1-19-2017
Intl 500 W3: Instructions Deconstruction Assignment
Due: 1-22-2017
This assignment requires that you select an article pertinent to your research topic and deconstruct it into its primary elements (The Color Code Refers To Identified Subject Areas In The Translated Article of Deconstruction-From .pdf, to Word .docx Document Submitted With Assignment, The Page Numbers, However, Regarding Citations, Correspond To The Original .pdf Document, As Reference):
·
The Research Question;
·
The Thesis;
·
The Claims or argument;
·
The Evidence or
supporting facts; and,
·
The Conclusions.
- Please locate a scholarly or peer-reviewed article and download it into a Word document. Locate the elements by annotating with the “highlight” tool or providing remarks in the margins.
- Provide a brief critique of the article, identifying the strong elements, and those that were less compelling. Finally, provide your assessment of its utility to you after you have broken it down and understand the argument and the facts that the author used to support his claims. You may write at the bottom of the article itself or provide your answers in a separate document. Your critique should be no longer than a written page.
Please provide
a complete citation for the article in Turabian format.
THIS EXERCISE WILL PREPARE YOU TO WRITE YOUR OWN PAPERS AND ARTICLES!
THERE WILL BE AN EXAMPLE IN YOUR LESSONS FOLDER.
When you have
completed your exercise, please title it NameW3.doc and upload it in the
Assignments module.
1-22-2017
Miss. Bayo
Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
2nd
Master’s Degree Programme
American
Public University System (APUS)
Cell: 1-352-872-4774
Email: mumbaibayo.cary@yandex.com
BayoElizabethCaryW3.docx
APUS Intl 500
Week 3 Assignment:
Research
Article Deconstruction Exercise
Article
Selected:
Reference
Shepherd, Laura J. 2009. “Gender, Violence
and
Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist
Security Studies.” Political Studies Review, vol.
7.: 208-219. Accessed January 19, 2017. file:///C:/Users/Mumbai%20Eliza/Documents/APUS%20Research%20Global%20Studies%20And%20Gender%20Studies%20Intl%20Security%20Issues.pdf
Include Deconstruction of the following aspects of
writing:
1.
The Research
Question;
2.
The Thesis;
3.
The Claims or Argument;
4.
The Evidence or Supporting
Facts; and,
5.
The Conclusions.
Body of Article Deconstruction Research Paper:
Ms. Laura J. Shepard, in her
professional peer-reviewed journal article, “Gender, Violence and Global
Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies,” printed by: Political Studies Review (2009),
utilizes books, by three authors: Roberts, Sjoberg and Gentry, and
Enloe, to define, and support, both: her research question, and the attendant
thesis question. Following, I will provide, an abbreviated explanation, of Ms.
Shepard’s research paper.
I am writing an exercise in article
deconstruction, and as well as, a pithy analysis, of both: Ms. Shepard’s
subject matter of choice-as well as, the boom materials, that she has chosen,
to support her claims-include in my
deconstruction of, Ms. Shepard’s claims, are the following aspects of, of her writing:
1.
The Research
Question;
2.
The Thesis;
3.
The Claims or
argument;
4.
The Evidence or
supporting facts; and,
5.
The Conclusions.
1)
The Research Question:
Early
feminist scholarship challenged this assumption as well, arguing that
individuals, as human subjects in all their messy complexity, are an integral
part of international relations (see Shepherd, 2007, pp. 240–1). (Shepard 2009,
208)
I have identified the
research question, for this particular article-which, considers: a “feminist
perspective,” to be: “To what extent do the professional written discourses of
females, contribute-overall, to the academic and political field, of
international relations and intelligence studies-and specifically, ‘. . .(the)
devastating. . . war/peace dichotomy (it) is gendered, (and) misleading and
potentially pathological (Shepard 2009, 208).’”
