Reading Responses: What I'm looking for and how to write good ones
You are responsible for five (5) reading responses over the course of the semester. At least two of these have to be completed in the first half of the semester (before fall break). These are due by 6:00 PM the day before the class session in which we are scheduled to discuss that particular reading. So if a reading is scheduled for Tuesday, September 18, your Reading Response needs to be posted by 6:00 PM on Monday, September 17. That will give me and other students a chance to read it before class.
Your Reading Responses are to be posted to the “Discussion Board” tab on Blackboard for this course. Each reading that you are permitted to write a response to (some don’t lend themselves to this kind of activity, so I haven’t included them) is listed separately, and you will post your response under that specific article on the Discussion Board.
Commenting: The purpose of putting your responses up on a Blackboard Discussion Board is to allow other students to read them and to encourage comments. Feel free to post comments to any of the entries and/or to add questions of your own. Class discussions will often be generated by these entries.
Here are some suggestions for writing productive reading responses.
In the first place, they are not summaries of the reading, book reviews, or opportunities for you to tell me (and others) how you “feel” about the book, author, or argument.
Reading Responses are short (2-3 pages) papers intended to help you read sources more carefully and “critically.” This doesn’t mean that you need to criticize the author, but rather that you bring a critical judgment to your reading. These are papers that are intended to help you identify some of the author’s main points and provide some evaluation of the arguments in light of your understanding of the history, other arguments that have been presented, evidence the author has introduced, his/her theoretical or conceptual approach, etc.
Again, don’t summarize the article, chapter or book. It is quite legitimate to find one section or argument that you find particularly important or intriguing, and pursue that.
Think of answering the following questions: What is the main point of the article? What are the central questions the author is addressing? What conclusions does the author draw? What are the most important main assumptions underlying the author’s argument? How successful is the author is sustaining his/her point of view? What is the relevance of the author’s argument to contemporary issues?
Looking for the larger argument is especially important when reading history since, often, the argument can seem buried in a mountain of details and facts.
Other tips:
1. Use evidence (i.e., quotes from the reading) to substantiate your own argument. If you argue that the author’s perspective is distorted, provide some evidence to support your statement.
2. What is your reasoned opinion about the author’s argument? It’s fine to note whether you liked an article or not, but your response must go beyond that: analyze what you saw as its strengths or weaknesses. Figure out what it was that made you like or dislike the article; explore that.
3. Does the author’s argument make sense? Is it logical? Does it leave certain perspectives out? Does it present its argument with the necessary complexity or is it simplistic?
4. What is the significance of the article? Is the subject of the article compelling? Important?
5. What kind of evidence is most important for the author? Is there evidence that seems to be left out?
Finally, your response should raise 2-3 substantial questions about the article (not content questions) that you would like to see raised in class discussions.
Again, your responses should be about 2-3 pages in length.
Here is an example of what I see as an excellent paper able, in a little more than 2 pages, to accomplish much. It was written last semester by a student in History 110 (and appears here by permission):
Re-Aligning Sympathies: The Yarur Weaver’s Strike of 1971
There is little doubt that the workers’ strike and subsequent ‘socialization’ of the Yarur textile mill in 1971 was an exceptional moment in the history of Chilean labor relations. Indeed, in Latin America conflicts between workers and managers have, more often than not, been resolved in the favor of capital, making exceptions to this pattern all the more striking. Given the remarkable nature of this conflict, it is therefore understandable that historian Peter Winn takes a sympathetic approach to the struggles of the Yarur workers in his work, Weavers of Revolution. Yet while Winn encourages the reader to sympathize with the workers’ cause, he also suggests that the strike may have destabilized, and perhaps weakened, Allende’s government. This ‘alternative’ perspective challenges the reader’s dominant sympathies by suggesting that perhaps, though valiant, the socialization of the Yarur mill may have weakened the possibility of a strong, socialist government in Chile.
Throughout the work, Peter Winn’s sympathies towards the Yarur workers are clearly defined. As readers, we are brought into the workers’ narrative through numerous testimonies that are woven together in a thrilling tale of struggle, desperation, perseverance and victory. Speaking of the socialization of the Yarur factory, Winn includes the testimony of Jorge Lorca who recalls, “It was a very special moment… all joy and happiness, as at last we had achieved something that had cost so much, for which moreover we had struggled so hard and so long, something for which so many had been fired and remained without work.”[1] Because Winn’s account privileges the voices of the workers over the voices of the managers and their supporters, it is only natural that the reader celebrate alongside the victorious workers and sympathize with their cause.
