What’s a “Reading Strategy?”
Reading strategies are to qualitative research (looking at qualities or characteristics) what methods are to quantitative research (counting, looking at numbers). It’s a way to approach a text systematically, to ensure you’re not just subjectively writing whatever occurs to you.
I’ve heard reading strategies compared to cutting into a wheel of cheese. You are handed an unmanageably-large amount of cheese, and are told to cut it into useful segments. You have to decide, “What’s a useful amount?” and then decide, “How will I arrive at portions of that amount?” Do you cut it into segments, like a pizza or pie? Do you cut it into a grid? There’s a lot of ways to approach it, but you need to start somewhere.
Usually, critics use multiple reading strategies to make their arguments; however, one of the key tests of good criticism–along with novelty (say something new and interesting) and understanding (show you understood the text, and help me understand your argument)–is adherence: Once I understand your point of view and reading strategy, do I agree that your argument is valid, reasonable, etc.? Did you adequately cover all the important aspects, and not “stack the deck,” or manipulate the data?
Cluster Agon
Back in 1976, Carol Berthold found a reading strategy in the work of Kenneth Burke that was pretty useful. She called it Burke’s Cluster-Agon Method. It has four basic steps:
1. Select key terms
First, we read the text and find out which terms are important. Terms are words or phrases: ‘Murica, Freedom, First Amendment, Right to Bear Arms, etc.
Usually, these terms are used frequently, they are well defined or described (clarity), they are put into multiple contexts and link to multiple other terms. If you think a word might be important, a simple word search/find in a document or website will turn up every instance of a word. Remember to look for plurals (i.e. “Freedoms”) and other forms of the word.
Yes, counting how many times the term is used might give a clue (frequency), but more important are the force of the term and the way the term is used. Also, you should note when it’s used in a negative sense.
2. Arrive at an “Ultimate” Term
Rhetorical critic Richard Weaver talks about an “ultimate” or “god” term as “that expression about which all other expressions are ranked as subordinate.” (212)
In other words, if you had to pick one word that seemed to be more important than all the others in the text–one word that seems to relate to all the other important words–which would it be?
3. Find the “Good” Cluster
Determine “What goes with what”; particularly the terms that are paired favorably with the “ultimate” term. These are the “good” terms. These terms can be paired through cause and effect relationships (either they cause the “Ultimate” term, or are an effect of it), other logical connections, or just through imagery–storytelling, or describing an event or scene.
4. Find the “Bad” Cluster–the Agon
Determine “What is against What” to arrive at a “devil” term and “evil” terms. Technically, the “devil” term might be the “Ultimate” term, and the “god” term is the Agon, as might be the case in scare tactics or fear mongering.
As with the “good” terms, the “evil” terms can be paired to the “devil” term through cause and effect relationships (either they cause the “devil” term, or are an effect of it), other logical connections, or just through imagery–storytelling, or describing an event or scene.
Together, these terms form the Agon cluster.
Why do this?
Good question. Again, back to the “Wheel of Cheese” example, we have an unmanageable amount of “stuff” to get through, and we have to start somewhere. Perhaps you heard a term repeated so often it started to stand out. Perhaps it was the way the speaker said a term or a few terms (one comic says you can tell how racist a person is by how many H’s they pronounce when they say “white”).
Whatever your reason for starting the search, carrying it through to the finish can be enlightening. Yes, if you notice the first set of terms I mentioned: America, Freedom, First Amendment, Right to Bear Arms, etc. You’ll probably note the usual cast of terminological characters. However, there might be a big difference between a speech or text where the “ultimate” term is “America,” and a speech or text where the “ultimate” term is “Freedom.”
Further, when you start getting into the “good” and “evil” terms, you might find some surprises. For instance, what if “Right to Bear Arms” is positively linked to “Freedom” and “handguns” but negatively linked to “AR-15”?
Then there are the implications. As my first mentor, Elizabeth Mechling used to ask, “So what?/Who cares?” or more to the point, “Cui bono? [Who benefits?]” Rhetorical criticism is interested in power–who has it, who is getting more, who is losing it. What do these linkages tell us about our current system or culture? What changes do they seem to advocate and who would benefit from that?
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Important links or arguments I missed?
Sources:
Carol A. Berthold, “Kenneth Burke’s Cluster-Agon Method: Its Development and an Application.” Central States Speech Journal, 27 (1976): 302-309.
Richard M. Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), 212.