2) Thesis Question:
Finally,
I argue that feminist security studies offers an important corrective to the
foundational assumptions of IR, which themselves can perpetuate the very
instances of violence that they seek to redress. If we accept the core insights
of feminist security studies – the centrality of the human subject, the
importance of particular configurations of masculinity and femininity, and the
gendered conceptual framework that underpins the discipline of IR – we are
encouraged to envisage a rather different politics of the global. (Shepard
2009, 209)
I have identified the
thesis question, as articulated by Ms. Shepard, as being, an affirmative
statement and perspective, regarding, the contributions, of females and
“professional feminist writers,” to the academic fields of study: international
relations, and intelligence studies (Shepard 2009, 209).
Ms. Shepard expresses a strong
confidence in the fact, that, she will discover evidence-through her academic
research, which is shared in her peer-reviewed professional writing: “Gender, Violence
and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies”
published by: Political Studies Review,
in 2009, that, contributions, to the academic fields, of both: international
relations and intelligence studies, do in fact, impact the field, and, offer-a
valuable perspective-that, requires both: respect and attention (Shepard 2009,
209).
3) Claims and
Arguments:
A)
Drawing
on the insights of these books, I ask first how violence is understood in
global politics, with specific reference to the gendered disciplinary
blindnesses that frequently characterise mainstream approaches. (Shepard 2009,
209)
Ms.
Shepard chose, to utilize a book review format, in-order-to elucidate her points,
in regards to her, above stated thesis question. First, Ms. Shepard shares
insights, that she has gathered, from the writings of: Sjoberg and Gentry, to
define “war”-in-of-itself, and, to discuss-how the definition of “war,” in
relation to, the societal pre-circumscribed boundaries of gender-work, to
define, how “war,” is usually: inflicted upon women-as victims-as opposed, to
being shared with women, as a fight among-at least, among intellectual equals.
B)
Second,
I demonstrate how a focus on war and peace can neglect to take into account the
politics of everyday violence: the violences of the in-between times that
international politics recognises neither as ‘war’ nor ‘peace’ and the
violences inherent to times of peace that are overlooked in the study of war.
(Shepard 2009, 209)
Additionally,
Ms. Shepard, supports her thesis question, by discussing, how, females, are
left out of consideration-in regards to: “the art of war,” because, what women
experience-as “war,” both: domestically, and Internationally-as a backlash,
from “warring parties”-is not officially recognized, as: “war” itself.
Oft times, “war”-is written off,
as: just regular, and everyday occurrences-when in fact, the definition, is not
just (Shepard 2009, 209). According to: Roberts, a contributing author, to Ms.
Shepard’s book review, and expressed in his text: Human Insecurity-in general: “Violence is war: large-scale,
state-dominated, much studied, war” (Shepard 2009, 210).
4)
Evidence and Supporting Facts:
A) Sjoberg and Gentry use
this insight to demonstrate that women’s violence in global politics is
rendered unintelligible, through narrative representations of the perpetrators
as mothers, monsters or whores (in media discourse and academic discussion),
rather than as autono-mous agents. (Shepard 2009, 211)
Ms.
Shepard supports her thesis statement, with an argument, that, females, are
intentionally neglected, and excluded, from conversations, pertaining to:
“war,” as though-they were soo feminine-as to not be participants. In
fact-females contribute to war, in many recognizable ways-just like men. Then,
Ms. Shepard, goes on to argue, that, the contributions of females, would be
more aptly utilized, were they considered through the lens, of the academic
world, where-the impact, would be more credible, and more helpful-towards the
resolution of war, and, the establishment of: “World Peace!”
Ms. Shepard goes so far, as to say, that, the way some men, focus on
war-it is such a devastating force, that-it should really be considered more
as-a “pathological,” and therefore, “mentally ill”-state of mind, as opposed to,
a basic need-to establish: country autonomy and security-through reinforcement,
of pre-established International boundaries. A restatement, from my
introductory paragraph: “Further, it allows us to investigate one of the
simplest insights of feminist IR, which is also one of the most devastating:
the war/peace dichotomy is gendered, misleading and potentially pathological
(Shepard 2009, 208).”
B)
(According
to Roberts) That is, the assumption of essential differences between men and
women is part of patriarchal ideology, feeding into stereotypical notions of
how such men and women should behave, which in turn constitute recognisable
discourses of gender: sets of narratives about masculinity and femininity and
how these are, in general, respectively privileged and marginalised. (Shepard
2009, 211)
Ms.
