Reflective Synthesis Essay

Reflective Tag: My reflective synthesis essay focuses on the good and the bad that came with such a project such as the one I’ve done and connects the lessons learned from this to myself and my future endeavors.  Although my Capstone did not fail, it did not turn out the exact way I envisioned but the process of getting through it as well as looking back on it for reflection has allowed me to gain insights into what I can accomplish moving ahead.

 

 

 

Josiah Titus

ERH 481

COL McDonald

December 3, 2020

HR: Referring back my Capstone, notes from you said, Skagg’s comments, Mason’s comments

Reflective Essay

“Understanding is Achievement”

 

One day hopefully, I will be a successful officer in the Navy.  As a well-educated young man with a Bachelor’s degree in English from the Virginia Military Institute my sole dream is to find myself serving in the military with the ambition of not only protecting our country but to become as well-informed, trained, and skilled as I possibly can, not only in my field but just all around in general.  That has honestly been my dream for as long as I can remember, to escape ignorance and to contribute to the world through my own code of ethics and values.  This Capstone Project for me revealed some insights into what this means for me and where I am with this goal as of now.

This Capstone project stemmed from two sets of reasoning that I have established.  Primarily it came from my interest in the gun debate that has been going on in the United States ever since the 2nd Amendment came into existence.  Interesting enough, while I have never owned a gun, in the last three to four years I have become very drawn to the discussion on them, their usage, and what they mean to most Americans.  The four hundred and seventy dollars saved up specifically for a sidearm that is stored in my room can attest to my fascination with the whole gun prospect as well.  The actual root though for this project comes from a desire within me much deeper, one that branches out to many different aspects, the gun debate just being one.  This is my avoidance of ignorance and a drive for as much absorbed knowledge as possible.  My lack of a gun has plagued me, and this led to my desire for a gun and a desire to know and understand the gun issue.  I have always struggled to understand bigger issues like the 2nd Amendment.  This has led me to actively seek out ways to comprehend all the aspects and facets related to it so that soon enough I will indeed have a decent grasp on it.  From here I could speak knowledgeably about gun control, the 2nd Amendment, and so on.  Just to put this in context I have applied this mindset to a myriad of other things including the voting system, following sports, political party beliefs and so on.  My project idea came mainly from this in which multiple insights can be drawn on from.  There is another part though to how my aspiration to write on the 2nd Amendment came about which must be covered first.

The second part where this idea for my Capstone stemmed from that pertains to myself as an academic and a person are my own values and beliefs that I have instilled within myself.  After a lot of research into the gun control and the 2nd Amendment issue in the class Civic Discourse I came to form my own opinions on owning guns, gun control, and guns in America as a whole.  These opinions or ‘code of ethics’ as I like to think of them as, were made based on the knowledge I had acquired and the other opinions and assertions I had read up on by credible authors.  For me the 2nd Amendment is a sacred document, and it protects our rights as citizens to arm ourselves for protection against any threat, especially the government if need be.  I am a huge advocate for owning guns and I believe every law-abiding capable citizen should learn gun handling and own a firearm.  This is not me trying to argue my point of view but explaining my own code that I stand by due to what I came to see and learn.  Now that I have my own set of beliefs down, I am always seeking out avenues to learn more about those particular areas (this one being gun control/2nd Amendment) in order to keep them cemented, find even more support, or to even be convinced otherwise.  Writing my Capstone on an issue as grand as this stemmed from this very much so, because I find it invaluable to have a stance, own that stance but to make sure you have adequate support to back it up.  But to also be willing to change your stance if you are proven wrong.  The more you seek information on certain topics you want to be versed in the more you learn and you either realize how your viewpoint is skewed or you realize that there is so much out there that continuously sides with what you support.  From these two sets of reasoning not only was my Capstone Project idea born, executed, and finished but it revealed a lot about who I am as a person and writer as well as what it means for my future.

Being a Naval Officer in my mind will lead me into a field where I can learn skills others don’t have, be given an opportunity to be proficient in a new area with new people and gain a more well-rounded competent mindset.  If given this opportunity to commission I will be receiving a chance for another do over basically.  Skills and knowledge that I took from middle school to high school set the standard of who I was and what I was known for and the same went for the transition from high school to college-being VMI.  The problem is though that I feel I went in unprepared each time for each of these to some degree.  Going into VMI I set an impression that, while better then my high school one, is cemented and will be set in stone there forever.  Preparing to be a Naval Officer I do not want to waste that opportunity.  I want my base of skill and proficiency going to be as top notch as it can be.  If it’s not I will not accomplish what I intended to, which is to contribute to the world and not be ignorant.  If unprepared I will once again leave an impression that I am not satisfied with.  So how does my Capstone tie into this?

For my Capstone I feel I had the drive, but I lacked the proper structure and organized purpose for it to come out exactly as I intended.  In my mind it was simple, find two opposing primary sources, analyze them and see what stands out about their arguments rhetorically that draws in their intended audience.  But where is the why?  What was the purpose behind all of this?  It was not there and now that I look back and reflect on this, I see that I did not devote a whole lot of time to figuring this out.  This unfortunately has been a trend in my writing process, for a while now, that has affected me poorly.  This was an example of not using all the knowledge and competency I had gained and been given the opportunity to gain to work to the best of my abilities.  This is reflective of exactly what I do not want from my potential upcoming Naval career.  I have a chance at VMI to gain competency and skills from the ROTC department before commissioning so when I do get to the fleet I can present my best possible self.  I have no room or excuses to squander the time and resources being given to me.  That is though what I did here to some degree with my Capstone.  The final product of “Dealing with Rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment” did not demonstrate the values I uphold as an academic and just as a person being to not be ignorant and to stand on something.  Amidst all this, there is a good bit of positive insights I can draw from this worthy of speaking too.

While this wasn’t the exact 2nd Amendment Rhetorical Capstone project I saw as being the final end result, the process did actually tell me a lot about knowledge which I feel can be beautifully applied to me as an academic moving forward and as a Naval Officer.  First off, I went into this project with an extremely narrow mindset pretty much not comprehending the underlying massiveness of what I was up against.  The 2nd Amendment debate is made up of countless different perspectives in which people have their very own specific stance on it.  It is not simply just one side hating guns and the other loving them.  Of course, I knew this, but working through this project just revealed it more, putting this fact in the spotlight.  To highlight a great example of this we can look at my two primary sources.  They were titled “The Second Amendment isn’t the Problem” by Laurence Tribe and “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment” by David Cohen.  When I first went researching for articles on the 2nd Amendment in an effort to locate and use two opposing ones these titles seemed fitting.  Even glancing at the first sentence and paragraph made these appear as winners for my intended purpose.  One liked the 2nd Amendment and the other did not, simple right?

Upon further inspection and analysis way further into creating my paper it had become apparent they were not so black and white.  In fact, I came to realize both were overall more anti-gun then not.  Due to this my paper did not exactly go in the direction I was imagining but I worked with it and it’s a good thing I had made the overall focus their rhetoric and not comparing political sides.  Once getting down to their policies I saw that they both were pushing for something to be done about guns with the general direction being to push back gun lobbyists.  Cohen and Tribe were just advocating different ways of doing it, one saying getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would end gun activism and the other claiming getting rid of gun activism in the country would not be done by repealing the 2nd.  Although this deviated a bit from original thinking on how this paper would look, it did immensely open my eyes and now has expanded my horizon with this gun control issue.  I found both authors to make good points and to both be convincing-both with contrary thinking to my own!  While once I shut away anti-gun lobbyist voices believing they had no reasonable argument to make besides “guns kill people therefore their bad” now I have had the pleasure of being thoroughly introduced to extensive rhetoric illustrating and outlining why so many guns or such advocation of the 2nd Amendment can be a bad thing.  So in fact when in some ways I feel this paper showed a slight lack of understanding from me in terms of no guided ‘why’ or direct purpose behind what I was doing, looking back now I feel even more informed on a lot more angles taken on this issue.  So, what else?

On another positive note, this research process has made realize the altogether bigger picture in which I can pull everything together into very positively.  The entire premise of my Capstone was coming to understand this problem of the 2nd Amendment.  It was seeing how the 2nd Amendment itself is not so clear-at all, and so it has caused much tension and controversy with people in the US for decades upon decades.  The foundation for all of this is one of clarity.  That is what my paper was on, finding clarity in the midst of a bunch of unclarity.  Although my Capstone had good material in it, a driving focus, and credible sources it fell short on delivery due to just that-clarity.  I think as an English major, this is something I have to work on.  The flowery language combined with decent quotes and relevant analysis is all good and well, but without a solid foundation of a ‘why’ it just can’t be understood or deliver that impact you are looking for.  This has greatly humbled me actually and only intensified my drive to buy a gun, get training, and to be responsible.  I want clarity on the unknown.  Funny enough I know I am going to be on a ship in the Navy.  I know I will use Rules of the Road that I learned in Navy Class.  I know that I will draw MO boards for navigation.  But what exactly is our purpose as lone Destroyer being out on the high seas?  Al-Qaeda doesn’t have ships that big to fight us, aren’t the Navy SEALs handling them?  The purpose behind it all is missing for me, but it only ratchets up my desire to become informed, to find answers to what is unclear.  With the Capstone I took unclarities and tried to work with them instead of solving them.  Why does analyzing opposing rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment matter?  With this answer the impact may have been different, indefinitely better.  But because of this I’m up late now studying, and learning.  I turned a slight negative into an utter positive.

Everything I do I relate to who I am as a person and what that means for moving forward, especially regarding my future ambitions.  I want to be informed, I want to take a stance and own it, and I want my preparation to make it so that I can be the best version of myself there and present my best material possible.  You always need a base, as it all crumbles without this.  My base now for the issue of guns has only become enhanced.  The deficiencies in my paper have turned out to be catalysts for me striving towards multiple proficiencies.  I have indeed escaped ignorance undoubtedly in this endeavor of my Capstone.  What would look like not escaping ignorance here is seeing it as a slam dunk with confusion or disagreement of where I went wrong.  My own ethics and values as well can be exemplified through this.  It did teach me a lot, and I think realizing that the material was not so cut and dry had me come to see that full understanding is a developing process.  Forming a stance is a developing process.  That is why openness and clarity is vital to success down the line, whether as an English major or a Naval Ensign.  These insights have come to light and I believe moving forward they will only help strengthen me as an academic and as an officer.               

Capstone Project “Dealing with Rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment”

 

Reflective tag: Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment has always been a very interesting topic to me for study.  Although I have never owned a gun, I intend to soon and believe that every citizen should seek to do so as well.  After ding all this research my eyes have been opened to how many different opinions there are out there on this debate.  With such a wide spectrum of beliefs and methods surrounding how this conflict should be resolved I decided myself that I wanted to have a firm base of knowledge on the matter.  If I am to own a gun one day and serve in our military, or even if I end up not doing so, I feel it is important to be knowledgeable when it comes to understanding why all sides feel torn, scared, or confounded on how to interpret and then handle the 2nd Amendment.  Writing this Capstone though has allowed me to realize that it is such a privilege that we can live in such a country where these type of outlets for voicing one’s own attitude in such a rhetorical way.  Due to this I felt it would be interesting to look at what different people have to say about it so that my own comprehension of what makes this divide so prevalent would be expanded upon.  It makes me proud to not only examine how these people justify their sides, but to see how they intelligently do it.  This in turn I hope will assist me in crafting intelligent arguments to back up my own claims on gun culture along with my other social and political issues.

 

 

 

Capstone Project: “Dealing with rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment”

COL McDonald

ERH 481

Josiah Titus

Help Received: Cited works so far, Peer Reviews, Maj. Iten and COL McDonald’s feedback, eclectic method

 

Up to this point in history countless publishings, records, and articles have been made on the 2nd Amendment, coming at it from every angle, scrutinizing its details, and trying to get a better sense of everything that stands behind it.  Bearing arms in the US has always been a controversial issue so it is no wonder that the amount of words and publication that are a result because of the law, is beyond many.  Guns will always be present and there always will be people using them, people hating them, people banning them, people taking them, people illegally purchasing them, and people terrified of what they are.  Rhetoric on them in turn will never cease to exist we can suppose, and that means any and all types of rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment.  It is always being debated.  Take for instance an article recently published in 2019 in the New York Times by Adam Liptak titled, “Supreme Court will Review New York City Gun Law” that opens with “The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would review a New York City gun law that limits residents from transporting their guns outside their homes, its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade and a test of the court’s approach to gun rights after the arrival of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in October” (Liptak).  Surprisingly enough this is noted here as the first 2nd Amendment issue tackled in over nearly a decade, yet that is just it.  Another article by Linda Greenhouse titled “Gunfight at the Supreme Court” talks about how “A push to expand the Second Amendment produces some judicial contortions” (Greenhouse).  The problem never ceases to return and cannot be fully resolved to please all sides and ideologies on it.  Our Constitution houses no doubt a large array of debated laws made long ago but this one in particular stands out as an amendment that never fails to divide many in thinking.

