Advanced Composition
English 202B - Writing in the Humanities
Course Objectives
ENGL 202B is designed for students who fit into the broad category of the study of the humanities-art, music, theatre, philosophy, history, literature and languages, woman's studies, media and film studies, journalism, speech communication, and other related major--and will become artists, fiction writers, historians, museum curators, journalists, teachers, lawyers. These students will be focusing on issues in their fields and/or expanding on basic research topics and techniques they are pursuing in their courses.
Typically, ENGL 202B shares qualities with the sciences, the social sciences, and business. As a result, the course design attempts to accommodate that overlap by addressing a range of assignments that include job application materials, proposals written to an advisor in one of their fields, translations of specialized terms, literature reviews, position papers, and business letters and memos.
ENGL 202B differs from the sciences, the social sciences, and business in its focus on textual analysis. In response to this unique "humanities" orientation, some ENGL 202B courses assign rhetorical analysis or evaluation of texts (critical texts, films, plays, novels), often integrated into a collaborative research project or a critical perspective on the relationship between the writer and the disciplines.
With these goals in mind, the course seeks to have students
- Become familiar with some of the genres and disciplinary conventions of the humanities and explore what those genres and conventions do for the discourse communities that employ them. Such genres include essays, journals, letters, speech, and narratives.
- Study rhetorical situations and critical thinking in selected texts.
- Examine the differences in published versions of expert and lay discourse and write arguments directed at both expert and lay audiences.
- Discover more about writing in the humanities by gathering information from professionals and presenting it to a lay audience.
- Become more familiar with the journals (such as American Historical Review) and professional literature (such as Art News) in their fields by analyzing how people in the humanities report on new research and argue for new approaches.
- Improve the skills necessary for effective research in the humanities and then successfully employ them in papers. Practice incorporating multiple voices into one coherent argument.
- Become familiar with MLA and related citation styles and their implications.
- Become aware of how the disciplines and the professions help define a "life," a critical perspective on the projects assigned for this course.
SAMPLE SYLLABUS
Required Books:
Garnes, et al., ed. Writing Lives. St. Martin's Press.
Mike Rose, Lives on the Boundary. Penguin.
Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. Mentor.
E. L. Doctorow, ed. The Best American Short Stories. 2000. Houghton Mifflin.
Joseph Gibaldi, etc. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research. (optional)
ProCopy packet (Student Bookstore)
Course Description:
For many, the Supreme Court decision for President-elect Bush was a proper closure to a chaotic election; for others, a sad moment for American democracy. Such a contested election forces all of us to rethink our notion of a "democracy," its strengths and weaknesses. How "democratic" do we want our country to be? After the divisive contest of 2000, do we want a President elected by popular vote, not the electoral college? Do we want campaign finance reform to put more controls on monied interests?
What is a "democracy"? In Democracy in America , the nineteenth-century French historian Alexis de Tocqueville argues for a universal idea of democracy that is inevitable and perfectable. Today we tend to define "democracy" as a dynamic process, constantly evolving (for better or worse) to respond to present needs. There have been many "democracies" in America, and there continue to be many diverse notions of "democracy" in our own time. Many observers of our political scene worry that our polarized election signals our country's lack of consensus, its division among regional, class, and racial lines. Others, while acknowledging the need for consensus--the need for shared value--celebrate the multiple voices of dissent in our country, a kind of "anti-consensus" that always contests those in power. At this time in our history, do we share common values? How much room do we allow for dissent?
How do we as citizens--and present and future educators, historians, journalists, and artist--act to respond to problems in our democracy? Do we watch "West Wing" and dream of a system as it might be, helpless or unwilling to change the "real" situation? Or are we invigorated by "West Wing" to think about and act out those very dreams? (Art is not simply antithetical to political action.)
These are some of the questions we'll explore in our "Writing in the Humanities" course. We'll respond to texts by historians, artists, educators, philosophers, political scientists, and journalists as we assess our political situation and how it affects (or even situates) our lives.