The readers’ sympathies are further manipulated by Winn’s portrayal of Salvador Allende. While Winn captures the excitement that accompanied Salvador Allende’s election[2] he also captures Allende’s domineering personality, which flared during the deliberations over the closing of the Yarur mill. Using words such as ‘sarcastic’[3] and “annoyed”[4] to describe Allende’s tone and manner, Winn draws a portrait of Allende as a rude and controlling leader who defies the will of the ‘rank and file’ workers. By casting Allende in this light, and by focusing on the agency claimed by the workers in the mill, Winn again aligns our sympathies with the workers and their cause.
Yet despite our emotional investment in the workers’ cause, and our manufactured dislike of Allende, the results of the Yarur strike of ‘71 suggest that the strike may have weakened, rather than supported, the creation of a socialist state in Chile. In the introduction to his text, Winn argues that the socialization of the Yarur mill led to a “wave of factory seizures” and agrarian land seizures. “As a consequence” Winn writes, “the timetable for structural transformation was accelerated, and the revolutionary process was radicalized; in response, the Center moved right and the middle classes embraced counterrevolution.”[5] In essence, Winn suggests that not only did the seizures radicalize Allende’s opposition; they also destabilized the socialist government that Allende was carefully, and enthusiastically, attempting to build.
Again the reader must track how his sympathies have been manipulated and altered by the author. It is true, according to both Winn’s account and the testimonies upon which it is based, that the workers struggled with and overcame tremendous challenges and restrictions. However, as Winn also notes, “The rural revolution from below, in particular, was playing havoc with the Popular Unity’s timetable and image of legality and was threatening the governing coalitions political strategy of class coalition.”[6] Although it is easy sympathize with the ‘blue collar’ worker, it is also clear that the revolution ‘from below,’ as Winn refers to it, disrupted what might have been a more gradual, and potentially more effective revolution from above.
Although it is impossible to say with confidence whether Allende’s government would have achieved greater success had the Yarur strike not occurred, it is valuable to raise questions about the event. What might have happened, for example, had Allende stood firm and opened the mill? Did Allende, or the leaders of the labor unions, foresee the impact that the strike and ‘socialization’ of the mill would have upon the legitimacy and power of Allende’s government? When considering these questions, I must acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge in this field. Basing my inquiry solely off of Peter Winn’s text, I do not seek to challenge the validity of the workers’ strike, but instead explore how our sympathies are manipulated and teased in a text such as Winn’s which clearly adopts a voice within the conflict.
[Signed HONOR CODE]
[1] Peter Winn, Weavers of Revolution, (New York Oxford University Press, 1986), 200.
[2] Winn, 70.
[3] Winn, 185.
[4] Winn, 190.
[5] Winn, 6-7.
[6] Winn, 142.
Your Reading Responses are to be posted to the “Discussion Board” tab on Blackboard for this course. Each reading that you are permitted to write a response to (some don’t lend themselves to this kind of activity, so I haven’t included them) is listed separately, and you will post your response under that specific article on the Discussion Board.
Commenting: The purpose of putting your responses up on a Blackboard Discussion Board is to allow other students to read them and to encourage comments. Feel free to post comments to any of the entries and/or to add questions of your own. Class discussions will often be generated by these entries.
Here are some suggestions for writing productive reading responses.
In the first place, they are not summaries of the reading, book reviews, or opportunities for you to tell me (and others) how you “feel” about the book, author, or argument.
Reading Responses are short (2-3 pages) papers intended to help you read sources more carefully and “critically.” This doesn’t mean that you need to criticize the author, but rather that you bring a critical judgment to your reading. These are papers that are intended to help you identify some of the author’s main points and provide some evaluation of the arguments in light of your understanding of the history, other arguments that have been presented, evidence the author has introduced, his/her theoretical or conceptual approach, etc.
Again, don’t summarize the article, chapter or book. It is quite legitimate to find one section or argument that you find particularly important or intriguing, and pursue that.
Think of answering the following questions: What is the main point of the article? What are the central questions the author is addressing? What conclusions does the author draw? What are the most important main assumptions underlying the author’s argument? How successful is the author is sustaining his/her point of view? What is the relevance of the author’s argument to contemporary issues?
Looking for the larger argument is especially important when reading history since, often, the argument can seem buried in a mountain of details and facts.
Other tips:
1. Use evidence (i.e., quotes from the reading) to substantiate your own argument. If you argue that the author’s perspective is distorted, provide some evidence to support your statement.
2. What is your reasoned opinion about the author’s argument? It’s fine to note whether you liked an article or not, but your response must go beyond that: analyze what you saw as its strengths or weaknesses. Figure out what it was that made you like or dislike the article; explore that.
3. Does the author’s argument make sense? Is it logical? Does it leave certain perspectives out? Does it present its argument with the necessary complexity or is it simplistic?
