Instructions for Reading Responses
A series of four short reading responses are a central part of this course. Since this assignment requires a specialized form of thinking and writing, I wanted to provide you with some hints on how to go about doing this assignment.
The point of the reading response is to distill the argument in the reading down to its essentials and then to evaluate, apply, and expand it. The process of uncovering the essential components of an argument require that you read the book chapter/article, put it down, take a deep breath, and in a few concise sentences state what the main concerns of the piece were, what claims it advances, and how these claims were supported by theoretical or empirical evidence. Having thus ascertained what is most important in the book, take the next step and;
1. Evaluate the strength, coherence, plausibility, or validity of the arguments.
2. Apply the argument to something outside itself, i.e. use it to explain some other phenomena or event.
3. Expand on the argument by adding some factor, perspective, or insight that you feel would strengthen or deepen it.
The assignment therefore has two parts. A summary, in which you state what the reading was about; and a reaction, which is your use of the analytical tools in the piece.
As you can see, you will not have room for extended quotation. If you cannot put the point in your own words, you have not grasped it. And if you cannot use the point, it is, as they say, academic. You will probably find the first of these responses difficult and aggravating. Please stay with it! In the past, they have been rough in the beginning but have invariably improved over time.
This may sound like a lot for 1-2 pages, and it is. However, if you ruthlessly edit out unnecessary words and get directly to the point, you will find it possible to do a good job in the space provided. What is more, you will find that you understand the essential issues more clearly than if you had gone on for several pages. You will therefore have to edit your first draft after you have put it down on paper. If you cannot reduce its length by at least one-third while increasing its clarity, then your first drafts are better than mine are.
PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR READING RESPONSES FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST;
McCrone, David. 1998. The Sociology of Nationalism. (New York: Routledge), pp.1-43;
VIDEO: The Battle of Algiers
Ignatieff, Michael. 1993. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux), pp.19-56.
McCrone, David. 1998. The Sociology of Nationalism. (New York: Routledge), pp.44-63.
Ignatieff, Michael. 1993. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux), PP.213-249.
McCrone, David. 1998. The Sociology of Nationalism. (New York: Routledge), pp.125-148.
Castles, Stephen and Alastair Davidson. 2000. Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. (New York: Routledge), pp. 1-51
Castles, Stephen and Alastair Davidson. 2000. Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. (New York: Routledge), pp. 84-128
Ardetti, Rita. 1999. Struggling For Life: The Grandmothers of the Playa De Mayo and the Disappeared Grandchildren of Argentina (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), (webpage)
Deegan, Heather. 2001. The Politics of the New South Africa: Apartheid and After (New York: Longman), pp.3-82.
Deegan, Heather. 2001. The Politics of the New South Africa: Apartheid and After (New York: Longman), pp.136-164.
VIDEO: Long Night's Journey into Day