Papers:
Autobiographical Narrative (4-5 pp.)--10%
Reading Responses (five in all; one page each)--20%
Evaluation #1 (Tocqueville, 4-5 pp.)--15%
Evaluation #2 (Greider and current media, 5-6 pp.)--20%
Final research paper (7-8 pp.)--20%
Class grade (attendance; participation; paper presentations; e-mail evaluations)-- 15%Attendance: Talk to me if you cannot complete a paper on time. Do you have two major exams on the day a paper is due, or a major semester project? E-mail if a problem arises. If you don't make these prior arrangements, I'll be forced to dock a late paper one letter grade per class period.
Attendance is mandatory in our class. You are responsible for being in class, on time, during every meeting period. Three or more unexcused absences will result in grade deductions. Excessive absences will result in failure of the course.
E-mail: You need to have an e-mail account for our class. I will be sending announcements, updated assignments, and writing prompts through e-mail. You will also use your e-mail account to exchange paper evaluations with your writing group and to access an article on electronic reserve (for paper #3). If you have not already activated your access account, please do so immediately. To activate your account, take your Penn State ID to an automatic signature station and follow instructions there. Stations are located at 103 Boucke, 6 Findlay, W111 Pattee, 112 Redifer, 107 Waring, 108 Warnock, and 2 Willard. The Pennsylvania State University encourages qualified persons with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. If you anticipate any type of accommodation in this course or have any questions about physical access, please tell me as soon as possible.
Daily Syllabus, Papers
EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY Jan. 8(M)--Introduction to the course
Jan. 10(W)--George Orwell, "Why I Write" (25-31, WL), Barbara Mellix, "From Outside In" (75-85, WL)
Jan. 12(F)--Frederick Douglass from Narrative (103-108, WL)
Jan. 15(M)--Mike Rose, Lives on the Boundary Preface and chapers 1-3(xi, xii; 1-65)
Jan. 17(W)--Rose, Lives chapters 4 and 5 (67-132)
Jan. 19(F)--Rose, Lives chapters 6 and 7(133-204); response #1
Jan. 22(M)--Rose, Lives chapter 8 and Epilogue (205-242)
Jan. 24(W)--workshop #1; (early drafts on transparency--3 volunteers); draft #1 Work in groups of 3. Give your draft to two fellow students and e-mail your evaluations.
Jan. 26(F)--workshop #2; (2nd draft on transparency--2 volunteers); draft #2 Give your 2nd draft to your two fellow students and e-mail your evaluations.
Jan. 29(M)--Autobiographical Narrative due; Paper #1 Introduction to Tocqueville.
HISTORY AND DEMOCRACY
Jan. 31(W)--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Author's Introduction, 26-38.
Feb. 2(F)--Tocqueville, "Why the Americans are More Addicted to Practical than to Theoretical Science," Part II, 163-68.
Feb. 5(M)--"The Probable Future of the Indian Tribes" in "Some Considerations Concerning the Present State and Probable Future of the Three Races...." Part II, chapter 10 (electronic reserve)
Feb. 7(W)--Situations of the Black Race in the United States," in "The Three Races" (electronic reserve) and Frederick Douglass, Narrative (WL)
Feb. 9(F)--Tocqueville from Bk. III: (1) chapter 38, "Influence of Democracy on the Family" (228-33); (2) chapter 39, "Young Women in a Democracy" (233-37); (3) chapter 40, "How Equality of Condition Contributes to Maintain Good Morals in America" (237-43); and (4) chapter 41, "How the American Understands the Equality of the Sexes" (243-46)
Feb. 12(M)--Tocqueville, cont. Prewriting due today.
Feb. 14(W)--Tocqueville, "Why Great Revolutions Will Become More Rare," 262-73.