Saul Cornell in his journal article “A New Paradigm for the 2nd Amendment” writes, “Framing the meaning of the Second Amendment in terms of such a simple dichotomy fits well with the politics of the modern gun control debate.  The individual rights view serves the interests of gun rights advocates, while the collective rights view serves the goals of gun control.  While this neat dichotomy furthers the interests of those involved in modern political debates about gun policy, it is not particularly useful for understanding the eighteenth-century world in which the Second Amendment was drafted and adopted” (161).  So what exactly does this mean?  Let’s begin by explaining this issue and its importance so what we explore later has a basis and purpose behind it.  Our country is one of varying beliefs, ethics, and moral principles.  The grounds the 2nd Amendment was made on in 1791 may not apply to today as part of what this paper will touch on.  Simply put, there is a large majority who do not agree at all with it’s premise or what it was made for and because of.  These individuals want it repealed.  There is another spectrum of people though that do agree full heartedly with what it established and still establishes today.  This group does not want it repealed and in fact thinks that if that were to happen our country would be in serious danger, destroying the framework put in place by the founding fathers.  This argument though over what to do with this law is in no way black and white and there is no easy answer nor will there probably ever be in a world where some people see it fit to carry automatics into the grocery store and others see a gun as a machine crafted by the devil himself.  It’s almost as if the problem isn’t so much needing more rhetoric but more so scrutinizing the rhetoric we have so far and looking for what the issues are and what pulls people into it.  This issue, gun control and such at the root of it, cannot be solved today and there is much ground to cover for the long future of attempting to finally settle this dispute.  But perhaps the first step to be taken in this long road is not to write even more or to take immediate action.  Maybe it is to look at what it is that gives people that sense of opinion, whichever side it is that they’re on and how it is aspired, motivated, and justified.  What rhetoric is being pushed forward and written that encourages each side to stand on what they think is sacrosanct, what they think makes our country most safe, or what they believe is the only sensible way to go about guns and their meaning?  This is where we must first start to grasp what and understand what rhetoric and rhetorical strategies are used and how they capture as well as spur their audience into action.

In the article “The Rise and Demise of the Collective Right Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment” by David Hardy, he writes (starting out with the Amendment itself), “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  As late as a decade ago, the federal courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment was simple. Every circuit that had ruled upon it had held that it did not guarantee an individual right to arms for individual purposes. Rather, it reflected some form of “collective right,” either (1) a right of states to have militia systems, or (2) a right of individuals, but only to engage in state-organized militia activities” (317).  Throughout most of history, as Hardy here references, the two sides just covered on this issue, has been prevalent.  The 2nd Amendment is viewed from a collective right and an individual right, but neither one can solely be agreed on by everyone.  Dozens upon dozens of publications has been made backing up both of these different sides.  It is no wonder though an issue has as much division as this one considering that our whole country, to a great degree, rests upon its premise and conclusion.  We are a nation built by guns to a large degree and they factor largely into our history as a nation, from a safety, diplomatic, and just all-around political perspective.  Brett Lunceford in his article titled, “Armed Victims: The Ego function of the Second Amendment Rhetoric” gives a broad statement describing how this situation has come to be copacetic, “Collins suggests that ‘if it is a settled matter that the right is protected and that all are free to exercise that right, the political movement around it collapses. In this sense, a politics oriented toward the preservation of a right requires the perpetuation of that tension rather than the achievement of a goal or purpose.’ This is not, however, news since rights are always a rhetorical construction” (334).  What is suggested here by notable scholar Lunceford is that this issue remains because it has been boiled down to the political level.  It is no longer about young children getting killed or banning the NRA.  Rather it is s debate of rhetoric and rhetoric alone.  The 2nd Amendment, as stated, obviously is a rhetorical base for different sides to go off of.  Since it’s meaning in our country today appears ambiguous to many, this leaves room for the different sides to create their interpretation of what it means and what should be done with it, as in whether it should stay or not.  This is the reasoning behind why this issue discussed here will not be examined in terms of gun safety or gun control between people and the government.  This has been done countless times and has been seen as in vain approach mostly.  The focus will instead be on conducting a rhetorical criticism on the rhetoric given by different viewpoints on this issue.  When this is completed then we will look at what can be surmised and pulled out on this 2nd Amendment and gun issue to see what this entails for the debate as a whole moving forward from a rhetorical point of view.

Now that a base has been given for why this issue is being tackled and how we will go about thoroughly analyzing it here, let’s get into the specifics of how this will be done.  First the disagreement must be boiled down to the two opposing spectrums that will be looked at and evaluated for our analysis here.  The 2nd Amendment has a myriad of arguments and viewpoints surrounding it, and the amount of grey area is enormous.  It would be a nearly impossible task to narrow down and look at all the angles rhetorically taken on this issue as well separating the diplomatic arguments from the gun handling and safety issues.  If we are to look at rhetoric surrounding the 2nd Amendment then let us narrow the argument down to its most basic form.  The first argument is that the 2nd Amendment should stay or that it wouldn’t help anything by being repealed.  The other argument against this is that it should be repealed; it does bad for our country.  Take note that this is not an examination of political sides, but instead an evaluation of different arguments on the Amendment itself.   The articles that will be rhetorically dissected each individually assert one of these positions being “The Second Amendment isn’t the Problem” by Laurence Tribe and “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment” by David Cohen.  Tribe’s article is a good example for analysis for one side of this debate because it examines the key issues in the debate in a fair way, even ones with which the author doesn’t necessarily agree or that he feels are not black and white.  Cohen’s article is a good example for analysis for the other side of this debate because he clearly supports one specific side of it and has decent evidence to back up the claims he makes.  What makes them comparable and great subjects for analysis is that each author presents a scope of view on the 2nd Amendment followed up with their own crafted policy on how to make progress on this issue through their own rhetorical approach.  Both are presenting different opinions based off of what they know and think is correct.  Their rhetoric brings in some references to gun violence and gun regulation but the premise of their arguments and the rhetoric they use stems from our base of subjectivism here, the Second Amendment.

The rhetorical criticism method that will be used to do this is eclectic criticism.  This is a style of rhetorical criticism is defined by Jim Kuypers in his book Rhetorical Criticism Perspectives in Action as, “As an approach to philosophy and to rhetoric, eclecticism eschews single perspectives and draws its power instead from insights gained from combining multiple theories or perspectives into a blend used for a specific purpose” (Kuypers).  What exactly does this mean for the purposes of what’s being done here?  Put simply, eclecticism or an eclectic critical approach is looking at an array of opposing ideas given on a theory, drawing on multiple perspectives from each, finding correlations, and then bringing those together to form a new way of theorizing the issue or topic.  Kuyper goes on to explain the eclectic critic’s method, “Eclectic critics are frequently drawn to extremely diverse rhetorical artifacts, and analysis of these diverse forms of rhetoric necessitates the development of nuanced, flexible, and diverse perspectives of analysis” (Kuypers).  This strategy for rhetorical criticism and analysis will be good for the task being done here.  The views to be presented on the Second Amendment will vary and differ, greatly in many degrees.  The point of the analysis here is not to pick a better side, but to examine both perspectives deeply and see where the similarities or intertwining ideas come out.  This is not only to avoid a paper full of bias, but to see how different rhetoric, while it affects the intended audience in a specific way using its specific methods intended, really all boils down to the same school of philosophy.  To conduct this eclectic criticism on the rhetoric selected, first what is said and argued in the article must be summarized and explained.  Then a rhetorical criticism of its contents can begin.  If we must know precisely what their arguing then within the rhetorical criticism we can define and differentiate the logic, points, evidence, and substantiation used in the two different articles so that their rhetorical arguments and strategies can be pinpointed.

“The Second Amendment isn’t the Problem” by Laurence Tribe is the article that will be used that does not think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.  Tribe is a constitutional law professor writing an opinion piece.  For the purposes of what will be done here Tribe’s article is nearly perfect.  It is not completely on one side of the spectrum but gives an opinion about where the 2nd Amendment stands right now in our country in relationship to the gun issues happening and evolving.  What particularly makes this article an excellent site of analysis is that the author takes issue with almost all sides but rationalizes a view he perhaps isn’t too fond of as he sees it’s logic.  While he says we should not repeal the 2nd Amendment, Tribe’s argument is in no way completely right winged, nor does it spend all its word count glorifying it and talking about how great guns are.  Tribe gives an educated rhetorical assessment on why this idea is in fact not the answer people want, even if they hate guns, and this opinion comes from him following the High School Parkland shooting.  He comes at this issue from a big picture perspective.  Tribe argues that as frightened Americans, due to gun violence, it is not repealing of the 2nd Amendment that you want.  This prospect will not solve the issue that grieving mothers are facing when their children do not come home after a school shooting.  Taking away the Second Amendment he writes, could actually cause more problems with legislation on guns, disrupt the anti-gun legislation in place now and even rile up and incite large motion from the gun lobbyists themselves; bad news for those strongly opposed to Second Amendment prospects.  On the whole Tribe’s article is about how if it is guns and pro-gun movements that anti-gun activists  or scared, grieving, gun fearing parents want stopped then eliminating the 2nd Amendment will not be the answer to their prayers.  Tribe’s article is unique, being a cautionary piece that builds to an interesting conclusion backed by distinct premises.  What Tribe offers is a viewpoint that does not glorify one side but instead encourages different action from a side they may or may not be on.  Since this is unclear it eliminates apparent bias and provides a perspective that seemingly is in a Devil’s advocate role.  In the analysis of Tribe’s article the rhetoric he uses to influence and pull in his audience will be examined for the purposes of finding out what this tells us about the 2nd Amendment and the issue of it as a whole.

Now let’s look at the article that supports repealing the Second Amendment and explain the case and argument made by the author.  “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment” by David Cohen is a bit more of an anti-gun article but what is interesting is that he is also a constitutional law professor.  Both men write opinion pieces, but the fascinating part is that both men back their pieces with the same type of credibility and are writing from the same bases of knowledge.  Another interesting correlation is that this piece was written following the Orlando nightclub shooting.  Cohen, like Tribe, does not stand behind what he thinks and asserts for no reason or irrational reason that is.  His specific assertions are backed with logical thinking which in turn makes his rhetoric more dissectible for comparison and analytical purposes.  This author also does reference gun shootings and regulation, but the centerpiece of his urgings is the Second Amendment.  Like Tribe, it is his base for reasoning on the matter, all of this being what makes this article a great site of analysis.  Cohen’s primary idea is that the Second Amendment was created in a very different time and that its precedence does not hold up with the gun world that everyone lives in currently.  The firearms that can be carried around today by an individual are not what men had on their backs when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  In Cohen’s mind the Amendment itself is contradictory because its advocates base its vitality around historical importance tradition and securing our liberties all the while not applying this to various other Bill of Rights areas.  Cohen is mainly arguing that it has worn out its welcome and now only serves as means for gun advocates to do whatever they want with guns.  What makes Cohen’s article unique to this overall rhetorical analysis project is that Cohen is extremely intense, urgent, and pointed which is a bit different to Tribe’s more reserved and progressive tone.  This provides a perspective that is using logic and factual support from an upset and fed up point of view.  Once the components of Cohens article are analyzed like Tribe’s, it will as well help us observe and come up with inferences about this 2nd Amendment issue on the whole.

The rhetoric in both of these primary articles is important to analyze because there is a lot of different meaning behind both sides of this issue.  Therefore, the rhetoric and the point the article tries to make based off of what they are defending, defaming, upholding, condemning or so on, is crucially important.  We’ve established a base of both primaries, discussing what it is they assert and the claims behind their assertions in a very broad and limited sense.  Now is the hard part, which is looking at both primaries rhetorical patterns to see what stands out to us.  When going through both the specific audience they are appealing to can be seen, as well as what rhetorical arguments they make which are capitalized on through their language that illustrate their styles in their writing.  These are the primary points that stand out from both author’s work and is what we will use in this eclectic approach to both articles.

 

Rhetorical Analysis of Cohen’s Article

Both of these article’s rhetorical strategies begin with writing to or appealing to a specific type of audience or audiences.  For both articles an audience must be identified in order to see who the author is trying to use their rhetorical appeals on.  The way their language sounds and evolves can communicate who they want reading this or even who they believe will be reading it.  In David Cohen’s article “Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment”, there are two primary audiences it seems that his article seems to be centered around, an audience he is expecting to be reading his piece and an audience he hopes will be reading it.  Cohen is riled up here, and he comes off as very uncompromising.  He doesn’t want to hear other opinions, he wants those reading to be fully convinced that what he is writing is truth that must not be overlooked any longer.  He opens with, “But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong.  This is one of those times.  We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed” (page 1 paragraph 2).  Right here his primary audience can be inferred which would be those on his side.  ‘We’ especially suggests that along with exclaiming that the message must be said for all to hear so there is no confusion as to what their position on the matter is.  Cohen here is essentially seeming to rouse the troops, his own troops, into a call to stand up once and for all.  He appeals to this audience of his again at the end of his piece with his call to action, “We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founder’s view of the world…” (page 5 paragraph 15).  Clearly Cohen wants and mostly expects that his primary audience who will be reading this is angered anti-gun lobbyists who think that the 2nd Amendment must go as well.  Interesting to note though within Cohen’s dialogue is that he seems to also be appealing to another audience, one he hopes reads this.  That would be his opposition.  How is this seen?  Since most of what he writes seems intense and even a bit hostile it would appear that Cohen is trying to be convincing.  He would not need to convince fed up mothers of dead children from gun violence of what he is saying.  However, for pro-gun activists afraid of losing their Automatics in their basement, he might need some language that obstinately tries to illustrate how wrong their way of thinking is.  “In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country” (page 2 paragraph 6).  An audience who already went in reading this with his shared ideals would not need to ‘acknowledge’ this obvious truth.  It seems though Cohen is strategically setting up his writing in the hopes that if those who disagree with him read this, they come to find his stance more than understandable.