4. What is the significance of the article? Is the subject of the article compelling? Important?
5. What kind of evidence is most important for the author? Is there evidence that seems to be left out?
Finally, your response should raise 2-3 substantial questions about the article (not content questions) that you would like to see raised in class discussions.
Again, your responses should be about 2-3 pages in length.
Here is an example of what I see as an excellent paper able, in a little more than 2 pages, to accomplish much. It was written last semester by a student in History 110 (and appears here by permission):
Re-Aligning Sympathies: The Yarur Weaver’s Strike of 1971
There is little doubt that the workers’ strike and subsequent ‘socialization’ of the Yarur textile mill in 1971 was an exceptional moment in the history of Chilean labor relations. Indeed, in Latin America conflicts between workers and managers have, more often than not, been resolved in the favor of capital, making exceptions to this pattern all the more striking. Given the remarkable nature of this conflict, it is therefore understandable that historian Peter Winn takes a sympathetic approach to the struggles of the Yarur workers in his work, Weavers of Revolution. Yet while Winn encourages the reader to sympathize with the workers’ cause, he also suggests that the strike may have destabilized, and perhaps weakened, Allende’s government. This ‘alternative’ perspective challenges the reader’s dominant sympathies by suggesting that perhaps, though valiant, the socialization of the Yarur mill may have weakened the possibility of a strong, socialist government in Chile.
Throughout the work, Peter Winn’s sympathies towards the Yarur workers are clearly defined. As readers, we are brought into the workers’ narrative through numerous testimonies that are woven together in a thrilling tale of struggle, desperation, perseverance and victory. Speaking of the socialization of the Yarur factory, Winn includes the testimony of Jorge Lorca who recalls, “It was a very special moment… all joy and happiness, as at last we had achieved something that had cost so much, for which moreover we had struggled so hard and so long, something for which so many had been fired and remained without work.”[1] Because Winn’s account privileges the voices of the workers over the voices of the managers and their supporters, it is only natural that the reader celebrate alongside the victorious workers and sympathize with their cause.
The readers’ sympathies are further manipulated by Winn’s portrayal of Salvador Allende. While Winn captures the excitement that accompanied Salvador Allende’s election[2] he also captures Allende’s domineering personality, which flared during the deliberations over the closing of the Yarur mill. Using words such as ‘sarcastic’[3] and “annoyed”[4] to describe Allende’s tone and manner, Winn draws a portrait of Allende as a rude and controlling leader who defies the will of the ‘rank and file’ workers. By casting Allende in this light, and by focusing on the agency claimed by the workers in the mill, Winn again aligns our sympathies with the workers and their cause.
Yet despite our emotional investment in the workers’ cause, and our manufactured dislike of Allende, the results of the Yarur strike of ‘71 suggest that the strike may have weakened, rather than supported, the creation of a socialist state in Chile. In the introduction to his text, Winn argues that the socialization of the Yarur mill led to a “wave of factory seizures” and agrarian land seizures. “As a consequence” Winn writes, “the timetable for structural transformation was accelerated, and the revolutionary process was radicalized; in response, the Center moved right and the middle classes embraced counterrevolution.”[5] In essence, Winn suggests that not only did the seizures radicalize Allende’s opposition; they also destabilized the socialist government that Allende was carefully, and enthusiastically, attempting to build.
Again the reader must track how his sympathies have been manipulated and altered by the author. It is true, according to both Winn’s account and the testimonies upon which it is based, that the workers struggled with and overcame tremendous challenges and restrictions. However, as Winn also notes, “The rural revolution from below, in particular, was playing havoc with the Popular Unity’s timetable and image of legality and was threatening the governing coalitions political strategy of class coalition.”[6] Although it is easy sympathize with the ‘blue collar’ worker, it is also clear that the revolution ‘from below,’ as Winn refers to it, disrupted what might have been a more gradual, and potentially more effective revolution from above.
Although it is impossible to say with confidence whether Allende’s government would have achieved greater success had the Yarur strike not occurred, it is valuable to raise questions about the event. What might have happened, for example, had Allende stood firm and opened the mill? Did Allende, or the leaders of the labor unions, foresee the impact that the strike and ‘socialization’ of the mill would have upon the legitimacy and power of Allende’s government? When considering these questions, I must acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge in this field. Basing my inquiry solely off of Peter Winn’s text, I do not seek to challenge the validity of the workers’ strike, but instead explore how our sympathies are manipulated and teased in a text such as Winn’s which clearly adopts a voice within the conflict.
[Signed HONOR CODE]
[1] Peter Winn, Weavers of Revolution, (New York Oxford University Press, 1986), 200.
[2] Winn, 70.
[3] Winn, 185.
[4] Winn, 190.
[5] Winn, 6-7.
[6] Winn, 142.