| Writing assignment #4, due by 10:00 a.m., Thursday, May 8th | |
|
For the first two writing assignments, you investigated contemporary social knowledge of American empire. For the third writing assignment, you analyzed an historical document grappling with a new geopolitical situation: the United States’ sudden acquisition of overseas colonies. For this fourth and final writing assignment, your focus will be an historical figure trying to promote American empire — via contradictory cultural ideologies of being and becoming. Who/what was deemed capable of becoming something more than what they were? Who/what was deemed stuck in who they were, unable to become something more? Those are the fundamental two questions embedded in cultural ideologies of being and becoming. Needless to say, they were and very much remain part of the formulation of human hierarchies: who was/is deemed superior, and who was/is deemed inferior. We are very much surrounded by such discourses in the present day. This writing assignment centers upon three documents written by early 20th-century U.S. Senator from Indiana, Albert J. Beveridge. Those documents contain much evidence of the paradox of being and becoming, and they contain many connections to the documents you have read by Theodore Roosevelt, Charles Morris, Hezekiah Butterworth, Edward Stratemeyer, and the American Anti-Imperialist League. (Plus, Eugene Sandow and other material from lecture.) In the case of all the documents, you will have to consider the aim of the particular document: For what reason was it written and put into print before an audience? Who was part of that audience, and who was not? What was the author seeking to motivate, that was not sufficiently in the world? For this writing assignment please analyze how the documents grappled with the paradox of being versus becoming. The central question is: How did Beveridge and the other documents convey being versus becoming on three levels: with respect to masculinity talk on a personal level, empire talk on a national level, and race/civilization talk somewhere in between the personal and the national? Be sure to feature all three documents by Beveridge throughout your paper, supplemented with other documents. You will immediately notice that this paradox is something that the various writers unconsciously utilized to understand their moments in history. Notions of being and becoming are sometimes connected to stated ideologies (belief systems), but usually they are not consciously thought through — not then, and not now, which is why they are so crucial to recognize and to analyze. Rather, they often are unthinking mechanisms by which to make a kind of “sense” of the world that are precisely useful because they require no thought, or questioning, or investigation. In other words, they supposedly help make sense of the world without the necessity of doing the work of making sense of the world. In this way, they resemble single stories: namely, the illusion of supposedly knowing about other cultures and peoples without doing any work to actually know them. That is the power of stereotypes, for instance. This paper focuses on a harder-to-see, hidden equivalent of a stereotype, something closer to an assumption, thoughtlessly used. Plus, blindspots. Always blindspots. As one of many instances, women? You have in this class encountered numerous examples of the paradox of being and becoming, named as such with respect to Roosevelt, so there will be plenty of evidence in a variety of documents, including but not limited to those by Beveridge. For example with respect to one of the three levels, in what ways were men already men, and in what ways did they have to work to become truly men who mattered? This begs an immediate question, of course. Which men in particular? All “men”? Similarly, in what ways did Americans deem the United States to be already a superior country, and in what ways did it have to strive to become an empire? Again, for what audience? Always: Who/what was deemed at stake? Who/what was deemed to need fixing? As always, there is no single right or wrong answer to this question. You will want to craft a clear overarching thesis in response to the central question, to define particular analytical angles for each of the three levels and organize them in paragraphs, and to provide ample evidence to substantiate your analysis in each paragraph and toward your overarching thesis. You may also cite your lecture notes, but there is no need to do any outside research, as the documents and your lecture notes will be more than sufficient. Be mindful of the writing guidelines we have established this semester, toward clear, effective writing. All of the Beveridge documents can be found in the “Writing Assignment #4 documents” folder under Files in Canvas. Other relevant documents can be found in Weeks 8, 12, and 14. Sample citations: Albert J. Beveridge, “The Young Man and the World” (1905). |