ENGL151 Qatar University Week 6 Language and Citizenship in Europe Essay There are three articles that for each article at least 200 words needs to be writ

ENGL151 Qatar University Week 6 Language and Citizenship in Europe Essay There are three articles that for each article at least 200 words needs to be written to summarize, analyze and evaluate them.

Please read the guidelines carefully.

Please write professionally using proper sentence structure and a good use of vocabulary.

Please give a clear brief summary and a clear analysis and evaluation.

Each article is to be treated separately.

Each article has to be summarized, analyzed and evaluated.

Please read the guidelines and follow what is expected to obtain a full grade Department of English Literature and Linguistics
ENGL 151: Advanced Reading Comprehension
Fall 2019
Annotated bibliography (10%) Due Nov. 24 as a hard copy in class as well as a soft copy via turnitin
on BB. Late submittals will NOT be accepted and will result is a zero for a grade, NO EXCEPTIONS.
For this task, you must keep a written record of your readings over the course of the semester. Your
instructor will set you a number of articles/essays to read each week, and make these available through
Blackboard. Each week, you will choose one article from the set readings, and write a reflective paragraph
responding to the article’s content, viewpoint, and overall argument.
For each paragraph, you should write a minimum of 200 words, including:
1. A summary of the article’s content using your own words, which identifies the central thesis of the article,
and the conclusions drawn by the author(s).
2. A critical response to the author’s argument / viewpoint, addressing the strengths and weakness of the
article, and posing counterarguments where relevant.
3. An evaluation of the article in terms of its usefulness (or lack thereof!) for developing your own thinking on
the topic. Some questions to think about might include: how helpful is the article for my own ideas? How
would I use this article to support my own arguments? What did the article teach me?
At the end of the semester, on the above deadline, you will submit your record of 10 paragraphs (10 x 200
words = approximately 2000 words in total) in one document to your instructor to be graded.
You will be assessed on the quality of your expression in English, the thoughtfulness of your responses, and
the accuracy of your documentation (e.g. that a reading from each week [312] is included in your
Format of the bibliography:
Word count: 2000 words (200 each paragraph)
Academic Honesty (please read section on plagiarism on syllabus).
Provide work citation whenever applicable.
Provide (1) hard copy in class.
Each typed report should include a Cover page with full name, ID #, course info, instructor’s name
and etc. and/or heading that clearly states the above mentioned.
double spaced with 1 inch margins, 12-point standard serif such as Times; please do not use a
sans serif font like Arial or Helvetica).
Your report should be proofread and revised before final submittal.
Bibliography should inculde all compentents mentioned below, failure to adhere to the guidelines and/or
missin parts will result in marks deducted.
Reflection Writing Rubric
(Grasp of
(depth of
Paper represents the
authors’ ideas,
evidence or
conclusions accurately,
fairly and eloquently.
Shows a firm
understanding of the
implications of each
author’s argument(s).
Paper fully meets
requirements of
assignment. Explores
implications of chosen
ideas for the arts in
classical Greece or today
in thoughtful and/or
original ways. Makes
convincing case for why
selected key ideas
connect (or contradict)
two texts, and/or connect
(contradict) texts and
Consistently precise
and unambiguous
clear and lucid sentence
structure. All quotations
are well chosen,
framed in the text and
explicated where
Paper represents the
author’s ideas, evidence
and conclusions
Writing is clear, concise,
and well organized with
construction. Thoughts are
expressed in a coherent
and logical manner. There
are no more than three
spelling, grammar, or
syntax errors per page of
Paper represents
the authors’
ideas, evidence
and conclusions
accurately but
not sufficiently
clearly. Minor
misrepresents the
authors’ ideas,
evidence and/or
conclusions. Major
inaccuracies. Or
does not
between major
and less relevant
Paper fully meets
the requirements
but does not
exceed them.
Paper does not
address some
aspects of the
Paper does not
address the
Makes good case for
why selected key ideas
connect (or contradict)
two texts, and/or
connect (contradict)
texts and lectures.
Makes somewhat
case for why
selected ideas
(contradict) two
texts, and/or
(contradict) texts
and lectures.
Mostly precise and
unambiguous wording,
mostly clear sentence
structure. Mostly
choice of quotation.
Mostly effective framing