We have identified Cohen’s audiences for this article.  We must now dissect his work to identify the issue frames within his arguments.  Doing this will then demonstrate what appeals he makes to his audience to convince them or reiterate to those who already agree why the 2nd Amendment must go.  This analysis and identification of these rhetorical arguments will then help us later to look at the 2nd Amendment as a whole and draw out some information and connections not recognized before.  The bulk of his arguments are arguments of analogy in which is where someone uses a situation for comparison against their opposition’s argument to show the inconsistencies, refute it, or show similarities.  Specifically, Cohen’s argument of analogy is going against the position held by those against him.  These would be people that support that the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment should not be changed because it would be going against what has been held up in American tradition, so changing it would thus be unconstitutional.  Counteracting this point Cohen says,

 

As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it’s important to understand that they got it wrong — and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people don’t know it now, but under the original document, Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obama’s vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the Twelfth Amendment, which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together. (page 1 paragraph 3)

 

Here we see how Cohen takes a point made constantly by his opposition and shows the flaws within its reasoning.  If pro 2nd Amendment activists cared so much for maintaining history and our original documents, then they would of have fought for and still be fighting for this original law to come back that had the runner up become the winner’s VP.  For Cohen this is almost a gotcha moment in which he shows that these people cannot eat their cake and have it too.  Going forward Cohen uses two more arguments of analogy to back up his stance.  He argues how the “Framers” of the Constitution maintained (those who would of made the 2nd Amendment) the allowance of slavery in the original documents, bringing up how at first it was prohibited to be amended at all, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for Congressional representation, and that it took literally the Civil War to fix all of this, not including the societal consequences faced now (page 1-2 paragraph 4).  Basically, Cohen is again saying the Constitution and Bill of Right’s relevancy and authenticity is extremely variable considering it was made by racist men with racist intentions engrained into at the time of its creation.  His argument is that just because history made it so, doesn’t mean it was right.  His oppressors would say that the 2nd Amendment is one of the freedoms our country was established on but here Cohen would fight this by saying our country was also established with racial prejudices, something our country does not constitutionally uphold today.  So, what dictates that this amendment cannot be touched?  Bringing in yet again more analogy in which he speaks on Presidential succession, women’s rights, and land-based representation in reference to the Bill of Rights flaws, Cohen moves onto an argument of policy with historical precedence to back up the policy’s credibility that he proposes even more.  This type of rhetorical appeal pushes forward an agenda or solution for the intended audience to potentially be swayed by.  It gives an argument for something in particular to be done to amend a problem or deficiency.  Tribe’s lead in for this is obvious, that the 2nd Amendment must be gotten rid of, and his suggestion for how to do this is, “We can do that through a Constitutional amendment.  It’s been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now” (page 2 paragraph 6).  The next thing Cohen does is use history again and another thought out argument of analogy to backup the policy he suggested saying,

 

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.  When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn’t have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today. (page 3 paragraphs 7-8)

 

Cohen ends with a last argument of policy that says only a mass movement of people who will stand up and push back on the corruption of the gun industry, NRA, manufacturers, and pro-gun activists that allow the 2nd Amendment to be the controversial, unethical, and outdated document that it is (page 5 paragraph 15).  Cohen ends saying it is “the essence of American democracy” to say that the 2nd Amendment must be repealed.  His finishing thought is just that.  It is a reminder to his two audiences that if they agree it is their duty to take action, and that if they do not agree and need convincing on this matter, that they are dismissing the American ideals they claim they uphold.

 

Along with the audience this author is appealing to and the rhetorical arguments he uses to do so, it is very important to note the types of words and language he uses which in turn shape his style and tone.  As we’ve already seen through his multiple arguments, Cohen’s prose is fired up and he indeed seems to carry himself with an unbending hostility that is maintained up until his last sentence.  The tone of Cohen’s language shows the boldness of his personal stance and beliefs on this issue.  Little ones like “…the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race” (page 1 paragraph 4) and “They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution” (page 2 paragraph 4) show the irritation and exasperation that lie within this man’s spirit, poured out in these words.  He wastes no time in letting his phrases show had upset he is with the current state of affairs.  “…the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned” (page 2 paragraph 6).  His style is one that is absolute but can be described best as emphatic.  His tone is urgent and feels immediate action must be taken.  As mentioned earlier with his audiences, he wants to rouse his own troops to move ahead and convince his opposition reading this that they are wildly mistaken.  He has no time to make concessions for them so words like ‘wildly’ and ‘jettisoned’ denote this prospect.  While the arguments he utilizes show us how he substantiates and backs his assertions we only need to see his language to understand how he is coming at this.  He isn’t open to suggestions, finesses from others or revision, he wants merely conclusion on this issue resolved through how he sees fit.  After all the 2nd Amendment is something he refers to as a “threat to liberty and a suicide pact” (page 3 paragraph 7) and on page 4 directly says this, “…the Second Amendment is a suicide pact” (page 4 paragraph 12).  He says this phrase multiple times throughout, so this isn’t an issue he is going to budge on.  His rhetoric is like this is communicate not only how passionately he feels about this topic but how much he feels it is ridiculous that this has gone on as long as it has.  Cohen’s emphatic and dramatic language does not stop though as he refers to the gun lobbyist’s argument of good people having guns effectively stopping bad people with guns as a formula for only “blood baths” (page 5 paragraph 14).  Not even two sentences later Cohen is expressing upset at people trying to handle this problem in a nice way where the text of the 2nd Amendment is and Constitution meanings are debated.  He calls this “useless drivel” (page 5 paragraph 15).  It can be seen that Cohen is pushing for action and so it makes sense that his tone reflects this attitude being almost demanding, pressing, and uncompromising.  His emphatic style does not break even for a second throughout all of the article.  What can be taken from this is that even an emotional author who seems at the end of his rope can still appeal to his audiences by giving out logical and factual reasoning as to why the 2nd Amendment must be eliminated.

Rhetorical Analysis of Tribe’s Article

Now it is time to look at the rhetorical elements that stand out in the other article “The Second Amendment isn’t the problem” by Laurence Tribe.  Like Cohen it is Tribe’s audience, rhetorical arguments, and language that he utilizes within the development of his piece that show how he rhetorically appeals to those reading.  Tribe’s audience is clearly people who think repealing the 2nd Amendment is the answer to all the gun problems.  What makes this clear is how he spends the entire article making convincing arguments about how that is not actually what people would really want if they wanted the gun issue solved.  He believes his audience is one that is fed up but mistaken in their frustration over what should be done, in fact almost blinded by it.  He says, “It is easy for those who revile our lax gun laws to lose sight of how many Americans cherish the right of law-abiding citizens to keep guns at home for self-defense or hunting” (page 1 paragraph 2).  This is the statement he works from to build into his main argument of how people who want this law gone do not see how in fact that could work against their own self-interest as well as their children.  Tribe is appealing to people who are not only fed up but scared.  Tribe is writing this in the wake of the Parkland Florida shooting.  He knows people want to jump into action and it’s those already fraught with anger over guns by themselves now combined with grief over their loss who think the whole thing should be just done away with.

Now that we have identified Tribe’s audience for this article, his work must also like Cohen’s be dissected for the issue frames within the arguments he makes.  To be taken into account as mentioned earlier, Tribe’s work here is a response to the parkland shooting that in his mind has prompted this type of response saying the 2nd Amendment must go.  In turn his rhetoric is arguments refuting the plausibility and rationality of this thinking, Tribe claiming that the 2nd Amendment should not be removed.  The act of this would not do or accomplish what his audience thinks.  He starts out with a cause and effect argument appeal saying, “Repealing the Second Amendment would eliminate that source of reassurance-without even achieving the Parkland, Fla., students’ aims.  It would not take the most lethal, military-grade weapons out of dangerous hands.  Indeed, it wouldn’t eliminate a single gun or enact a single gun regulation. It would instead make the passage of each proposed regulation more difficult. Worse, a repeal campaign would infuse the Second Amendment with an absolute anti- ­regulation meaning that only the gun lobby has given it” (page 2 paragraph 5).  Doing exactly what people want he says would make the situation on guns worse and gun lobbyist’s outcries and the push for everything anti-gun activists wouldn’t want would be heightened immensely Tribe believes.  Inarguably it would backfire, is Tribe’s premise.  Tribe strategically moves from explaining the cause and effects of what anti-gun activists seem to think they want and then moves his rhetoric into taking things back to basics in a way.  He wants to lay out exactly what the issue is that’s being had and with that he uses an argument of priority and then immediately an argument of definition.  The argument for priority appeals to what it truly is that people want protected by whatever movement ends up happening as he says,

 

There is undoubted emotional appeal in a call to arms organized around an aim as lofty as the elimination of the Second Amendment. Its very unattainability adds to its allure. I can’t deny feeling the pull of that appeal myself. But our shared goal is surely not just to make ourselves feel good about our audacious hopes, but also to protect our children from being ripped to shreds by bullets and terrorized by that prospect. (page 3 paragraph 7)

 

Tribe’s strategy here is to continue his development of his main point while subtly throwing in a sympathetic statement that is meant to stand out to everyone.  No matter who wants the 2nd Amendment repealed or not, Tribe assumes that no one wants their children dead, and so the statement serves as a reminder of what is of the utmost importance even with a difference of opinions on policy.  His argument of definition follows this saying, “The obstacle is not the Second Amendment but the addiction of lawmakers to the money of firearms manufacturers and other unimaginably wealthy funders” (page 3 paragraph 8).  Coupled with this he reminds the readers on his side as well, “That, coupled with the gun lobby’s ability to mobilize single-issue gun rights voters, is set against the backdrop of a gun culture and national history that valorizes guns” (page 3 paragraph 8).  Tribe’s definition here of the actual problem is vital as it informs those who want guns and the 2nd Amendment gone of what they have miscalculated or not thought through when lobbying for this.  Before moving into his argument of policy, Tribe brilliantly adds on a tactful statemen, which is an ending argument of cause and effect, saying how all of this that he just explained would still remain even if the 2nd Amendment was repealed (page 3 paragraph 8).  His climactic statement, it sums up what he has been reiterating throughout his whole piece, that getting rid of this ancient law would not take away firearm manufacturers, wealthy funders, gun rights voters, or a gun culture that glorifies firearms in America.  Expectedly, Tribe wraps up his article with an argument of policy just as Cohen does.  He says, “The rising generation’s mobilization of passionate voters ready to toss out lawmakers tethered to guns by a trail of dark money is the right antitdote.  ‘Vote them out” (page 4 paragraph 9).  The argument Tribe makes here is that the real solution to this gun problem is to vote out the lawmakers who continue to pass pro-gun policies.  They are the problem, not the 2nd Amendment and if they are gotten rid of then their gun policies will go with them, much to Tribe’s audience’s liking.

 

Tribe’s style in his article is communicated by the language he uses like Cohen’s.  Tribe’s style within the writing of this article is explanatory and measured.  He progresses slowly and does not jump to conclusions or make his language large and sweeping.  This was in turn Cohen’s strategy, to be emphatic, and in most simple terms is the difference in these two author’s styles.  How Tribe communicates this type of tone throughout the article is in three ways mainly it seems is using factuality in some areas, making concessions, and repeated grammatical subjects to move through a sequence of several points.  Tribe as said is moderated in how he comes across but isn’t afraid to state the correct premises in order to get his point across all the while making it as sound as he possibly can.  To begin he throws in how gun activists “insist, falsely that any new prohibition would lead to the eventual ban of all firearms” (page 1 paragraph 2).  Later on he also says, “Relying on that legal reality, the young have reassured Americans fearful of confiscation that they do not..” (page 2 paragraph 4).  Looking at these two statements it can be noticed that Tribe relies on factuality to back up the impact of the statement with terms like “falsely” and “legal reality”.  The words or phrases act as stoppers, moments where he is saying that an argument against the point would be simply invalid.  When mentioning his ending policy for change he uses the phrases “the real obstacle to progress in gun regulation” followed up with “none of those realities would be eliminated” (page 3 paragraph 8).  Tribe makes a huge effort to cover his article with phrases that emphasize factuality as if he’s attempting to ensure his authority and credibility.  But going back to that rational feel Tribe is not so lost in his own worldview that he cannot comprehend what he does not advocate.  He does make a concession, and this alone benefits his overall tone.  He even makes this concession more near the end of his article which furthers that feel of understanding and “in their shoes” mindset seen in his explanatory tone.  “There is undoubted emotional appeal in a call to arms organized around an aim as lofty as the elimination of the Second Amendment. Its very unattainability adds to its allure. I can’t deny feeling the pull of that appeal myself. But our shared goal is surely…” (page 3 paragraph 7).  Tribe is humanizing himself here which allows his tone to be welcoming to his audiences in that he can visualize all perspectives.  But at the end of the day the others but his own just don’t track.  One last thing Tribe does with his language that shapes his measured style is repeating grammatical subjects to advance a point as seen here,

Repealing the Second Amendment would eliminate that source of reassurance — without even achieving the ­Parkland, Fla., students’ aims. It would not take the most lethal, military-grade weapons out of dangerous hands. Indeed, it wouldn’t eliminate a single gun or enact a single gun regulation. It would instead make..(page 2 paragraph 5)

 

Tribe’s repeated use of would here is a unique language ploy of his where the word that is said again and again acts as a logistic tool.  It allows his argument and overall message to come off as collected, credible, and calm.  It’s not loud or extremely persuasive like Cohen but it break down in pieces the main thing he is trying to push forward.  Since his audience are people who he thinks have the right spirit but wrong methodology moving forward and need convinced otherwise, this measured and explanatory tone works.  He does it throughout the whole article and wrapping up with language like this demonstrates that an unemotional author can give convincing rhetoric out to grieving families as to why getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is not the solution.

