5028A2friendlyadvicev2 Screenshot2019-03-18at12.19.01
Structuralism Analysis on Kennedy vs Nixon 1960 Election Campaign
A2:Friendly advice
Prepared by Dr. Adam Stapleton for the students of MDIA 5028
Here are a few suggestions for how you may wish to approach the second
assessment. This guidance is not a series of prescriptions, but it is probably
sensible to consider these things when undertaking this task. Please note that
this document should be read alongside the other A2 help file that Paul has put
together.
Structuring Your Argument
Ideally, your essay should present a clear and concise argument demonstrating
how particular concepts/theories/models (primarily relating to structuralism)
can be used in the analysis of a campaign. While the focus is to be on the sorts
of structuralist concepts indicated in Paul’s document, you may certainly
augment your arguments using models and devices from classical rhetoric,
New Criticism, and Russian Formalism.
One tried-and-tested way to do this would be a three-part thesis statement.
For information on this, see:
https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum20a/handouts/3PartThesis
Another way to think about it could be related to Quintilian’s structure.
However, you should all aim to present a clear argument in your introduction.
Here, as is suggested in the video clips, you outline a proposition, offer
statements apropos evidence, and point to the question of relevance. So,
rather than merely restating the assessment task in your introduction, it is best
to outline a clear argument in respect to your chosen campaign.
Furthermore, the body of your essay should provide a clear and well-
developed articulation of the concepts you are using to analyse your campaign
collateral. This will help ensure that a) the argument that you present is
connected to the concepts you have outlined and, b) your work satisfies the
“key tasks” as described in the MDIA5028 assessment guide
Your conclusion should restate your proposition and briefly summarise the key
points offered in your argument.
Choosing a Campaign
When considering a campaign, you are advised to reflect on the specific ways
in which the campaign focuses on the expression of particular values through
different structural modes. e.g. in terms of Paul’s resource, what
or particular are tacitly invoked?
In building an argument around how structuralist concepts might help us to
understand the campaign, you do not have to argue that the campaign in its
entirety is reducible to these values alone.
Nor is it necessary to give equal treatment to both sides of the campaign.
However, it is strongly advised that you consider the way that both sides
attempted to formulate coherent expressions around these values.
Example:
Trump vs Clinton 2016 presidential campaign
The Trump campaign relied upon polarising American citizens, with the
promise of restoring lost privilege. This promise touches upon the value of
ethno-nationalism. Looking at Paul’s resource, the value of ethno-nationalism
would align with a range of structuralist concepts. This value is tactically
expressed through the slogan: Make America Great Again.
It finds concrete policy expression through plans to “build a wall (and make
Mexico pay for it.”
Returning to Paul’s resource, this kind of rhetoric and policy tends to reinforce
an “us and them” .
Clinton attempted to counter this rhetoric through slogans like “stronger
together” and the (very awkwardly expressed) “love trumps hate.”
It would be a mistake to argue that Trump won because of these appeals to
these values (because this statement would ignore other material factors
related to his electoral college victory) but it is probably reasonable to argue
that these appeals were effective in giving salience to these values within the
context of the campaign.
Selecting Campaign Collateral
Campaign collateral should come from more than one source. While you may
wish to focus upon a specific debate, speech, advertisement etc you are
strongly advised to select a minimum of two pieces of collateral. This will allow
you to draw connections between them and so substantiate your argument
about the centrality of the values to the campaign.
While you could examine four or five pieces of collateral, it is better to
concentrate on just a couple of values (or even one) that you identify as
salient. If you’ve got five different pieces of collateral and they are all
demonstrating five different values, then you work might be seen as
incoherent and/or superficial.
Ideally, the collateral that you select should refer to a small number of values
(most, but not all, campaigns tend to do so), while examining these values via
different (mainly structuralist) modalities. That is, it’s better to find different
expressions of the same values (plural) than to find different pieces of
collateral that are all using one approach to express a single underlying value.
The concepts that you use to make your analysis should have a degree of
coherence/consonance. This is of particular relevance when considering
different semioticians e.g. Saussure + Barthes =
“#$% Peirce + Barthes =
&'(
Pierce + Richards =
“#$% Saussure + Richards =
&'(
This is because of underlying philosophical distinctions in the semiological
systems articulated by Saussure and Peirce, respectively.
Figures like Eco and Jakobson exist somewhere between these two broad
camps.
Although the work of Peirce and his successors has contributed much to the
field of semiotics, in terms of their impact on structuralism Saussure and his
successors are clearly the more influential of the two. This contention is
supported by simply looking to whom the post-structuralists gave their
response.
Although much of your analysis is likely to address linguistic signs, you can and
probably should examine some non-linguistic signs as well e.g. paralinguistic
signs in oratory; visual images; modality.
Please ensure that the method that you use to interpret a sign is well suited to
its form. For example, social semiotics may be applicable when considering a
campaign image but is less likely to be applicable to the analysis of oratory.
Referencing
Sources should be referenced properly (using APA6 or Harvard). It is best to
find reputable/heavyweight sources for your arguments. The reading list on
Moodle has plenty of suggestions, as does the annotated bibliography at the
back of Structuralism and Semiotics.
If you’re quoting some sort of heavyweight figure who’s making a typically
“substantive yet vague/obtuse” pronouncement, then it is a good idea to
explain your understanding of the quote (and to use it to explicitly drive your
argument forward) than it is to just use the quote but offer no demonstration
of its meaning or applicability to your broader argument. To put it another
way, make very sure that a quote chosen and any explanation or unpacking of
it clearly contributes to your argument.
-ends-
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