and explication of
quotation where
Writing is mostly clear,
concise, and well
organized with good
construction. Thoughts
are expressed in a
coherent and logical
manner. There are no
more than five spelling,
grammar, or syntax
errors per page of
Imprecise or
ambiguous wording.
Confusing sentence
Poorly chosen
quotations, or
ineffective framing and
explication of
Selects minor
rather than key
ideas, and/or does
not show
why the selected
ideas connect (or
contradict) texts,
and/or connect
(contradict) texts
and lectures.
imprecise or
ambiguous wording,
confusing sentence
structure. Quotations
contradict or confuse
student’s text.
Quotations used
to replace student’s
Writing is unclear and/or Writing is unclear and
disorganized. Thoughts disorganized. Thoughts
are not expressed in a
ramble and make little
logical manner. There are sense. There are
more than five spelling, numerous spelling,
grammar, or syntax errors grammar, or syntax
per page of writing.
errors throughout the
Rubric modified from: www.cmu.edu.
Good to Think With
Author(s): Marjorie Garber
Source: Profession, (2008), pp. 11-20
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25595877
Accessed: 21-05-2019 14:17 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Profession
This content downloaded from on Tue, 21 May 2019 14:17:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Good to Think With
The topic of the Presidential Forum for 2007, “The Humanities at Work
in the World,” led me to reflect on a number of moments in my own career,
as well as on a set of literary texts that engage?and provoke?thought on
this question. Before I turn directly to the implications of my title, “Good
to Think With,” I will frame my argument with a personal anecdote and
then with a fairy tale. It will be clear, I believe, that these two narratives are
versions of the same story.
When I was in college, I was seized with the idea that I needed to be
doing something more important and meaningful than studying English
literature. It was the sixties, after all. So I looked up the address of an
agency in New York City that arranged for American students to emigrate
and do work in another country. I was full of idealism, optimism, energy.
I arrived for my appointment and sat across the desk from a woman who
was organizing such arrangements. My idea was to get closer to the soil,
perhaps, and to the people. So I burst out with my ideas about farming,
building, and clearing the land. “Do you have any experience with these
things?” she asked. (At this distance I can’t recall whether she asked gently
or pointedly?but in any case I began, dimly, to get the point.) “Have you
ever worked on a farm or built a house?” No, I confessed. Not yet. But I
could learn. “What do you know how to do?” she asked. “I study English
literature,” I said, rather haltingly. Poetry and novels and plays. But I could
The author is William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of English and of Visual and Environmental
Studies and director of the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts at Harvard University. A ver
sion of this paper was presented at the 2001 MLA convention in Chicago.
This content downloaded from on Tue, 21 May 2019 14:17:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
learn to do useful work, I was sure of it… I could contribute to the work
of the world. “We need English teachers,” she said.
All the way home on the train I thought about this advice, which was
surely both gentle and pointed. I had assumed that my liberal arts training,
my interest in literature, my interest, even, in criticism and scholarship
were things to be got past on my way to entering the world.
I wanted to work in the world, to do good in the world, to make the
world a better place. My interest in, penchant for, obsession with the hu
manities and arts seemed to me, at the time, a self-indulgence. What I
learned from this experience was that the humanities were my work and
that they were already in the world.
That was the anecdote. Here is a fairy tale.
In The Blue Bird, a symbolist play by the Belgian writer Maurice Maeter
linck, two children search the world for a special bluebird. The brother
and sister, who live in a woodcutter’s cottage, have been told that Father
Christmas will not come to them this year. On Christmas Eve, as they are
peering out the window, watching the rich children next door receive toys,
cakes, and fruit, a fairy appears to them in the form of an old woman of the
neighborhood and demands that they find the bluebird, which she needs
to cure her little girl, who is very ill.
The children set out on their journey. In the space of what they think
is a year but what turns out to be a long Christmas night’s dream, they
travel to the Land of Memory, the Palace of Night, the Graveyard, and the