Feb. 16(F)--workshop #1(1 of your journal entries)--3 volunteers
Feb. 19(M)--workshop #2(2 of your entries)--2 volunteers
Feb. 21(W)--Tocqueville evaluation due; Paper #2; Introduction to Palmer Museum exhibit
Feb. 23(F)--Palmer Museum Exhibition: "History Past, History Present: The Daguerreotype Portrait in America" 3 P.M. gallery talk on this exhibition; Museum hours: Tuesday-Saturday: 10 A.M.-4:30P.M. Sunday, noon to 4 P.M.; Daguerreotype Exhibition: Jan 16-May 20
PROBLEMS WITH DEMOCRACY: THE ELECTION OF 2000
Feb. 26(M)--Discussion of the Palmer Exhibition; introduction to our pro/con paper
Feb. 28(W)--Response paper #2 due on Palmer Exhibition On cynicism: (1) Paul Taylor, "The New Political Theatre" (packet); (2) Neal Gabler, "Behind the Political Curtain" (packet); and (3) Mark Danner, "Scandal & and Road to Deadlock" NY Review of Books (elec. res.)
March 2(F)--No official class. Sign up for conferences on your Tocqueville papers.
Spring Break, March 5-9
March 12(M)--On cynicism/idealism: (1) Ronald Dworkin, "The Phantom Poll Booth," NY Review of Books (elect. res.); (2) Darryl Pinckney, "Beyond the Fringe," NY Review of Books (elect. res.); and (3) William Greider, "Mutual Contempt" in Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracv (elect. res.)
March 14(W)--Greider, "The Lost Generation" In Who Will Tell the People
March 16(F)--Greider, "The Lost Generation" (cont.)
March 19(M)--Greider, "Stupefied Democracy" (packet); response #1
March 21(W)--On historical perspective: (1) "Can Bush Mend His Party's Rift with Black Americans"; (2) Linda Greenhouse, "Dividing the Consequences of a Court Divided"; (3) N. R. Kleinfield, "Breyer, in Dissent, Sees Repeat of Tarnished Past," and (4) Alex Keyssar, "Fractured Franchise"-in packet
March 23(F)--on the National Review: (1) Mark Steyn, "Who Are These People?; (2) Johan Goldberg, "The Worst Democrat--Jesse Jackson again--and again"; (3) Tamar Jacoby, "Voters and Victims"--in packet
March 26--Responses to the Presidential Inauguration: (1) R. W. Apple, Jr. "Tradition and Legitimacy," NYT; (2) Katharine Q. Seelye, "Liberals Discuss Electoral Overhaul," NYT; (3) David E. Rosenbaum, "Thousands Speaks Out in Capital on Election and Other Issues," NYT--all on electronic reserve
March 28(W)--Discussion continued
March 30(F)--Workshop #1
April 2(M)--workshop #2
April 4(W)--Pro/con argument due. Discussion of film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Film showing tonight, from 6-8:20, of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
April 6(F)--No official class
April 9(M)--Discussion of film and final paper--development of one of your earlier papers with more research.
DEMOCRACIES AND MULTIPLE CULTURES
April 11(M)--Ha Jim, "The Bridegroom" in The Best American Short Stories. 202-227; Proposal for final paper due with bibliography
April 13(F)--Francis Sherwood, "Basil The Dog," The Best, 332-45.
April 18(W)--Jhumpi Lahiri, "The Third and Final Continent" from Best 248-265; Response #5
April 20(F)--Lahiri, cont.
April 23(M)--workshop 1; Draft #1; Your work on transparency-2-3 volunteers
April 25(W)--workshop 2; Draft #2; Your work on transparency--2 volunteers
April 27(F)--Final paper due. Class Evaluation
SAMPLE ASSIGNMENTS
Autobiographical Narrative
Tell the story of how you became involved in your field(s). Consider one of the following "prompts":
1. What drives you to write or to create in your field(s)? Like Orwell or Rose, are you driven by an experience of political or social injustice? Define that situation and tell your story.
2. Tell your evolving story of interest in your field(s) from early beginnings to current involvement. If you are a writer, talk about your early and present work. If an artist, tell your story with descriptions and sketches.
