Field
Scholarly Article Engagement
This assignment is designed to promote deep, thorough academic engagement with a
scholarly article; it encourages you to reach an understanding of your chosen article in its
own right, beyond its functionality in your work. The long-term goals and effects of this
assignment are twofold: first, deep understanding of scholarly work will allow you to
utilize articles to their best purpose in your own essays; second, thorough and intimate
knowledge of how scholarly articles ‘work’ will enable you to write essays that are more
scholarly in nature.
This assignment is worth 20 points and is comprised of 3 sequential parts, in other words,
you must complete the steps to the assignment in order to reach optimal understanding of
the article (and to get a grade).
To start, choose an article that: is from a peer-reviewed journal, is at least 10 pages long,
and which you are planning to rely on heavily as a source in your unit 3 essay.
1) Annotate the essay: mark the essay up thoroughly and completely. This goes beyond
simply underlining important phrases or highlighting key words; your annotation should
demonstrate interaction with the text and thinking on your part. You can interact with a
text by summarizing main points, labeling paragraphs or parts of the text, noting
quotations you think will be useful in your paper, making connections to other sources
you are using, noting whether you agree with the text, etc. Annotate in a way that is
useful to you. (4 pts)
2) Create a reverse outline of the text: write one sentence to summarize every paragraph
in the text. Warning: Do not summarize using generalized, nons-specific language. For
example, do not write, “The author defines neoliberalism.” Instead, put the definition the
author offers in your own words. (8 pts)
3) Review the article: in no more than two double spaced pages note the article’s thesis
or guiding idea, summarize the main points, explain how the article is structured, and
offer an evaluation of the author’s work. Your evaluation should point out the article’s
strengths and weaknesses. (8 pts)
Questions you must answer in article review: Who wrote the article? Where and when was it published?
What kind of article is it (research study, examination of a specific event, etc.)? What is its main point or
what does it work to prove? What does it rely on to prove this point (an experiment, analysis of real life
events, other articles)? How is it structured or built (in other words, what are the different “parts” of the
article, or what comes first, second, third, etc.? What are its best points? What are the articles’ faults or
drawbacks?
Jeremy Engels examines and analyzes the nature violent speech in “The Rhetoric of Violence: Sarah
Palin’s Response to the Tucson Shooting,” an article published in symploke in 2012. Engels asserts that Palin’s
speeches and public addresses preceding and responding to the violent Tucson tragedy that left Gabriella
Giffords permanently brain damaged in January of 2011 are representative of a rhetoric specific to the Neoliberal
political movement which, on its surface claims to be about fiscal growth, but which actually works to promote a
“politics of resentment” among the American people (130). Engels analyzes of Palin’s website which painted
Giffords as a literal target and the now infamous “blood libel” speech Palin made in response to the tragedy. He
calls on theories of violence, power and speech from familiar philosophers like Benjamin, Derrida, and Nietzsche
to explain and pinpoint the violent aspects of Palin’s speech.
Engels’ article is divided into four sections; in the introduction he summarizes the Tucson tragedy and
Palin’s response to it, a move that helps to forefront his definition of neoliberal: a brand of politics that is
working less to improve the fiscal situation and more to incite anger and resentment in citizens. In the second
section, he establishes that violence is embedded in the social structure and offers a brief history of Ronald
Reagan’s move to capitalize on this fact in the late sixties. He then successfully compares Palin’s speech to
Reagan’s, establishing that violent rhetoric has become a part of our history. In the third section, Engels explains
the politics of resentment: a kind of politics that encourages citizens to feel victimized and to label their
ideological counterparts as evil enemies. Finally, in part four, Engels takes a step away from Palin herself when
he notes that the speaker herself is not as important as the words and the power they have. He goes on to suggest
that until America’s political rhetoric becomes less “antagonistic” we will be unable to compromise and move
forward; we will remain stuck in a cycle of anger, violence and resentment (135).
Engels offers a clear description of violent rhetoric and convincingly argues that such speech might
cause violence and definitively causes political stasis. The specific examples he uses from Palin’s cache of catch
phrases are well known and it is refreshing to look at them in a new light. Though the nature of this article is
embedded in left wing, liberal thought, Engels maintains that the speaker of the words he analyzes does not
matter. This argument is unsuccessful: Engels’ distaste for Palin and her neoliberal counterparts is palpable and
this makes it hard to believe that he would lambast words such as these if they came from someone of his own
political ilk.