 

Looking back on both articles, the authors are very intricate in the way they craft their points, done through the composition of how they appeal to their own specific audience or audiences, the rhetorical arguments they make, and the language they use for their own emphasis.  Both authors come from similar backgrounds, responding in the wake of similar events at their respective times.  Although their arguments are markedly different, in both  pieces what stands out that shapes their rhetorical approach is very similar.  Both speak towards an audience that they know will follow them, people who are just as riled and fed up with what they as an author are upset about.  Both ensure their audience’s questions, expectations, and concerns are addressed to some degree as well as countering their opposition that they know are reading their articles as well.  Both utilize similar arguments, being arguments, of analysis, priority, cause and effect, and policy, which in turn have them present evidence in a digressive manner as to why their right and the move towards what is being called for.  Finally, Cohen and Tribe both use their own style of language that illustrates not only how they communicate and substantiate their points, but who they are as people and what that means for the stance they have resolved too.  In terms of the Second Amendment, what does this gathered analysis and evidence reveal to us about it?

While this analysis does not reveal anything particular about the Second Amendment itself it does tell us several things.  If you look at both articles, while the authors advocate a different opinion for progression, both sets of rhetorical appeals draw on the same factors for persuasion, logicality, and soundness of what they are saying.  So what does this broad statement mean?  Take for instance the already established fact that both articles are written by authors who are constitutional law professors.  Almost frighteningly two extremely like headed minds are taking the same set of expertise and applying their well learned principles combined with their own code of ethics, morals, and logical perspectives within themselves and putting all that towards the issue of what should be done about the 2nd Amendment.  Tack onto this as well that both are writing in response to shootings that happened in their times (most likely what prompted them to be written).  With this in mind it’s no wonder both articles seemed to some extent geared towards a sympathetic view for their audience, but also include dire or logic induced arguments for their opposition who they feel in a time like this, must be swayed.  What can be taken from both articles altogether though is that everyone in this issue to a large extent is the same.  We all want safety and prosperity.  Both sides come at this Second Amendment issue with solutions that they feel will protect our children and families better.  No rhetorical argument or claim, through its own personal belief that is, compromises that for a law to stay or go.  Finally, what can be concluded on this whole 2nd Amendment conflict is that both sides are geared.  While Tribe and Cohen argue radically different ideas, they are similar men appealing to similar people.  This just goes to show that credibility and reasoning does not fall underneath any one branch or spectrum.  The way you present your ideas, whether its measured or emphatic, does not lessen your credibility and accuracy either.  If anything, the debate on the 2nd Amendment shows us the good in humanity, in that we are all the same people vying for the same cause, only under different premises.  And this is what makes our country great, with problems only as big as this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 Cohen, D. and Cohen, D., 2020. Why It’s Time To Repeal The Second Amendment. [online] Rolling Stone. Available at: <https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-95622/> [Accessed 19 November 2020].

 

Cornell, Saul. “A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment.” Law and History

Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 2004, pp. 161–167., doi:10.2307/4141668.

 

Greenhouse, Linda. “Opinion | Gunfight At The Supreme Court”. Nytimes.Com, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-supreme-court.html.

 

HARDY, DAVID T. “The Rise and Demise of the ‘Collective Right’ Interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 59, no. 3, Sept. 2011, pp. 315–359. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102134752&site=e

host-live&scope=site.

 

Kuypers, Jim A. Rhetorical Criticism.

 

Lunceford, Brett. “Armed Victims: The Ego Function of Second Amendment Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, 2015, p. 333., doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.18.2.0333.

Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge To New York City Gun Ordinance”. Nytimes.Com, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/us/supreme-court-new-york-city-guns.html.

 

Tribe, L., 2018. The Second Amendment Isn’T The Problem. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/repealing-the-second-amendment-is-a-dangerous-idea/2018/03/28/ab194138-32af-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html> [Accessed 19 November 2020].

Reflective essay artifact 5

I chose this artifact for my English Major showcase because it is a reflective piece on art I observed and then commented on positively and negatively.  The two pieces were The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci and Man Pointing by Albert Giacometti.  I reflect on what is in my opinion the genius and beauty behind Da Vinci’s work while I critique the dullness and lack of true vision from Giacometti’s figure.  This is not so much a compare and contrast essay as more of a paper where I assert what I see and believe and then back my opinions up with what I’ve learned from the class Language of Art.  I believe this artifact represents learning outcome 6 of the learning outcomes of the English major.  It goes, “Reflect on multiple learning experiences in order to synthesize knowledge.”  These pieces of art were learning experiences that we had to reflect on, but more importantly we had to reflect on what we learned in the class to come up with knowledgeable and accurate things to say on the art in our reflections.  While I could give my opinion on how I liked Da Vinci’s work and not Giacometti’s, my comments had to be backed up by terms and information we learned from our studies of the Language of Art and synthesized well to mean something.

 

 

Josiah Titus
ERH 204
Maj. Ingersoll
April 28, 2019
HR: see works cited
Reflective Paper

I will discuss two pieces of art in this paper, one that I love and one that I am not so fond of, and I will analyze them justifying the reason as to why I like or don’t like them. The artwork that I love that we have covered is Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper 1495-1498 painting. As for the artwork that we’ve covered that I do not like, that would be Man Pointing 1947 which is a tiny little sculpted figure made by the artist Alberto Giacometti. While I think The Last Supper painting is beautiful, riveting, and significant in meaning, Man Pointing to me offers nothing very artistic or inspirational at all.
Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting of The Last Supper is a magnificent work of art and one of the most masterful paintings done on record in my opinion, which I will justify. It depicts Jesus surrounded by his twelve disciples at their last meal, the night on which Jesus was to be taken into custody and then later crucified . For me there is a huge amount of symbolism and meaning behind the painting and the painting itself, because the way it is presented and done, has a lot to show visually. The moment the painting is supposed to be captured in is when Jesus told the disciples that one of them was to betray him that night at supper and they all started to question and debate who the foul person was to be . The paintings visuality must be discussed though to understand how that contributes to its outstanding presentation and meaning.
Part of the beauty of the visuality of this image that makes me prefer it, is that it involves multiple artistic elements. It has color, pattern, lighting, shadow and more. My favorite part of the painting is that Judas himself is the only one in shadow, with Da Vinci utilizing shade and specifically a bit of chiascuro to do it . Since he is the one who betrays Jesus which leads to his death, this is the reasoning and so it gives even more meaning to the employment of it. There is also an implied line that runs across the tables from both sides of the disciples which puts Jesus at the center. This makes Biblical sense and is suitable for the understanding of it for those who maybe don’t know the story. One of the most notable aspects though about the painting is it’s use of color. No one color vibrantly stands out, which I like because it gives a more traditional Renaissance feel. There is no vibrant use of hue that draws the observer in. Everything blends nicely, and yet there are multiple colors within the painting. The artist makes use of cool colors and warm colors. Cool colors can be seen in the majority of the disciple’s robes which are mostly blue, green, or purple with some hints of pink. There are warm colors as well though which can be seen with Jesus especially, one disciple, and the walls to a slight degree. Da Vinci also makes decent use of shading and lighting in this piece, around the table and behind. The artistic element though that sets this apart from many other works, of his time particularly, is the use of a vanishing point. This gives the painting a three-dimensional look, something it became famous for. A vanishing point takes all receding parallel lines and have them diminish onto the horizon line . And this brings in my favorite aspect of it, due to the fact that they all diminish onto Jesus who is at the center and is the focal point of the painting. I’ve always liked this as it brings attention to the reality of Jesus being the most important figure within the image and context wise.
Alberto Giacometti’s Man Pointing is nothing amazing and falls short in being a work of art in my opinion. It is a small plaster figure of a stick like man or thing pointing at seemingly nothing . He seems to almost look stone like but there is literally nothing else, no other context to go on. In my opinion it offers almost nothing to be inspired by, does not provoke intellectual thinking, and is as simplistic as can be, coming off as an object a little kid could have thrown together in arts and crafts. Alberto even says that it took him not even one night to do it, and that he ended up rushing it so badly that he destroyed it, and then redid it . It came out about as poorly, and he even planned for the figure to have its arm wrapped around another figure, but abandoned the idea, considering it complete . We can dissect this piece a bit though and find that there are quirky artistic aspects of its display that can be taken note of and analyzed.
Its design should be noted first. First off, the whole piece is representative of Alberto’s take on abstract expression. In the time period, abstract expressionism was becoming big in Art. This can be seen from the fact that it does not represent anything external for the most part except that it’s some sort of person or thing. Its effect comes from literally the weird way it looks and how it’s not much to look at at all. This also contributes mainly to why it doesn’t suit my preference as it’s just bizarre and confusing to look at. This piece is a sculpture made out of plaster and bronze. One thing that can be noted as well is that it is an in the round sculpture and not a relief sculpture. This is because it’s three dimensional and not up against or attached to some wall. It utilizes the concept of an implied line which runs across the center of his body up through his extended arm which is pointing. In art this is seen through certain elements in the piece that lead to the focal point. There is very little use of color, as the whole figure is a darkish brown tint with some grey. The whole thing is a warm color, so it is devoid of looking lively or moving. It is devoid of any creative use of hue. It was painted entirely by Alberto by hand, so that it could have a rawer yet expressive feel to it . In my opinion it is something that if it had been mightily expanded upon, it could have been much better. It could have maybe been a sickly man representing famine or the downfall of something at the time, or how war turns us all to creatures, or something along these lines. If Alberto had done what he was planning to do and added in another figure, this could have given it the context it needed to be more interesting, appealing, and understood. A better color scheme or palette may have helped it, or having a distinguishable face and body. Unfortunately to me it just looks like a poorly made stick figure toy that is pointing, nothing more nothing less.
Both works of art offer a little bit of something, mostly in my opinion insight into the world of creating art and imagery. The Last Supper by Da Vinci is an example of using various types of artistic techniques to create a beautiful painting full of commotion, history, and meaning. It was made in the Renaissance period as well, so it carries a lot significance in the way of how art was perceived at the time. Today art may not reign supreme as a demonstration of who is extremely skilled or valuable, but in those days, to be able to create works like this defined you as an innovator of the time in a way. Since things like You tube or Twitter were not around, this was the way in which people expressed themselves and their genius. As for Man Pointing, it does offer insight. But it falls short in the way of creativity and being something that resonates with you. It does not use many techniques in its fixture and has no real meaning and can’t really be clearly understood, I think. Its abstract form does it in, because it’s too simple and peculiar to be looked at as something of artistic genius-it looks pedestrian. These two pieces of art do show though, that art comes in multiple different forms, on many diverse levels of what is good or not. Someone else could look at Man Pointing and draw something from its abstractness, while The Last Supper is just not appealing to them. It’s all dependent on taste and what it offers, and both artworks demonstrate this point keenly to me.

 

Bibliography
Zelazko, Alicja. “Last Supper.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Last -Supper-fresco-by-Leonardo-da-Vinci (accessed April 31st, 2019).
South, Helen. “What is a Vanishing Point in Art.” ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/
/vanishing-point-drawing-definition-1123080 (accessed April 31st, 2019).
Encyclopedia of Art Education. “The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci.” Main A-Z Index.
http://www.Arts-cork.com/famous-paintings/last-super-leonardo-davinci.htm
(accessed May 1st 2019).
MoMa. “Man Pointing 1947.” MoMa. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/81779
(accessed May 1st, 2019).

 

 

Capstone Project Proposal

Josiah Titus
ERH 381
LTC Brown
February 25, 2020

Capstone Project Proposal

Background/Rationale: I have always been interested in research on the 2nd Amendment and gun control in general. In the course Civic Discourse taught by Maj. Iten I wrote a civic action proposal on gun control giving a solution to how it could be combatted and fixed but in a peaceful way that was a compromise. I looked at the beliefs of the left and right side on the issue as well those in between or not fully on one side of the spectrum and used what I found to make a solution. A lot of this project though was centered around gun violence and preventing it but not so much the 2nd Amendment. Coming into this class I knew I wanted to build off of what I had done and do a project that focused more on the diplomatic side of gun control which is the 2nd Amendment. While at first I thought doing another civic solution proposal would be good, I changed my mind midway into the course and decided to do a rhetorical critique on rhetoric on the 2nd Amendment and to use secondary sources and the 2nd Amendment itself to support my critiques. I also made sure my primaries were opposing in view on the 2nd Amendment so bias would be out of the equation to an extent and so that both sides of the debate could be critiqued fairly. My mentor advised me this was a good decision as it was much more of an English project then a civic solution paper would be.