3. Like Mellix and Torgovnick and Rose, have you experienced a "doubleness" of cultures and languages? What are those cultures, and how have they defined you? Have you pulled these cultures together in your choice of field(s)?
4. Rose tells us how he "entered the conversation" of English literature. How have you entered the conversation of your field(s)? Tell us about a project or an internship or a teaching experience or an event that has helped you connect with your present and future work.
5. Some of you are integrating many fields, or concentrating on one or two, or deferring major decisions. Tell your story of "integration" or "concentration" or "deferral."
In your autobiographical narrative, define yourself in relationship to your field or fields. Develop your self- definition with good stories, addressed to us (your fellow classmates and myself) in a style that gives a tone and attitude to your writing. Find a voice that speaks to us about what is important to you. Approximate length? about 4-5 pages.
Evaluation of Tocqueville's Democracy in America
Write two journal entries, the first a "reading" or evaluation of an idea or a story in Tocqueville; the second, your own springboard response to Tocqueville. Your first entry, for example, could be a "reading" (a summation and evaluation) of one of Tocqueville's stories on the Indians. Your second entry might be your response to Tocqueville on women with a story of your own. In other words, your two entries can be (but need not be) thematically connected.
Prompts:
1. In Part I, Tocqueville criticizes the "low art" of American democracy. What does he say? Do you agree with his distinctions between high art and commercial craft?
2. In the "Three Races" chapter in Part II, (electronic reserve) Tocqueville narrates many sympathetic pictures of the Indian race and their inevitable demise. In what ways is he sympathetic to the Indian? Is he totally "sympathetic"? How do you respond to Tocqueville's evaluation?
3. In the "Three Races" chapter in Part II, how does Tocqueville evaluate the black race in comparison/contrast to the Indian? As a man of the "Enlightenment," he seems appalled by slavery, yet he does not see abolition as an answer to the race problem in the South. Why isn't it an answer for Tocqueville? (How representative is Tocqueville's attitude in nineteenth-century America and Europe?)
You might want to compare/contrast Tocqueville to Frederick Douglass's Narrative.
From Part II, Bk III:
4. According to Tocqueville, what is the relationship between father and son in a democratic society? (chapter 38) What, for Tocqueville, is both the strength and weakness of such "filial love and fraternal affection"? Why might women be left out of this discussion?
5. "No free communities ever existed without morals... morals are the work of women." What does Tocqueville mean by this statement that he sees as a glorification of women? When you read chapter 39 (and perhaps, also, chapter 41), do you see this notion as a glorification of women?
6. In chapter 40 and elsewhere (see, also, chapters 45 and 46),Tocqueville paints an interesting picture of the American man of "passion." According to T, what kinds of "passion" is he capable of? Is he praising or mocking? How do you, in turn, evaluate this nineteenth-century text?
7. In chapter 48, Tocqueville argues that, for multiple reasons, "revolutions will become more rare" in America. What are those reasons? How do you respond?
Pro/Con Argument on the 2000 Election
Texts:
William Greider, Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy (electronic reserve)
current newspaper and journal articles (packet and electronic reserve)
For your third paper, write a pro/con argument in which one of your speakers is an optimist who argues for political action, and the other is a cynic, aware of political corruption and skeptical of political change.
Write a prologue to your "play" in which you introduce your speakers to us and situate them in a particular place and time. Will you place your two speakers on the steps of the Supreme Court, in the Palmer Museum, or in front of the television after the two have watched the news? You choose your speakers and situation.
In your play, let your "idealist" and your "cynic" define and explain their positions in dialogue with each other. They will use the 2000 election as an example.
Your paper is a version of the truncated proposal that you wrote in English 015 or 030. Your speakers will define a problem and talk about "solutions": your cynic will argue why such talk of reform is impossible; your optimist will counter with possible actions that have been taken or could be taken.
Of course, in your paper you can't focus on the entire election 2000; you'll need a focus, perhaps on an issue important to you in one of your fields--of history or media studies or woman's studies or journalism or art history or theatre or telecommunications or psychology or sociology or literature or education.