Kingdom of the Future, but although they often glimpse a bluebird, they
can never quite capture it. “The one of the Land of Memory turned quite
black,” laments the young boy, “the one of the Future turned quite pink,
the Night’s are dead and I could not catch the one in the Forest. … Is it
my fault if they change color, or die, or escape? . . . Will the Fairy be an
gry and what will she say?” “We have done what we could,” is the answer.
“It seems likely that the Blue Bird does not exist or that he changes color
when he is caged.”
Returning home?or, depending on your reading, awakening from
their dream on Christmas morning?they discover that their pet turtle
dove, a caged bird they have undervalued and overlooked, is in fact colored
blue: “Hullo, why it’s blue! … it’s much bluer than when I went away! …
Why, that’s the blue bird we were looking for! . . . We went so far and it
was here all the time!”
Our modern cliche about the bluebird of happiness comes from this
play, which was first performed in 1908 at Constantin Stanislavsky’s Mos
cow Art Theatre. As you can see, it is a close relation of J. M. Barrie’s Peter
This content downloaded from on Tue, 21 May 2019 14:17:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Pan, written at about the same date. (Barrie’s first book about Peter was
in fact called The Little White Bird.) But what I want to underscore here is
that the children of this story needed to travel around the world, and to
the worlds of the past and the future, in order to recognize that what they
had been seeking was at home with them all along. They had neglected or
failed to value it, because it seemed so ordinary.
Their bluebird, when they finally put it to work in the world, giving it
to the neighbor’s child and curing the child’s illness, ultimately escapes. At
the end of the play, one of the children addresses the audience, charging
them with the task of finding and returning the bluebird: “If any of you
should find it, would you be so very kind as to give it back to us? . . . We
need it for our happiness, later on….” Curtain.
Whether this play is a parable about empty signifiers, the return of the
repressed, the unattainability of desire, or the spirit of Christmas depends
on the reader, the context, and the performance. The very phrase “blue
bird of happiness,” which does not appear in the play, seems to foreclose
a decision; the search remains open. But let me draw our attention first to
the neglect and then to the escape of the bird. Where has it been all along?
Where does it go? Which is the home, and which is the world?
In 1962, the French structural anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss coined
the phrase “good to think with.” It has been so successful that it is now,
arguably, almost meaningless, something between a tautology and a cli
che. Among the concepts, objects, theories, practices, and organs that have
been recently declared by scholars to be “good to think with” are femi
nism, science, architecture, taxes, the body, food, hypertext, networks, the
liberal tradition, capitalism, and the brain.
Scholars and theorists are drawn to this phrase, I think, because it has
a certain validating power: it explains, or purports to explain, why we do
what we do and why it matters. It seems, that is to say, to explain the work
of the humanities to the world. As if the humanities were not in the world,
not the same as the world, not the language of the world.
No phrase I know of has been more consistently footnoted to a list of
secondary sources. That it’s not only attributed to Levi-Strauss but also of
ten as quoted by someone else is a sign not of its elusive nature but rather
of its ubiquity.
The actual citation is in Levi-Strauss’s book Totemism, first published in
French in 1962 and translated into English the following year. The context
is a discussion of what would come to be a central practice of structural
ism: “How to make opposition, instead of being an obstacle to integration,
serve rather to produce it” (89).
This content downloaded from on Tue, 21 May 2019 14:17:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
This formulation is the primal scene of the binary opposition. It comes
to Levi-Strauss as he is reading the work of another anthropologist, A. R.
Radcliffe-Brown, on the persistently interesting and puzzling question of
the totem. The key examples from Radcliffe-Brown are two bird clans,
the eagle hawks and the crows. Levi-Strauss claims that “the animals in
totemism” serve an intellectual and speculative function. They are not,
or not only, objects of symbolism or identification, much less objects of
culinary desire, but part of a structure of thinking. Here is the passage, in
Rodney Needham’s translation:
The animals in totemism cease to be solely or principally creatures which
are feared, admired, or envied; their perceptible reality permits the em
