|
Monica MANOLESCU-OANCEA
Civilisation américaine 2ème année
"A Nation of Nations": Race, Minorities, Immigration, Multiculturalism in the United States
“These
States are the amplest poem, Here
is not merely a nation but a teeming Nation of nations”. Walt
Whitman
|
|
Methodology
One of the major pitfalls or difficulties with commentaries is to lapse into paraphrase, that is to repeat the apparent or manifest contents of the text without trying to understand how the organization, the rhetoric, the language standard, the imagery, the humour or the irony of the text work. Tell the reader something more than what seemed obvious or straightforward at first sight surface and deep meaning.
Preliminary
work
1. Read the document several times and note down carefully
The origin of the document
The date of its publication
The name of the author
Number the lines to make quoting easier.
2. During the first reading pick out anything that will need to be explained (for you in the first place, for the people who are supposed to listen to your commentary or to read it). Make sure you understand the notions that are used. If you don’t, look up their definitions.
- dates (the historical dimension, the cultural dimension or the context are absolutely essential to the good understanding of a text). Not knowing the context or a partial understanding of the context can lead to serious mistakes; historical, political and cultural references.
- proper nouns, names of places, names of institutions, acronyms (a word formed from the first letters of the words that make up the name of something , for ex AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) etc...
-concepts or keywords belonging to the political discourse of the time (liberalism, welfare state, segregation)
-last but not least the title
3. Distinguish clearly between the FACTS, the information (figures, percentages etc.) and the comments, the interpretation or the analysis offered by the author of the document.
Starting from the same piece of information another author might have produced a different analysis of the same phenomenon.
The rhetoric of the author is of prime importance: by rhetoric we mean all the technical means the author makes use of or resorts to in the writing or the composition of the document in order to obtain a desired effect (repetitions, rhetorical questions, images, metaphors etc.)
It goes without saying that no text is ever really objective, neutral or transparent. Objectivity is a myth. Every text and every reader shares in an ideology, a culture, a particular system of representations or values.
Refrain from passing any a priori value judgment on the substance of the problem raised. If the text is biased (partial, non objectif, non impartial) the commentary should show how the bias operates. You have to study the coherence or incoherence of this type of reasoning. When you give your opinion try to be moderate. However, you have to be critical and find counter-arguments in order to show/prove that the author is sometimes biased.
5) Once the preliminary work is over, try to identify the main issues raised in the text and to point out the main line of the argument.
Introduction
The intro should answer the following questions briefly:
1. Origin and nature of the
document:
What paper or what book is it taken from?
Was it produced by an official body, an institution or an individual?
What is the nature or the status of the document to be studied?
A speech, an interview, a newspaper article?
A primary or a secondary document?
2. Who is speaking? Where
from? To whom? At what precise time?
Status of the person who is writing: male, female, public figure anonymous?
Who does the author address and for what purpose, (convince, intimidate, entertain)
Is the date of publication important?
If some chronological data are needed to explain why that particular document was produced at that particular moment in time, they should be kept very short
The context should always be given very briefly, and only the main features indicated.
A few biographical indications might be necessary.
Commentary
Preferable to avoid any running commentary (commentaire linéaire). Every idea should be illustrated with examples from the text, with the help of quotes (followed by line numbers).
Conclusion (summing up)
1. Is there an internal coherence of the text?
2. Is the document representative of something more general?
Does it correspond to the atmosphere of the period, of the culture of the time? Or is it marginal, atypical or premonitory?
3. What place should be given to this document within a long term historical perspective?
BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE LANGUAGE (spelling, grammar, punctuation).