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.