Methodology: I will be using two texts for my primaries that are rhetoric on the second Amendment. One will be in support of it and the other will be against it. Since I am doing a rhetorical critique it is important that they are opposing so that my rhetorical critique can be unbiased and fair. My research on secondary sources will be focused in on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment, seeing what peer reviewed authors speak to on the 2nd Amendment and discussing it’s interpretations, meanings, and different audiences. Sources also that key in on the historical context of the legislation and then relate the rhetoric to that will be helpful as well as they can help to explain and or examine the stems that cause much of the bias against the law. I want one sided sources so finding these is key, but I also want more general sources that take a broader more encompassing look, possibly being defined as neutral. The 2nd Amendment itself will also act as a secondary source for my critique. These secondary sources are vital because I need sources with credible authors who speak to the rhetoric in the 2nd Amendment from all perspectives so that I can use these viewpoints with my own critique and assertions on the rhetoric in the primaries.

Outcome: This paper should come out to be a full and thorough rhetorical critique of both primary sources that focus on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment. It will address the audiences and how the author’s use certain language to appeal to their audience’s motives, values, and beliefs. The rhetoric critiqued within these primaries will be supported or not supported by assertions made in my secondary sources. My secondary sources will be used primarily to backup statements and facts made or associated with the legislation. These secondary sources speak on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment and rhetoric used by its different audiences in reference to the law, supporting it or not. The paper will also include support from the 2nd Amendment itself which will be a huge secondary source used. The final product will be a paper that shows rhetoric on both sides of an issue and demonstrates how the rhetoric is used to be effective, what it’s influence is, and what it means.

Abstract: The discourse used by big firearm officials being mainly the NRA and public officials presents a wide range of opinions about the Second Amendments. This discourse is one important part of the larger national debate over issues coming out about the Second Amendment. Most scholars in rhetoric have usually not adequately or clearly attended to the discourse surrounding the issues coming out of the Second Amendment. My paper offers a close analysis of some of the discourse coming from more so traditionalists, people who interpret the Second Amendment and it’s influence and meaning with maximum literalness and defend that position and explanation. In my project, I will conduct rhetorical criticism of two key texts in the larger discourse surrounding issues coming out of the Second Amendment, these texts being “The Second Amendment isn’t the Problem” by Laurence Tribe, and “Why it’s time to Repeal the 2nd Amendment” by David Cohen. I argue that although the tone and overall style of the two texts differ to an extent, the rhetorical effects on the intended audience are the same and center on the audience’s motive of what they believe the Amendment is really saying, upholding and doing for the country. By closely examining these two texts by Tribe and Cohen and their rhetorical functions, this project sheds new light on the themes and strategies of rhetorical discourse used by Second Amendment traditionalists to appeal to the broader public.

Cornell, Saul. “A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment.” Law and History
Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 2004, pp. 161–167., doi:10.2307/4141668.
Cornell’s main point is to introduce a new model for looking at the second amendment and understanding how we got to what we think of it today by looking at it’s history. Cornell’s primary subtopics are introducing Konig’s new paradigm for the second amendment, explaining typology, showing other paradigms, and then showing histories influence on interpretations. Other specifics he writes on is his desire to express through other credible sources and historical analysis new models for the second amendment and he wants to demonstrate how right to bear arms is a civic right not an individual right.
Cornell’s source offers a look into a whole new diagram for presenting a new outlook on the 2nd Amendment. His methodology is credible as he references history, as well as other schemas made up previously in order to create his new model for the old as time law. What it seems he really wants to accomplish and communicate in this journal article is the reasoning behind why the right to bear arms is not something that should be regulated by the people but instead the government. He does not seem to be on one side completely being the left or the right, and while he seems more left wing sided, his ideology preaches the necessity of guns and their role in society underneath the 2nd Amendment. This source works well for my paper because although it shows a more conflicting side on this 2nd Amendment issue in opposition to my own beliefs, what it does do is present a whole new way of looking at the amendment itself in terms of this issue which is information I’ll need for finding a solution.

Lunceford, Brett. “Armed Victims: The Ego Function of Second Amendment Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, 2015, p. 333., doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.18.2.0333.
Lunceford’s main point is that armed confrontation to the public by open carry advocates will not lead to any reasonable dialogue concerning the role of firearms in America. Lunceford’s primary subtopics are if rights are ever really settled and identity correlated with open carry and gun rights. He writes on that open carry advocates actually hurt themselves by trying to push the 2nd Amendment rhetoric into society along with a right winged agenda. Gun control activists are demonized so that open carry citizens are allowed to be victims who just want their guns.
Lunceford writes a great analysis piece here for this topic because it takes a look at the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment from the right winged perspective and view. It is not exactly a biased source but it paints the right wing’s views on gun control and the 2nd Amendment in a more negative light and plays devil’s advocate in a way. Open carry citizens who just want guns for their protection may not be all that innocent after all and their agenda of pushing their version of what they think the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment into society could be being their downfall. They are egotistical and forward in their agenda but then act the helpless victim. This source works well for my paper as a secondary source because it provides a look at the 2nd Amendment rhetoric being displayed by right wing activists and how the left is combating it.

Eddlem, Thomas R. “The Racist Origin of America’s Gun Control Laws.” New American
(08856540), vol. 30, no. 18, Sept. 2014, pp. 35–39. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=98050682&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Eddlem’s main point is that America’s gun control laws ultimately have racist backgrounds. Eddlem’s primary subtopics are America’s first racist gun control laws, Black Codes after the Civil War, and Some relief under the 14th Amendment. The stakes and values addressed is Eddlem attempting to enlighten ignorance on gun control, saying it is done to disarm minorities, so they are killed easily with no defense. Gun control must not be supported, and lives are at stake as well as evil agendas if it’s allowed. Value must be placed on protecting the citizens, and not giving the government so much power which gun control has been seen to do.
This source is one of the most straightforward historical sources that I managed to find on the issue of gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. It is credible seeming as the author who does a journal, cites history and specific events throughout history that trace the origins of possible racism embedded in the making of this law. Through this perspective a more left winged view can be evidenced while at the same time remaining relatively in between on the political spectrum whereas history is concerned. Eddlem comes at this from a unique angle as he tries to use history as a tool and anchor to make his point on gun control and the 2nd Amendment but it is interesting to note that the points he makes are all rooted in fact. This source contains testimony from blacks back then who validate how gun control and the implementation of the 2nd Amendment was bad for them. This is where the controversy is highly discussed as this law back then was not all inclusive and some of it’s tenants worked against minorities who suffered due to it. That is why this source is good for my capstone as it provides medium ground on the issue from which I can use to possibly find compromise on the controversy of the meaning and connotation behind the 2nd Amendment.

COLLINS, LAURA J. “The Second Amendment as Demanding Subject: Figuring the Marginalized Subject in Demands for an Unbridled Second Amendment.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 17, no. 4, Winter 2014, pp. 737–756. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.17.4.0737.
Collins main point in this journal article is about the rhetoric found within the US public that deals specifically with what rights are granted and or protected by the 2nd Amendment. It keys in on the politics that have to do with the legislation’s main focus, which is the right to bear arms of course, so as a result many controversial points including different side’s views on it are established and covered. In particular it spends a lot of time on individual rights with guns, an unbridled 2nd Amendment, and the discrimination that gun carriers face as the main points Collins covers. An unbridled 2nd Amendment is the basis of Collin’s argument, being the belief that everyone is not only entitled to owning a firearm but that every citizen is responsible for owning one and supporting the 2nd Amendment.
This source provides a look at a more left winged spectrum, but it also covers what the right face from the aggression given on the left, as with gun carriers being harassed or targeted. The 2nd Amendment here is posed as demanding, especially when group uses it as primarily their sole basis to support the claim that all people are responsible for owning a firearm as an American citizen. Collins extensively covers the pushback on this and parallels it with the belief of gun ownership being an individual right and not a civic right. The best part of this source though is that it gives the right wing a face of credibility which many of my other sources do not, only choosing one position or spectrum to agree heavily with. It will be a reliable source for reference to right winged propaganda, policies, and cases. It is not extensive on material and is the broadest out of all my sources relying mostly on beating down the concept of an unbridled 2nd Amendment believing it is corrupt to expect such responsibility and obligation from the people, but is a good source for showing educated criticism on one side towards another.

CHARLES, PATRICK J. “The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home, Take Three: Critiquing the Circuit Courts Use of History-In-Law.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 67, no. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 197–266. EBSCOhost, searchebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h& AN=137739967&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Charles’s main point in this journal article is how the law, which mainly includes how the government and the courts specifically, have used history as the main arbiter in gun policy. This is in reference mainly to the 2nd Amendment as the primary piece of legislation used. The article does this in three separate sections and parts the first being on the 2nd Amendment’s influence in and outside the home, part two being the benefits and burdens of using history-in-law as constitutional interpretation, and lastly part three offering advice on this method for the future. This is a biased source introducing a new type of paradigm for looking at the 2nd Amendment through history and as a law.
This source is right leaning but mostly independent politically speaking as it advocates the history that allows use of this Amendment, but also critiques the ambiguity in what the law itself says and that this consequently but not surprisingly leads to the problems encountered today between the left and right. What this source doesn’t do though which I noticed is explain these problems on the other side. It listed them out in a broad sense but did not give the other side or spectrum analytical expression or dissection on where they are coming from in terms of the issue of ambiguity with the 2nd Amendment. The history-in-law approach though is interesting for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a tactic because as the courts claim it does not impede on any democratic process and is factually backed. The article spends a lot of word count explaining what the method looks but does not give digression as to how or when it’s failed, what other problems arise from it and what could work not in it’s favor. Bias is included, but the other side is not explored which limits the cpapcity of use for this source. It will be a good source though for introducing yet another paradigm of trying to interpret the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment from a more independent political stance.

HARDY, DAVID T. “The Rise and Demise of the ‘Collective Right’ Interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 59, no. 3, Sept. 2011, pp. 315–359. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102134752&site=e
host-live&scope=site.
Hardy’s main point in his text is arguing and more actually showing that while many people claim the 2nd Amendment has been and is a collective right, that this interpretation of it doesn’t really work and has failed. He makes this case through a very detailed timeline of history, going through every era from the revolutionary war up until about modern day and scrutinizes various events and acts within each that relate to gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. His data goes over what it exactly meant to have the right to bear arms at the time as well as any legal cases or laws passed that were trying to change or impede in on the legislation.
Hardy’s source seems to be made for this type of argument I’m trying to make as historical context is scrupulously analyzed and at the same time an argument is almost subtly made through the factual evidence provided. It seems that this could potentially be a more conservative right winged platform of argument, but at the same time Hardy demonstrates absolute fact in everything and bias is not easily seen. What this source as a whole seems to do is show the rise and fall of a way of thinking that the author believes in short just doesn’t hold up, and that if the 2nd Amendment was ever actually a collective right, it is not now. This is a doubtful source for use in a overall sense because for this paper sources with heavy bias and political affiliation work extremely well. Dissecting information given from the left or right on what they think gun policy should be is the main goal of this paper, and this piece does not deliver too well on that. While it does tell us for example why the left came to believe the right to bear arms was limited to the military, it doesn’t elaborate on why this is supposedly better for America from someone or some group’s view. In the end though this source works for my capstone because it provides a base of reference material to back up assertions made from biased sources and can be to bring up old laws or old gun policy cases.

Literature Review

Literature Review
Josiah Titus
Faculty Mentor: Maj. Iten

Research Topic: For my research topic I plan to take a look at two primary sources that are rhetoric from two different authors giving statements and opinions on the 2nd Amendment. Both sources will be opposed, one saying to repeal the 2nd Amendment and other saying repealing it would be a bad idea. After analyzing their rhetoric deeply, I will convey their differences, similarities, and methods in how they speak to their intended audience. I will compare how they appeal to motives, how they sway their audience, what support they use, their credibility and how they rhetorically reach their conclusion and what it means for their audience. The point of this is analyze how they use rhetorical means to take a stance on their position and how they defend it and give reason to their assertion.

Research Questions: What type of rhetorical critique would work best for tackling this paper? What type of secondary sources would be good to use for a rhetorical critique paper? How is bias not going to be involved at all when working through and completing this project? What exactly are you looking for the authors to be saying in the primaries? What’s the difference here between doing a rhetorical analysis and a critique and how will it be applied to this paper? How will biased secondary sources be incorporated into this project? How should you go about choosing them?

Research Methodology: I will be using two texts for my primaries that are rhetoric on the second Amendment. One will be in support of it and the other will be against it. Since I am doing a rhetorical critique it is important that they are opposing so that my rhetorical critique can be unbiased and fair. My research on secondary sources will be focused in on the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment, seeing what peer reviewed authors speak to on the 2nd Amendment and discussing it’s interpretations, meanings, and different audiences. Sources also that key in on the historical context of the legislation and then relate the rhetoric to that will be helpful as well as they can help to explain and or examine the stems that cause much of the bias against the law. I want one sided sources so finding these is key, but I also want more general sources that take a broader more encompassing look, possibly being defined as neutral. These secondary sources are vital because I need sources with credible authors who speak to the rhetoric in the 2nd Amendment from all perspectives so that I can use these viewpoints with my own critique and assertions on the rhetoric in the primaries.

