concepts of true science and instead prefer biased conclusions, not all do especially in the fields of comparative and international politics; where qualitative research is still utilized.

Rosenberg article

1. I agree with Rosenberg’s view on the importance of section headings because they have helped me numerous times in academic writing assignments when I have large volumes of text to go through. I would recommend this strategy for those writing an academic paper of considerable length, so that the audience may more easily access a particular body of knowledge from the article.
2. Again I agree with Rosenberg that academic texts are like engaging in a conversation, and depending on the issue I have found myself arguing with the author’s analysis. Either something is being overlooked or a particular bias is being utilized; it is important to engage one’s self in the reading with the intent to analyze the text not just summarize the authors point of view.
3. I do not believe that this text will have any effect on my writing because these were all concepts I was previously aware of. However, that being said I did enjoy this article and the author.

Portrait of a Writer

Writing has not always come very easily for me; in grade school the longest and most comprehensive writing assignment I was ever tasked with was a one and half page book report on “Lord of the Rings; The Two Towers”. In grade school we were taught about the importance of writing and we were shown several examples of skilled writing. Although, I was no stranger to talented writes for as a child I read numerous books from varying genres, so I knew what “good” writing looked like. However, these techniques were never put into practice. Most of the writing I did growing up was poorly graded and focused primarily on grammar. Even with this being the primary focus for so many years, I didn’t even begin to understand it until my senior year in high school.

All of the “skills” I have attained in writing came from my professor and mentor, Bradley Dyke, who taught me how to write a research paper and held the grading criteria so strict that less that forty percent of people can pass his class and several that do are not doing so with honor roll grades. In his “Politics of Terrorism” class, I was required to write a ten page paper on counter terrorism foreign policy. This was an incredibly difficult assignment which took several weeks to complete, but it was at the time I realized these are the sort of papers I prefer to write. Papers that require research allow me to construct as much information as I am will to search for; whereas my least favorite writing assignments (by far) are these self-evaluation writings that force me to sit down and try to force out a certain length of writing, when (like in this case), I feel as though the is no way I will not fall short of the minimum page length requirements.

When it comes to the preparation of my papers, I prefer to utilize the outline rubric; this helps me to point me in a general direction and organize all my information in a coherent pattern. This method works best for me on research papers and even analysis and summaries in which there is a body of text for me to dissect; whereas, free writing assignments I find much more difficult to organize beforehand. Typically after I have an outline, I begin writing and I continue just writing using all that I can off the top of my head. I then critique my work, reconstruct my outline, and search for variables which after review are apparently missing. My original outline and the final draft of my paper can be very different. In the case of lengthy assignment, the differences are like night and day.

The majority of the writing that I do and have done is academic; more specifically, in the fields of religion and political science. I feel more comfortable writing about religion and politics than I do writing fiction. This may mean that I lack imagination or the creativity necessary for quality fiction writing, or maybe it is because since I have learned to write, I have not tried my hand at it. Therefore, I consider myself a decent writer. I still have much to learn and refine, and as much as I despised this assignment (and all assignments like it), I found it useful to take the time reflecting on my writing style and feel as though it will only help me improve.

Inner Critic

I enjoyed this article, and while I agree with what is being said about not letting ones inner critic deter the writing process; at the same time I personally have to disagree. I have written several  papers in which my inner critic forced me to re-evaluate my vocabulary and sentence structure because I would get this nagging feeling it didn't feel right and then in the long run paid off in full.