bodiment of ideas and relations conceived by speculative thought on the
basis of empirical observations. We can understand, too, that natural spe
cies are chosen not because they are “good to eat” but because they are
“good to think.” (Totemism 89)1
Bonnes apenser. Animals, Levi-Strauss said, are “good to think [with].”This
phrase is not really a maxim about animals (or science, or feminism, or
hypertext, or any of the other things critics have said are “good to think
with”)?it is not about the referent, the thing in the world; it is a celebra
tion and validation of thinking. Thinking may have its initial impetus in
“empirical observations,” those vital signs of the social sciences, the phys
ical sciences, or the life sciences, but its payoff is in speculation, which
is then reattached to, embodied in, or reembodied in the objects, con
cepts, or beings that gave rise to it. Now the empirical (or edible) facts
reemerge as figures of speech or, more precisely, figures of thought: meta
phors, metonyms, personifications, allegories, categories, oppositions,
analogies?the work product of the humanities.
For Levi-Strauss, this opposition was central, because it allowed one to
categorize and interpret elements of culture. The next move, which has
proved equally important to theoretical work in the humanities, is to ques
tion the boundary between the terms of the opposition, and to use that
questioning as a way of thinking beyond an impasse.
What impasse can Levi-Strauss’s opposition (“not because they are
‘good to eat’ but because they are ‘good to think'”) help us think beyond?
In our case, it is the demand that the humanities be useful, that they dem
onstrate their utility either in terms of dollars and cents or of power, be it
ethical, moral, religious, therapeutic, or ameliorative. This is one meaning,
though not the only meaning, of “the humanities at work in the world.”
Are the humanities “good to eat” or “good to think with”? Before we
can refuse this opposition, we should at least examine it.
This content downloaded from on Tue, 21 May 2019 14:17:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
“Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to
be chewed and digested,” Francis Bacon famously wrote. His explanation
of this aphoristic statement is less often cited, though it follows immedi
ately: “that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read,
but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and
attention.” Bacon was a courtier, a politician, a diplomat, a philosopher, and
a scientist before that word was invented. His notion of a digested book is
the opposite, we might suppose, of the excerpted snippets in a modern-day
digest?not only the Readers’ Digest, still the best-selling consumer maga
zine in the United States, but also the executive summary, talking points,
and PowerPoint presentations of today. Indeed the most modern sentiment
in Bacon’s essay (“Of Studies”) may be his acknowledgment that “some
books also may be read by deputy, and excerpts made of them by others.”
For another exploration of whether the humanities are “good to eat” or
“good to think with,” we might turn to a poem by Ben Jonson?where we
will encounter another set of totemic birds.
Jonson’s poem “Inviting a Friend to Supper,” written in imitation of a
poem by Martial, makes it pretty clear that the main focus of the meal will
be poetry and conversation. There might be a “short-legged hen / If we
can get her,” but the enjambment makes it less than certain, and the grand
bill of fare is full of ifs:
… though fowl, now, be scarce, yet there are clerks,
The sky not falling, think we may have larks.
I’ll tell you of more, and lie, so you will come:
Of partridge, pheasant, woodcock, of which some
May yet be there, and godwit if we can:
Rnat, rail, and ruff too. Howsoe’er, my man
Shall read a piece of Vergil, Tacitus,
Livy, or some better book to us,
Of which we’ll speak our minds, amidst our meat;
And I’ll profess no verses to repeat.
Godwit, knat, rail, and ruff are all birds. Even the wine to be served at this
supper is bird-themed?a “pure cup of rich canary” (the sweet wine of the
Canary Islands; though the etymology of canary refers to dogs, not birds:
the Canaries were the “Isle of Dogs”). But notice that these edible birds
are all supposititious meals, not real ones (“a hen if we can get her”; “god
wit if we can”; “we may have larks”; “some may yet be there”; “I’ll. . . lie,
so you will come”). The only certain nourishment will come from books:
Vergil, Tacitus, Livy. Good to think with. This is a banquet, or symposium,
for two (plus a literate servant), but the avian fare is elusive. The godwit
This content downloaded from on Tue, 21 May 2019 14:17:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Purchase answer to see full

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.