Cornell, Saul. “A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment.” Law and History
Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 2004, pp. 161–167., doi:10.2307/4141668.
Cornell’s main point is to introduce a new model for looking at the second amendment and understanding how we got to what we think of it today by looking at it’s history. Cornell’s primary subtopics are introducing Konig’s new paradigm for the second amendment, explaining typology, showing other paradigms, and then showing histories influence on interpretations. Other specifics he writes on is his desire to express through other credible sources and historical analysis new models for the second amendment and he wants to demonstrate how right to bear arms is a civic right not an individual right.
Cornell’s source offers a look into a whole new diagram for presenting a new outlook on the 2nd Amendment. His methodology is credible as he references history, as well as other schemas made up previously in order to create his new model for the old as time law. What it seems he really wants to accomplish and communicate in this journal article is the reasoning behind why the right to bear arms is not something that should be regulated by the people but instead the government. He does not seem to be on one side completely being the left or the right, and while he seems more left wing sided, his ideology preaches the necessity of guns and their role in society underneath the 2nd Amendment. This source works well for my paper because although it shows a more conflicting side on this 2nd Amendment issue in opposition to my own beliefs, what it does do is present a whole new way of looking at the amendment itself in terms of this issue which is information I’ll need for finding a solution.

Lunceford, Brett. “Armed Victims: The Ego Function of Second Amendment Rhetoric.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, 2015, p. 333., doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.18.2.0333.
Lunceford’s main point is that armed confrontation to the public by open carry advocates will not lead to any reasonable dialogue concerning the role of firearms in America. Lunceford’s primary subtopics are if rights are ever really settled and identity correlated with open carry and gun rights. He writes on that open carry advocates actually hurt themselves by trying to push the 2nd Amendment rhetoric into society along with a right winged agenda. Gun control activists are demonized so that open carry citizens are allowed to be victims who just want their guns.
Lunceford writes a great analysis piece here for this topic because it takes a look at the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment from the right winged perspective and view. It is not exactly a biased source but it paints the right wing’s views on gun control and the 2nd Amendment in a more negative light and plays devil’s advocate in a way. Open carry citizens who just want guns for their protection may not be all that innocent after all and their agenda of pushing their version of what they think the rhetoric of the 2nd Amendment into society could be being their downfall. They are egotistical and forward in their agenda but then act the helpless victim. This source works well for my paper as a secondary source because it provides a look at the 2nd Amendment rhetoric being displayed by right wing activists and how the left is combating it.

Eddlem, Thomas R. “The Racist Origin of America’s Gun Control Laws.” New American
(08856540), vol. 30, no. 18, Sept. 2014, pp. 35–39. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=98050682&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Eddlem’s main point is that America’s gun control laws ultimately have racist backgrounds. Eddlem’s primary subtopics are America’s first racist gun control laws, Black Codes after the Civil War, and Some relief under the 14th Amendment. The stakes and values addressed is Eddlem attempting to enlighten ignorance on gun control, saying it is done to disarm minorities, so they are killed easily with no defense. Gun control must not be supported, and lives are at stake as well as evil agendas if it’s allowed. Value must be placed on protecting the citizens, and not giving the government so much power which gun control has been seen to do.
This source is one of the most straightforward historical sources that I managed to find on the issue of gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. It is credible seeming as the author who does a journal, cites history and specific events throughout history that trace the origins of possible racism embedded in the making of this law. Through this perspective a more left winged view can be evidenced while at the same time remaining relatively in between on the political spectrum whereas history is concerned. Eddlem comes at this from a unique angle as he tries to use history as a tool and anchor to make his point on gun control and the 2nd Amendment but it is interesting to note that the points he makes are all rooted in fact. This source contains testimony from blacks back then who validate how gun control and the implementation of the 2nd Amendment was bad for them. This is where the controversy is highly discussed as this law back then was not all inclusive and some of it’s tenants worked against minorities who suffered due to it. That is why this source is good for my capstone as it provides medium ground on the issue from which I can use to possibly find compromise on the controversy of the meaning and connotation behind the 2nd Amendment.

COLLINS, LAURA J. “The Second Amendment as Demanding Subject: Figuring the Marginalized Subject in Demands for an Unbridled Second Amendment.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 17, no. 4, Winter 2014, pp. 737–756. EBSCOhost, doi:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.17.4.0737.
Collins main point in this journal article is about the rhetoric found within the US public that deals specifically with what rights are granted and or protected by the 2nd Amendment. It keys in on the politics that have to do with the legislation’s main focus, which is the right to bear arms of course, so as a result many controversial points including different side’s views on it are established and covered. In particular it spends a lot of time on individual rights with guns, an unbridled 2nd Amendment, and the discrimination that gun carriers face as the main points Collins covers. An unbridled 2nd Amendment is the basis of Collin’s argument, being the belief that everyone is not only entitled to owning a firearm but that every citizen is responsible for owning one and supporting the 2nd Amendment.
This source provides a look at a more left winged spectrum, but it also covers what the right face from the aggression given on the left, as with gun carriers being harassed or targeted. The 2nd Amendment here is posed as demanding, especially when group uses it as primarily their sole basis to support the claim that all people are responsible for owning a firearm as an American citizen. Collins extensively covers the pushback on this and parallels it with the belief of gun ownership being an individual right and not a civic right. The best part of this source though is that it gives the right wing a face of credibility which many of my other sources do not, only choosing one position or spectrum to agree heavily with. It will be a reliable source for reference to right winged propaganda, policies, and cases. It is not extensive on material and is the broadest out of all my sources relying mostly on beating down the concept of an unbridled 2nd Amendment believing it is corrupt to expect such responsibility and obligation from the people, but is a good source for showing educated criticism on one side towards another.

CHARLES, PATRICK J. “The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home, Take Three: Critiquing the Circuit Courts Use of History-In-Law.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 67, no. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 197–266. EBSCOhost, searchebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h& AN=137739967&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Charles’s main point in this journal article is how the law, which mainly includes how the government and the courts specifically, have used history as the main arbiter in gun policy. This is in reference mainly to the 2nd Amendment as the primary piece of legislation used. The article does this in three separate sections and parts the first being on the 2nd Amendment’s influence in and outside the home, part two being the benefits and burdens of using history-in-law as constitutional interpretation, and lastly part three offering advice on this method for the future. This is a biased source introducing a new type of paradigm for looking at the 2nd Amendment through history and as a law.
This source is right leaning but mostly independent politically speaking as it advocates the history that allows use of this Amendment, but also critiques the ambiguity in what the law itself says and that this consequently but not surprisingly leads to the problems encountered today between the left and right. What this source doesn’t do though which I noticed is explain these problems on the other side. It listed them out in a broad sense but did not give the other side or spectrum analytical expression or dissection on where they are coming from in terms of the issue of ambiguity with the 2nd Amendment. The history-in-law approach though is interesting for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as a tactic because as the courts claim it does not impede on any democratic process and is factually backed. The article spends a lot of word count explaining what the method looks but does not give digression as to how or when it’s failed, what other problems arise from it and what could work not in it’s favor. Bias is included, but the other side is not explored which limits the cpapcity of use for this source. It will be a good source though for introducing yet another paradigm of trying to interpret the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment from a more independent political stance.

HARDY, DAVID T. “The Rise and Demise of the ‘Collective Right’ Interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Cleveland State Law Review, vol. 59, no. 3, Sept. 2011, pp. 315–359. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=102134752&site=e
host-live&scope=site.
Hardy’s main point in his text is arguing and more actually showing that while many people claim the 2nd Amendment has been and is a collective right, that this interpretation of it doesn’t really work and has failed. He makes this case through a very detailed timeline of history, going through every era from the revolutionary war up until about modern day and scrutinizes various events and acts within each that relate to gun control dealing with the 2nd Amendment. His data goes over what it exactly meant to have the right to bear arms at the time as well as any legal cases or laws passed that were trying to change or impede in on the legislation.
Hardy’s source seems to be made for this type of argument I’m trying to make as historical context is scrupulously analyzed and at the same time an argument is almost subtly made through the factual evidence provided. It seems that this could potentially be a more conservative right winged platform of argument, but at the same time Hardy demonstrates absolute fact in everything and bias is not easily seen. What this source as a whole seems to do is show the rise and fall of a way of thinking that the author believes in short just doesn’t hold up, and that if the 2nd Amendment was ever actually a collective right, it is not now. This is a doubtful source for use in a overall sense because for this paper sources with heavy bias and political affiliation work extremely well. Dissecting information given from the left or right on what they think gun policy should be is the main goal of this paper, and this piece does not deliver too well on that. While it does tell us for example why the left came to believe the right to bear arms was limited to the military, it doesn’t elaborate on why this is supposedly better for America from someone or some group’s view. In the end though this source works for my capstone because it provides a base of reference material to back up assertions made from biased sources and can be to bring up old laws or old gun policy cases.

Proposal of Civic Solution Open Letter artifact 4

I chose this artifact for my English Major showcase as I believe it is one of the most important pieces to display from all that I’ve done in my English career so far.  While it is comprehensive the depth of work, organized thinking, source referencing, and creativeness shown in this artifact, demonstrates a strong piece completed in the English major by me, and shows the depth and level of thinking required by this department.  This artifact represents numbers one and five of the six learning outcomes of the English major quite perfectly.  For number one this fits because it is an open letter to a specific audience being parents of victims of gun violence.  In the letter I must use certain rhetorical strategies and methods as well as collected data and professional information to appeal to this audience in order for them to see my point of view.  A point of view they most likely don’t align with.  This paper is supposed to simulate a professional scenario in which I formally address these people, so the learning outcome couldn’t be better shown.  As for number five, this is represented too because in a way this is a creative piece.  It is my own solution from a plethora of research and sources that speak to this coming from humans and human experience.  I take everything I have analyzed and researched and try to come up with a proposal for solution to this audience who are already bound to disagree.  My solution is one of compromise, trying to appease both sides, so it takes a good deal of effort to come up with something semi feasible and realistic.  As you can see though, I achieve this to a great degree.

 

Josiah Titus
ERH 302
Maj. Iten
November 29, 2019
HR: Works Cited

Proposal of Civic Solution
Open Letter
The Compromise with Guns and children’s lives

December 5, 2019
Dear Parents of victims of gun violence,

I want to first say I understand your pain. I get why you want strict gun control and guns to overall be removed from the societal picture. A gun or guns is the thing that caused loss in your life and brought about utter tragedy. Guns were the weapon that were used to take your sons and daughters from you and now you know you will never see them again. A gun is what caused all the ugliness to occur and is how it started and ended and why what was precious to you is lost forever. A gun did that, and so to you it is an object of mal intent, a machine for violence and killing that was used incorrectly for deadly purposes in the hands of someone who wasn’t thinking clearly. And it was so easy, all they had to do was walk right up to the unarmed victims and openly fire. They had no defense but to run and scream hoping to be saved somehow. The person holding the gun was responsible, but I understand that to you and from your way of thinking, without the gun no bullets would have flown, no shots fired, and nobody killed twenty feet from the shooter. Maybe they would have had a fighting chance, maybe one instead ten would have died or none at all. The gun ensured that didn’t happen though, it was destruction from all angles. Your pain and way of thinking is not misunderstood, it is not necessarily misplaced.

Yes, your pain is seen and heard. But let me say this. While I intend to showcase my evidence for a proposed solution for compromise to the issue of gun control, I do know that understanding of where you are coming from is needed, as well not just shutting you down. You want protection for your young ones, you want security from the threat of guns available and ensured. You want to know that your children are safe when they go to school and that no guns will hurt them or kill. You feel like that should be guaranteed, and you are right. It should be. I though am here to show you, that yes while guns can harm others, can be in the wrong hands, can be handled improperly and yes, can kill people, there can be arrangement made to ensure our kids are kept safe, are actively protected, with guns aiding and helping that cause.
There is on average 28 school shootings a year in the US according to statistics. Shootings in schools are as reported a matter of defense . Let this statistic and report sink in. They aren’t all Columbine level and not every single one includes death, but every year around 28 public schools with kids are attacked in some manner by a person with a gun. And the kids are always left defenseless. Notice what I said in paragraph one. They are shot with no defense. That’s what we want, a way of defense.

I have a proposal for civic solution. You want kids to be safe daily from the threat of guns, and that there shouldn’t even be a worry of going to school and guns being present in a malicious way. Guns to you cause a feeling of insecurity, no control and the chance of mishandling. Well this is exactly where my solution that entails compromise for both sides can be implemented. A huge part of the issue here that you can probably agree with is the fear of the unknown. Guns to you maybe, and especially your kids away at school, are unknown. Not in the way that their some alien never being seen, but they are complex tools that many lack experiences with or have little knowledge of. Let’s look at an example to explain this.

A young person who is sixteen will never be able to properly handle or operate a car until they have experience or knowledge of it and drive it hands on. You can show as many pictures to them as you want, but it won’t accomplish the same thing to any extent. You must be educated and informed in order to comprehend what you don’t understand. A lot of society doesn’t understand guns. What they fear is usually what they aren’t familiar with, and I completely get that. It’s ok. But in order to help mend this, like with the car example, we must familiarize and educate ourselves on what we aren’t used too so that it isn’t so foreign and scary to us anymore, and I think we can all understand that. What I propose specifically is that we introduce proper gun use and handling to our school system through a security system of armed people. If properly trained security, who had reliable background checks, and who had been put through rigorous testing were armed and stationed at our children’s schools throughout the nation, not only could this help to eliminate viewing guns as only tools for mal intent, but it could significantly lower the chances of school shootings or gun mishandling in schools within the US.