Shepard, also states, as evidence in support of her thesis statement, that,
because of the assumptions, established by the traditional patriarchy-females,
are not appreciated, for scholarly and academic contributions, to the fields,
of: international relations, and intelligence.
It is presumed, that, because
“war,” is a “game,” intended only for men-if the females are present-they, are
not the “players,” they are only the whores-therefore, there is no: reason or
room, to consider, a female’s opinion-not in professional discourse, or
otherwise. The current, status quo, as per author Roberts opinion, because, of
the exclusion of females, from the professional discourse, regarding, the: “art
of war”: “Roberts enhances his critique of ‘most security studies ... [that]
largely [miss] the scale of avoidable human misery and avoidable human death’
(2008, p. 4)” (Shepard 2009, 210).
Again, Ms. Shepard argues,
that, women are valuable, and intellectual, and, because they are just as
affected, by the ills of war-that, they too, should be, both: allowed, and
encouraged, to participate in: “the act of war,” in a professional, and meaningful
way. “Whores”-are nouns (person, place, or thing), because, they do
nothing-except lie on their backs, whereas “female soldiers”-they are verbs
(ACTION), because, they too-could potentially contribute to the resolution of
war, in a meaningful way, by writing a competent research paper-academic
discourse, at a professional level, is meaningful, even during times, of
national and international duress (Shepard 2009, 217).
5)
Conclusions:
The young woman buying a T-shirt from a
multinational clothing corporation with her first pay cheque, the group of
young men planning a stag weekend in Amsterdam, a group of students attending a
demonstration against the bombing of Afghanistan – studying these significant
actions currently falls outside the boundaries of doing security studies in
mainstream IR and I believe these boundaries need contesting. As Marysia
Zalewski argues: . . . (Shepard 2009, 217)
In,
conclusion, Ms. Shepard argues, that there really is no end to war, there is
simply war, and then-continuing war, during the times in between, the:
“official declaration of war.” “Feminist security studies interrogates the
pauses between wars, and the political processes – and practices of power –
that demarcate times as such” (Shepard 2009, 215).
The food you chose to eat, the
stores that, an individual shops’ at, the foreign countries one might visit,
people who become your friends-even where you attend college, all become part,
of an act of war (Shepard 2009, 217). Ms. Shepard argues, that it is not
possible, to move, far enough away from politics, in this contemporary economy,
and international relations, to move completely away, from the very
next-impending war.
To this end, I
conclude by suggesting that we take seriously Enloe’s final comment: ‘Tracking
militarization and fostering demilitarization will call for cooperative
investigations, multiple skills and the appreciation of diverse perspectives’
(2007, p. 164). (Sherpard 2009, 217)
I
agree, with Ms. Shepard’s analysis, of war times, versus, peace times. It seems
impossible-in this day-and-age, to avoid conflict. With International travel,
and increased usage, of the Internet, and other WiFi connecting devices,
families are now raising soldiers-both: male and female, instead of simply
children. The huge influx, of immigrants to the US, has made this country,
completely unbearable for me.
Europe, is experiencing the same
discomfitures-and worse, as they too, are inundated, by immigrate soldiers-who
openly oppose, our Western values and ways of life, and, who-insist on becoming
our next-door neighbors, to: rape our women, and children, and, to shoot us, at
point-blank-range-in the name of “war”-in our own front yards.
As a female, I cannot be excluded from this
deluge, of “new wealth” and “terror”-just because, I was born with a vagina. I
am heavily affected, by the: illegal, disproportional and unjust treatment-that
I have received, because of this over-crowded planet, of: “migrant terror!” I
have a valid and logical need, to contribute to-even to a temporary solution,
to the current: “International warring” state of affairs. I am a woman, and, as
such, my opinion, is still valid.
Reference
Shepherd, Laura J. 2009. “Gender, Violence
and
Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in
Feminist Security Studies.” Political
Studies Review, vol. 7.: 208-219. Accessed January 19, 2017. file:///C:/Users/Mumbai%20Eliza/Documents/APUS%20Research%20Global%20Studies%20And%20Gender%20Studies%20Intl%20Security%20Issues.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment