Political Narratives Paper.
Sociopolitically speaking, we live in a complicated time. Now, before you jump the gun and assume this paper will be about politics, take a deep breath! It’s not a political paper, per se; rather, in this case, we’re all going to take off our pundit caps and critically analyze two opposing narratives that are being disseminated in the political arena. If you don’t follow politics, don’t worry – I’m going to include some sample topics below. For others, you are welcome to choose an issue that’s of interest to you – as long as it falls within the scope and parameters of this assignment. To recap some of the important points from the reading, we know that political communication is often constructed in a narrative format; stories that are riddled in conflict and complete with dramatic “plots” that people feel profoundly connected to. Even if a specific issue doesn’t affect us personally, we nevertheless include ourselves and our livelihood simply by association. Not only do we become immersed in a particular political narrative, but we internalize them into our core set of beliefs and build them into our mental models. We live in a time where this “practice” has become so enmeshed into our lives that we’ve lost a sense of nuance to complicated issues. More than ever, we now think about political events, and people with different political ideologies as black or white, good or bad, one or the other; the Hatfields or the McCoys…with no room left for nuance or grayscale. Indeed, these differences, while internally nuanced, become talking points that sever relationships and hinder our ability to peacefully and productively interact with one another. For this paper, you are asked to objectively, and without bias, compare and contrast two competing narratives that are/have been publicly disseminated by U.S. politicians. You will either identify your own, or select from the list below, two narratives that focus on a core issue, but are presented and described in very different ways. For each narrative, you must describe the target audience and the characteristics (objectively speaking—no pejorative commentary) that makes them (or would make them) receptive to a particular message. In your paper, you must address the following: What “story” is being conveyed in each narrative? What is the “arch” of the story/the possible future events that could unfold if the narrative were to play out in a predicted way? What mental models do you think are employed by each respective audience member that causes them to view the world (and their supported politician’s narrative) the way they do? What cognitive representations do you think they hold that makes them see the world so differently? How does the medium (i.e., email, twitter, television commercial) of the communication affect the degree to which the public gets transported? Why? What factor(s) do you think mediate one’s susceptibility to feel completely invested in outcomes and events that would never have any direct effect on them? How can the narratives you selected play out in such a way that it makes productive communication with others virtually impossible? (Again, think of the “black or white; one or the other” example discussed above). How can we re-introduce “nuance” to political conversations without having a breakdown in said communication?