First off you need to pick trustworthy people to be able to perform this job correctly, well, and who flawlessly pass all the background checks. A big part of this solution for compromise is having a tedious process to ensure no mistake is made in who is chosen. This wouldn’t be a volunteer, sign up sort of basis. It’s calculated selection of who we think have the qualifications to protect kids against gun threats at any and all costs. These people will be the ones handling guns and subsequently will be the security protecting the kids. I get it, you might see this as redundant because guns are still around the kids. I will tell you this though, that the statistics report that the overwhelming death of kids by guns is due to a shooter or the naïve, ignorant child having access to guns that are not stored properly-not guns that are being handled by responsible adults in a controlled environment . This wouldn’t be a factor as the security would prevent the shooters and no guns would be stored at the school, only carried by proper personnel. Rest assured to be clear again, the janitors would not be carrying. The only ones doing so would be a handful picked for only that reason. Your side as I understand from my research sees only mistake and miscalculation that can from this. You see the right to bear arms not as a means of protection but as, if I carry a gun openly then I am meaning to kill someone if that chance is happened upon-that’s why the gun is carried .

Around 1,300 children are killed by gun violence in the US every year mostly involving school shootings . That’s 1,300 families on average that lose a child that wasn’t properly protected one way or the other. That’s why this solution is not to be imposed on the world, it’s to be integrated with our school systems so that children take priority. That’s where it happens the most, where it’s most prevalent. The next step of this solution would be to put these selected people through rigorous training and testing. The nobody off the street who weighs three hundred pounds in fat is not the candidates for this process. Ex-military, police, and people with security experience would be most looked at but the standard for training would hold for anyone recruited. It would be ensured these people were in good physical shape and were of course psychologically sound which plays into the background checks a bit. The majority though of what the training would entail is teaching them and testing them on how to use guns and handle them flawlessly. They would need target practice, assembly and disassembly testing, accuracy exams, active shooter training, active shooter protocol, teamwork training and gun malfunction adaptability training. All parts would need to be not only passed but excelled at.

Lastly you would need these trained professionals to be aware of the risks but be ready. Coordination of defense plans would need to be flawless, and active scouting, scanning, and observation techniques would be utilized as opposed to some unarmed guard waiting at the booth near the school’s entrance. Monitoring the hallways actively, one guard posted outside every classroom, and routine walks of the premises would be the expected execution of this plan. Special utilities and equipment would be purchased for more optimal surveillance and patrol operations on school grounds. I think you can agree, this epidemic has reached this height of seriousness. We can’t have a loose system, we need skill, optimization and accuracy to the highest degrees.

You see the catch to all this if I pause for second is that you might be saying this has already been done or attempted before. Sure, there have been security measures laid out here and there, but nothing to the extent of the precision I describe in this. Training with guns and detailed plans for the case of an active shooter have not been around for long at all. In fact, it was really only in the late 1990’s that this began, and various testimonies prove it, that most run of the mill guards hired don’t know how to properly handle firearms . What I’m trying to communicate to you parents overall here, is not just the exact methodology for how to execute this plan, but to show you that unfamiliarity leads to mishandling and death. If people are well equipped that’s one thing. You can have the gear but no game, but if you know what your doing with your tools then it makes all the difference in moving forward.

Parents, if you have stayed with me this far, let me say that this might seem so far like something you are more against than for. But let me reassure you that this is for the children’s best interest and it is not integration of guns into society and into unwilling people’s hands but showing select people how to handle firearms for a higher purpose, for our kids defense, that I believe we all can get behind.

Regards,
Josiah Titus
Works Cited

Patel, Sejal H. “Kids and Gun Safety.” Children’s Rights Litigation, vol. 16, no. 3, Spring 2014,
pp.2-5.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=
95727855&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Collier, Charles W. “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report.” Dissent
(00123846), vol. 60, no. 3, Summer 2013, pp. 81–86. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1353/dss.2013.0052.
Psychology Today. (2019). School Shootings and Gun Control: A Focus on Suicide. [online]
Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crimes-violence/201802/school-shootings-and-gun-control-focus-suicide [Accessed 16 Oct. 2019].
Adam Peck. “There Has Been An Average Of One School Shooting Every Other School
Day So Far This Year.” ThinkProgress, 23 Jan. 2014, https://thinkprogress.org/there-has-been-an-average-of-one-school-shooting-every-other-school-day-so-far-this-year-3b594d9c21ad/.
Gibson, Gregory. “A Gun Killed My Son. So Why Do I Want to Own One?” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 1 June 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/
opinion/sunday/shooting-laws-guns.html.

English major Resume artifact 3

I chose this for my English Major showcase because it reflects on the time and effort I took to come up with an effective beginner resume for when I start to look for jobs upon graduation and upon leaving the Navy.  My English major showcase presents many artifacts of essay type papers I wrote, so since this is a bit different and unique I believed it was critical to include.  It is important to note though that it is rough and has been made in my third year of college so consequently it will not include my Capstone or my Field Work Project so it may appear bare.  What it does show though is a starting list of some of my work, accomplishments, activities, and awards throughout my college years and contains various components that could appeal to many employers dealing with the English major.  This artifact represents learning outcome six of the six learning outcomes for an English Major.  To make this resume I had to do just what the learning outcome states, which is reflect on tons of learning experiences in order to come up with knowledge.  In this case I had to recall and layout many of my learning experiences, which included awards, activities, work, and accomplishments in order to produce a structured and organized body of knowledge in the form of a Resume.  The work put into it will hopefully eventually reflect the opportunities gained from it and this is a starting point.

 

JOSIAH TITUS

(412) 656-3972 | josiahtitus1998@gmail.com
3339 New England rd. West Mifflin, PA 15122

EDUCATION
B.A., English | Minor or Concentration in Arabic
Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA | May 2020
Studied at Community College of Allegheny county for one year

WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMUNICATION
• Studied the Spanish and Latin language | Foreign Language classes
• Speaks well in Arabic language | Foreign Language department
• Studied Speech Course at Community College of Allegheny County

RESEARCH
• Conducted research on Civic proposal for Gun Control| Civic Discourse class
o Analyzed multiple types of sources to find information on coherent solution
o Evaluated sources for credibility and bias using only the best ones
• Started research work on 2nd Amendment| English Major Capstone Project
o Dissecting the 2nd Amendment itself and what it means for further research
o Examining various secondary sources for different interpretations associated with it

TEAMWORK
• Saved lives on Lifeguard team | Lifeguard, Sandcastle Water Park
o Learned how to work as a unit for pool rescue operations
• Loaded mulch/lumber on Lowe’s loading team | Loader, Lowes Home Improvement
o Worked as a team for loading and securing supplies for customers
• Delivered fridges on Lowe’s delivery team: Ride along, Lowes Home Improvement
o Worked as a part of a team for delivering home appliances to customers

ADDITIONAL SKILLS
Trained in American Red Cross and Ellis & Associate Lifeguard programs
Proficient in Microsoft Word
Proficient in PowerPoint
CPR Certification

AWARDS AND HONORS
Made Dean’s list for academic year 2017-2018, Community College of Allegheny County
Made Dean’s list for academic year 2019-2020, Virginia Military Institute
Eagle Scout award presented 2014

Reading Kim through Literary Scholarship artifact 2

I chose this paper because in it I take the opinions of other authors as well as my own analysis on the book of Kim and use all this information to synthesize deeper meaning behind it’s context and plot.  Both analysists offer criticism on what the book is trying to communicate by finding themes in the story as well as historical influences that illuminate important messages being conveyed.  This paper is good for my English Major showcase because it focuses a lot on looking at a text and criticizing it as well as bringing to light portions that relay specific meanings in terms of what is analyzed.  This paper relates to number three of the six learning outcomes for the English major.  To further explain why this is, this paper clearly criticizes a well known text by taking the judgements and educated analysis of two other authors as well as myself and produces coherent meaning from these evaluations.  Much of the analysis and criticism is done as mentioned slightly through a historical lens, as well as the environment and character development seen.  Specific critical terminology is used by the authors Baucom and Annan in their respective critical papers on the book and this is evidenced within the paper’s multiple citations in support of assertions made.

 

Josiah Titus
ERH 302
LTC Ticen
October 20, 2019

Reading Kim through literary scholarship

The novel Kim is a story focusing on a young boy’s journey in India and his relationship with a lama, a spiritual holy figure who allows Kim to help him on his journey of enlightenment. In the book many themes are presented surrounding the progression of events that impact and influence Kim the character, transpiring events which allow him to find a place in the evolving world specific to him. Many criticisms have been written on this story though where highly intellectual discussion is had on various aspects and facets dealing with the stories history, accuracy, political engagement, religious ideals, character analysis, symbolism and much more. Two notable criticisms written on the story are Kipling’s Place in the History of Ideas by Noel Annan and The Survey of India by Ian Baucom. Many themes are prevalent in their writing, but one big theme present in both works which can be dissolved down into separate themes is the idea of histories deep involvement in Kipling’s writing seen in the stories setting as well as seen through influences on Kim dealing with through his purpose and the eventual fulfillment of it.
Both criticisms are very different in how they deliver the message intending to be received by readers. The main point in both reflect this overall theme of histories deep correlation to the book’s progression. Noel Annan in her article focuses more closely on the author, and his intentions with historical themes present in the story, while Baucom takes an approach that looks more at the setting of the story but it’s relation to Kim’s influences. Annan’s criticism delves into the political and social history evidenced in the plot of Kim, making up its basis. Annan looks at other authors who give commentary on Kipling’s writing in the novel and draws in other viewpoints, all culminating in seeing the relevance of what happens in the book through cultural traditions in India and historical significance. Overall, what they say is that Kipling’s writing has contributed greatly to the understanding of Englishmen, Indians, and Imperialism (324). The main point in the other article has similar elements within. Baucom’s point is along the same lines, but the focus of his criticism lies in his discussion on how the story is representative of real past events and symbolizes without making it factual, what has gone on in India in the past century with the characters and plot posing as caricatures. Kim’s identity is of high analysis and it can be presented in various ways when we look at his representation of a cartographer.
Annan’s criticism at it’s base revolves around Kipling and what his focus was in developing the themes he did within. As stated by her right at the beginning of her criticism, “Criticism has not yet come to terms with Kipling: the man and his works symbolize a part of British political and social history about which his countrymen have an uneasy conscience” (323). Annan puts her critique all in perspective with her opener. The man and his works as said here represent Britain’s world stage to an extent. Kim as a whole is things taken from what has happened in India and Britain’s lineage of existence and materializing them in the form of a story which incorporates Buddhism, The Great Game, and other components of the war amongst many events from history. Social history is the overarching word here as it entails the two when it’s brought out in the story. Obvious examples are strewn throughout, as Kipling’s story couldn’t be complete without those aspects. The lama is the biggest example of Kipling putting in a common cultural theme dealing with the religion of Buddhism which then stays throughout the whole of the story. In our introduction to the man, Buddhism being concerned is adequately touched on with Kipling writing, “In the entrance-hall stood the larger figures of the Greco-Buddhist sculptures done…statues and slabs crowded with figures that had encrusted the brick walls of the Buddhist…of the North Country” (8). Another example where history is incorporated bringing in a event this time, slightly political in a sense is when Kim meets the old man at a party who was involved in the mutiny of 1857, a real historical event integrated for accuracy and historical relevance. Kipling writes, “It was an old withered man, who had served the Government in the days of the Mutiny as a native officer” (42). Here the historical accuracy and it’s insertion is clear. Kim learns of the old man’s role in the struggle and then the story develops from here with Kim informing him of incoming troops from Pindi and the two share a correlation in the story. Both the lama and this old man themselves show histories social involvement, which is Annan’s core point.
Annan uses Kipling himself and his interests to look at how historical components were brought in beyond the mere characters and setting. Annan says, “Kipling prided himself, however, on describing what Durkheim called social facts” (325). Durkheim, being Kipling’s inspiration for storytelling, is used by Annan to reference how Kipling as mentioned previously modeled his work from a sociological way relevant to past and present proceedings. Taking ideas from Durkheim, a sociologist in this period, his book’s goal was to show how society was developed and how it looked, being visualized for any reader. Probably the most evident part of this is The Great Game in Kim, which the main character takes part in when he joins the secret service. Annan then says to tie together his points, “The impression which his work as a whole gives is that of a man who sees human beings moving in a definable network of social relationships, which impose upon them a code of behavior appropriate to their environment” (325). Probably one of Kipling’s bests sentences to single handedly describe what his writing is intending to accomplish, this gives a clear analyzed consensus on what that is. Kipling’s whole ideology of his thinking on Kim that is communicated through his writing lies in the relationships made by the characters, what they mean in terms of growth and development in the book but at the same time their behavior must follow the strict implementations that an accurate setting dictates all roots tied with history. While Kipling is not going for something nonfictional, his fiction in order to convince and be exact must mightily include this. At the end of the book, Kim has realized his place in the world and how he is tied into the future of India’s history and his role in the Great Game through the secret service agency (234).
Baucom’s criticism does not so much directly revolve on the author or plot, more as it focuses on the setting of the story, while upholding the same points on this historical theme which as mentioned entails influences to Kim’s journey, something Annan touched on but not nearly as much. Sociology is involved in this article of criticism as well but it’s relationship to the story’s environment is way more obvious. As said before setting instead of the author is more keyed in on with this criticism, as well as how moving parts in the story including elements, characters and events influence what his goal and end goal that happens are. One of Baucom’s quotes that ties together the whole criticism together is, “In joining Kim to this band of wanderers mapmakers, Kipling identifies the problem of refashioning Kim’s identity with the dilemma of India’s montgomerie-era cartographers” (351). It’s all about taking the Kim known from the story and fixing multiple views on him to bring out a central state and arc of analysis that personifies who the boy truly is at the core, keeping moving parts and elements from other characters in mind. His development revolves around the pace of the other characters within, but the main one is Creighton, a man who plays a big part in the setting of this story.
Creighton himself provides an outlook of The Great Game and more symbolism of India’s history by what he does. What Creighton also does and what Baucom spearheads in his article is how Creighton demonstrates himself as one of Kim’s biggest influences, subsequently playing a huge lead in Kim’s development from that influence. Baucom puts a lot of emphasis on character. From the start Creighton wanted Kim reared properly, with the example of sending him to school in lucknow telling him, “…thou wilt go under my protection” 98). In his article, Baucom writes “Throughout the greater part of the text, we have been led to believe that Creighton, like Father Victor, Mrs. Bennett, and Kipling himself, remains committed to Kim’s sahibization, that indeed Kim’s sahibization not only is consistent with Creighton’s disciplining of India but will emerge as an offshoot of the colonel’s policing labors” (356). Kim is a work of Creighton in and out. Creighton weighs heavily in on the kid as seen in the novel when he appears in various places. From the start potential in the lad is seen by the man as Kipling writes, “That boy mustn’t be wasted if he is as advertised” (95). Kim’s abilities come into view early and Creighton knows he is talent that can’t be taken for granted India in it’s current time needs people like him. Once Creighton gets him into the service, this is what leads to Kim growing up through the Babu and getting back with the lama who is then able to complete his quest due to Kim’s new abilities.
Annan and Baucom share the theme of history, and influences had on Kim that relate to the history of the time. Annan delivers more in her criticism, but both have justifiable information backed by the book to huge extents. Annan is all about the author and how he puts moments and events in the story which have historical relevance as to portray accuracy, and get the plot moving forward, not just Kim specifically. Baucom focuses on the history of the story but through a lens that looks more at Kim’s character development through the setting and environment as well as being concerned with who’s in it. Creighton is the integral in Baucom’s discussion as his relation to the boy culminates in a litany of transpiring events that follow the ultimate finale of everything to do with Kim’s success and the lama’s journey. Both authors criticisms use history and influence as a driving force to show the reasons behind what happens Kim the book.