Consider one or two of the following questions from our readings to help you develop your argument:
1. on cynicism (Taylor,Gabler, Danner): What is "cynicism"? How do these writers define their cynicism in contrast to another time, one of innocence or serious political activity? What events or series of events led to their present cynicism? With what attitude does the "cynic" present his argument?
2. on optimism (Greider et al): How would you define "optimism" in Greider? What are its roots? How does he try to counter cynicism?
A. Greider makes a plea for grass roots political action. What drives him to political action? Is he convincing and/or naive?
B. Pinkney (NY Review of Books makes a poetical-political statement that is both somber and moving. What drives him to political action?
3.on mass media: A. Greider asks if mass media has destroyed any possibility for genuine democracy or if it is the "key to salvaging democracy's future" (308). What is his answer? How would you respond to the same question?
B. Greider worries about the MTV generation that watches "Geraldo" instead of "60 Minutes." Have such programs ("Geraldo," "Oprah," and "A Current Affair") created a "brain-dead" youth, unaware of political issues? (316) Greider argues sympathetically in favor of youth. What is your take on this issue?
4. on history: Many of our writers (Greenhouse, Kleinfield, Keyssar) try to put the election of 2000 in historical perspective. What does one gain from such a move? Does such a perspective (in our articles) tend towards optimism or pessimism? Does knowing the past keep one from repeating it? Or is there another, less optimistic, view?
5. on the disenfranchised: Look at our articles and the way various writers evaluate the "other" American, the one whose ballot didn't count in Florida or elsewhere. Compare, for example, The NY Times and NY Review of Books articles to those in the National Review . Why do writers like Darner argue that neither major political party will make great efforts to extend the vote to the disaffected, the poor, those outside the system?
6. on revolutions: Why hasn't there been a "revolution" in America after the 2000 election? Why hasn't there been a strong protest --or is that yet to come? The "cynic" and the "optimist" would have a lot to say here.
7. on art and political theatre: Can art make a powerful political statement, or does it merely substitute for strong political action? (See Pinkney for an example of political theatre.)
Take your pro/con situation and create two voices to battle out the two sides of your argument--the voice of optimism vs. the voice of cynicism. Your tone might be heated or civil. You might come to a compromise position or end in deadlock. Just make sure that both of your voices are (almost) of equal strength. And give each of your voices at least one long speech (about a third of a page) that synthesizes his or her position
Include a "Works Cited" bibliography at the end of your "play" to show how much you are in dialogue with the texts we're studied and sources of your own.
Length of play: approx. 5-6 pages Audience: our class
APPROVED BOOKLIST FOR ENGL 202B
(Approved Spring 1997)
Rhetorics
Hammond, Eugene, Critical Thinking, Thoughtful Writing, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin (0395737664)
Readers
Behrens, Laurence and Leonard J. Rosen, Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum, 7th ed. Addison Wesley, 1999 (0321023978)
McCuen, JoRay and Anthony C. Winkler, Reading, Writing, and the Humanities, Harper, Brace, Jovanovich, 1997 (0155755129)
Rico, Barbara Roche and Sandra Mano, American Mosaic , Houghton Mifflin (ISBN 0-395-69313-6)
Style Handbooks
MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers; or the style book or guidelines used in each student's discipline.
Supplementary Texts
To provide objects for analysis, models, and topics for papers on issues central to the humanities, instructors may supplement or replace the approved readers with primary texts on philosophy, literature, the arts, and other humanities disciplines. In the recent past, instructors have used John Berger: Ways of Seeing; E. D. Hirsch: Cultural Literacy; Mike Rose: Lives on the Boundary; and Henry Louis Gates, ed.: Classic Slave Narratives. For their own purposes in planning and presenting their courses, instructors may wish to consult Lanham's Revising Pros e and Joseph Williams' Style.
(Note: According to department policy, instructors may use other textbooks, with the permission of the Director of Composition Programs.)