Works Cited
Rudyard Kipling. Kim, by Rudyard Kipling. W.W. Norton & Company, 1988.

 

The Rhetoric of John Dewey artifact 1

I chose this paper because of it’s complexity and the vast research that was put into completing it.  It speaks on the rhetorician John Dewey and what his idealogy argues for.  His theology, philosophy, and teachings on education, politics and religon show the rhetoric of the time as well as the major rhetorical theories stood upon.  This paper relates to numbers two and four of the six learning outcomes for an English major.  For number two this paper focuses on cultural context and how it influenced the rhetoric during this time period that John Dewey used and spoke about.  The era lines up with and matches how he viewed the world and it’s functions.  For number four, this paper is a perfect example of using many sources to produce an argument about a rhetorician and show what he taught and showcased.  All sources chosen and used provided evidence to backup statements and assertions made on who he was, what he did and what all of his ideology meant as well as the history that went along with it.

 

 

Josiah Titus
ERH 202
Maj. Iten
May 1st, 2019
Word Count: 2005
HR: Works Cited
John Dewey: An Ideal Public made by Communication

In his book The Public and its Problems, chapters four and five offer insight into John Dewey’s rhetorical theory. His focus as evidenced in his writing is concerned with the public, analyzing what it is they need to receive and use rhetoric within a Democratic system. An ideal public is an intelligent one, driven by their human motivation that is appealed to from their leaders to form a relationship and then used for society’s needs, all of which is based on good communication.

There is some historical context that can possibly go along with Dewey’s rhetorical theory. Possibly is used because it is not certain that his rhetoric was completely influenced or used for this time. Christopher Eisele speaks a bit on the time period of which Dewey lived and, on specifically immigration, happening then, and his points can be summarized. A lot of Dewey’s rhetoric as mentioned, centered on aspects dealing with social control, and these will be discussed later. Due to this, his rhetoric may have been influenced from what he saw was happening in America in relationship to the immigrants coming in before and after WWII. It’s difficult to state this as fact though because as Eisele points out, “Dewey’s major statements concerning immigrants, which numbered fewer than a dozen” (68). Basically, there so little Dewey really says on immigrants, that its hard to accurately capture his exact view on them, and how his rhetoric relates. On Dewey’s view of immigrants and his answer, Eisele says, “Dewey, as well as other liberal reformers, was committed to flexible, experimentally managed, orderly social change” (67). Dewey saw the lack of social adeptness from these newcomers to their new land and leaders, and it stemmed from a rhetoric issue. Eisele gives a quote from an unnamed observer of the time saying, “It has consciously become all of a sudden of the very greatest importance to us as a nation that the immigrants whom we have welcomed into our society … should be an integral part of that society and not foreign to it” (71). The immigrants needed to be molded into America and many wanted it as this quote says. Overall Dewey seems to suggest a more communicative approach, like in his rhetoric-although the problem is that in his primary texts, his mention on Immigrants specifically is little. Assimilating these new people into society would prove difficult. Eisele quotes Dewey’s own opinion saying that incorrect assimilation “…contributes to the decline of the person” (68). Patrick Diggins who researches some of the cultural context of Dewey also weighs in on Dewey’s thinking of how this problem could be solved in the long run. It seems to be education. Diggins says, “He had always held up rational intelligence… means by which disputes could be settled” (214). Not much can be ascertained of Dewey on immigrants in society, but what he does emphasize is that education, which by default would bring intelligence, could help to solve the problem. Eisele’s best point is a quote by Dewey on the emphasis of education, “But the problem is not to reduce them to an anonymous and drilled ho- mogeneity, but to see to it that all get from one another the best that each strain has to offer from its own tradition and culture” (72).

Intelligence is one of the leading points in all of Dewey’s rhetoric, that a socially adaptable public with a high degree of intellect is required for problems to be solved in a democratic setting. Contribution by all parties is key though. Dewey quotes, “…participation in activities and sharing in results are additive concern. They demand communication as a prerequisite” (330). Remember though that intelligence only attained through communication, it all links. More on intelligence and it’s problem in the time period most likely, Dewey says “It may be urged that the present confusion and apathy are due to the fact that the real energy of society is now directed in all non-political matters by trained specialists…while politics are carried on with a machinery and ideas formed in the past” (312). Politics is the backbone and leading force of any society Dewey asserts, and if the government is full of unintelligent people that promote artificial work and ideals with nothing holding them up, it crashes and burns. He follows this up with a climax statement, “…a public organized for political purposes, rather than experts guided by specialized inquiry, is the final umpire and arbiter of issues” (313). This only harps on his view of what intelligence can do for a Democratic government and its people. Scott Stroud in relation to Dewey’s theory on intelligence says, “All individuals are assumed to be the implied critic because all individuals can be assumed capable of undertaking some sort of intelligent examination of what is in front of them” (45). The individual, which eventually builds up to the public when all become concerned, must be able to comprehend and decipher. They must know what they are hearing, what they are being called to do, or what they mustn’t do. Ignorance is downfall, but education alleviates this, and when the public can make sense of themselves and what they are receiving through high intellect, only then can success be had. If the public is to grow and be the communicative public Dewey believes is needed for success, intelligence must be gained. Don Burks speaks on Dewey’s thinking saying, “Dewey was much aware of the close relationship of speech and thought, of communication as the essential means by which intelligence develops” (118).

Dewey’s second most important component in his rhetoric dealing with the Public is human motivation, and this mostly deals with the individual’s psyche at the core. This part of his rhetoric can get very complex. Communication is once again integral for this to work and communication in rhetoric, to Dewey at least, goes as deep as the human psyche, making for a complex attribute to be had if effective. Dewey even says, “Communication can alone create a great community” (324). The public must have this effectiveness if they are to be in control of their government as opposed to be controlled by their government. So what of human motivation? Humans must be appealed to, their likes and dislikes exploited if they are to be gained, convinced, or worked with. They are creatures of routine and habit and will be motivated by such, not disruption of it. Dewey says, “Habit is the mainspring of human action, and habits are formed for the most part under the influence of the customs of a group” (334). Mainspring is the key word as it means catalyst and lifeforce almost simultaneously. The public can be moved if what they have in common or what is familiar to them is used on them. Groups only come together under shared customs and ideals. Stroud speaks on how motivation develops in a person from habit saying, “Humans experience life in some environment and with a certain immediacy. Words, events, and so on all have a certain meaning-they evoke certain habitual ways of acting and thinking” (37). Every person is developed differently. They have different experiences in life, different difficulties, and react or initiate in their own certain way based off of their own inner self that is crafted in life. As has been seen though, all of Dewey’s rhetoric flows with the each other. Intelligence cannot be separate from human motivation. Motivation is made through an individual’s intelligence, as Christopher Johnstone says, “Dewey’s “method of intelligence” involves…practical deliberation; and second, a conception of the habits and attitudes to be cultivated in the individual in order to extend the capacity for intelligent judgement” (188). The result Johnstone says is, “Judgements are tested and confirmed, then, only by acting and comparing actual outcomes with those anticipated” (188). What Johnstone is saying here is that intelligence prompts awareness, and keen decision making. If these are possessed by the individual, then they can influence the public. Once appeals are discovered and each individual themselves realizes what drives them to what it is they do, or believe in, or stand up for, then they can intelligently ascribe to society. That certain motivation must be found first though and used.

The depth of what influences a public and how this in turn relates to it’s system of governing and the relationship between the two, is extensive in Dewey’s theories. This is one of his broader pieces of his rhetoric, encompassing intelligence and motivation. The relationship between the government and it’s people rides on both. Dewey says clearly that, “The government exists to serve its community, and that this purpose cannot be achieved unless the community itself shares in selecting it’s governors and determining their policies” (327). Dewey strongly believes that there must exist a strong relationship between the government and the public. The public is a bad one if uninvolved, but both can be critically strong if they share the power and work together through rhetorical communication. Dewey does speak to the problems that occur with this though, and he is most likely referring to the problems in his time but we can only assume. “How can a public be organized; we may ask when literally it does not stay in place…” (322). This is a general statement but what it says is that if the government cannot control its people, then they will not be able to control themselves. Explained better, it is the task of the government to organize, to make order out of chaos and communication is their best weapon. Communication works with intelligence, motivation and this one too. Burks says communication is, “…the establishment or cooperation in an activity in which there are partners, and in which the activity of each is modified and regulated by partnership” (122). Dewey’s theory on motivation plays in to his rhetorical theory on the relationship between the public and government as seen when he says, “Only deep issues or those which can be made to appear such can find a common denominator among all the shifting and unstable relationships” (322). Dewey knows that a public that doesn’t take charge but is taken charge of is one doomed. The motivation and intelligence of the person is tied in with how the public will function, and in turn how the government will function. Dewey writes, “…a good citizen finds his conduct as a member of a political group, enriching and enriched by his participation in family life, industry, scientific and artistic associations…the pulls and responses of different groups reinforce one another, and their values accord” (328). There is the ideal citizen, contributor to society and politics in Dewey’s mind, and what they ascertain out of the life they have is how they end up affecting the groups around them and that their apart of. The individual is always constantly being influenced by their environment, which is why the individual and public cannot work alone if anything is to be achieved.

Dewey is specific in examining what makes an ideal public. He believes that the rhetoric used within the structure shows how intelligent its system is. Communication is the final arbiter of the good and bad of the rhetoric used, but it can be helped by an intelligent public that is appealed to through their motivations, which forms a good relationship between the government and them. The time in which Dewey lived we can strongly guess that his rhetoric might have been fitting for success amidst such struggle His rhetoric seems to be the type that if utilized highly, could give the masses the opportunity to lead the government, so that corruption could not end up destroying the innocent. A naïve, uncommunicative public is privy to this. Hitler’s reign and Stalin’s reign proved this fact. Rhetoric is powerful, but both sides must be adept, because if it’s used to benefit the powerful, then many will end up reaping the consequences. Burks quotes Dewey’s arguably best phrase on this saying “Language makes the difference between brute and man” (119).

Works Cited
Burks, Don M. “John Dewey and Rhetorical Theory.” Western Speech, vol. 32, no. 2, 1968, pp.
118–126.
Dewey, John. The Later Works, 1925-1953. Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.
Diggins, John. “John Dewey in Peace and War.” The American Scholar Vol. 50, No. 2 (Spring
1981), pp. 213-230.
Eisele, J. “John Dewey and the Immigrants.” History of Education Quarterly Vol. 15, No. 1
(Spring, 1975), pp. 67-85.
Johnstone, Christopher. “Dewey, Ethics, and Rhetoric: Toward a Contemporary Conception of
Practical Wisdom.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1983), pp. 185-207.
Stroud, Scott. “John Dewey and the Question of Artful Criticism.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol.
44, No. 1 (2011), pp. 27-51.