Lesson Report:
## Title
**Narratives, Ambiguity, and Causal Stories in Public Policy (Week 3, Lesson 2)**
This session deepened the class’s work with Deborah Stone’s framework on how policy problems are constructed and framed. Students reviewed narrative framing (Rationality Project vs. Polis, rise vs. decline stories, and ambiguity), then extended this into Stone’s four types of causal stories (mechanical, accidental/natural, inadvertent, intentional). They applied these concepts to media images, to their ongoing Bishkek bus-lane case, and were assigned a homework project on de‑emotionalizing political speeches to uncover underlying policy content.
—
## Attendance
**Students mentioned absent or “not yet� present:** 6
– Aidana – explicitly marked “not here.â€�
– Nusi – called, followed by “not yet.â€�
– Berekia – called, followed by “not yet.â€�
– Shibak – called, followed by “not yet.â€�
– Muqaddas – “has not made it.â€�
– Hadeejah – not physically present; instructor attempted to get her online and noted “she’s still not back here.â€�
*(No later confirmations of arrival were captured in the transcript, so they remain counted as absent/not present for your records.)*
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activities)
### 1. Opening, Attendance, and Homework Setup
**Administrative / Attendance**
– Began by noting this is the **second lesson of Week 3** and that the course remains focused on “ways that policy are made and why those matter.â€�
– Took a detailed **verbal roll call**, marking who is present vs. “not hereâ€�/“not yet.â€�
– Clarified a name preference (Kyle vs. Abu Bakr) and proceeded with Abu Bakr as the name used in class.
– Noted that taking attendance is something the instructor tends to forget, so did it explicitly at the start.
**Homework integration**
– Thanked students who submitted their previous homework (timeline of the Bishkek bus-lane policy) and asked them to **take it out** because it would be used in a later in‑class exercise.
– Mentioned that the **course syllabus is now online** and that students have full access to upcoming course content and expectations.
—
### 2. Conceptual Review: Rationality Project vs. Polis and the Role of Stories
**Review of previous lesson via “captions� from Tuesday**
– Returned to the **captions** students had written at the end of the previous class (Tuesday) and used them to **review core ideas**:
– Two broad camps in thinking about policymaking:
1. **Rationality Project**
– Treats politics and policy as a **science**, governed by repeatable, predictable patterns.
– Emphasis on **scientific evidence and data**:
– If a particular law is applied, people will react in predictable ways.
– Similar problems can be addressed with similar solutions to reliably produce similar outcomes.
– Policy is seen as a domain where, if we repeat the same intervention, we get the same result—like an experiment.
2. **Polis**
– Does not claim the Rationality Project is completely wrong, but argues that it is **incomplete**.
– Highlights that **citizens and their interpretations** matter.
– Data and numbers **do not get interpreted in a purely objective way** by the public.
– People interpret policies through **symbols and narratives**, not just statistics.
**Stories as interpretive frames**
– Reiterated that citizens understand policy via **stories**:
– People attach **narrative frames** to policies—seeing them as part of a broader story about society.
– The instructor reminded students of Tuesday’s discussion that **every policy story tends to be framed as either**:
– **Rise** (improvement, progress, hope), or
– **Decline** (deterioration, crisis, loss).
– Emphasized two important implications:
1. For **policy analysts and students of policy**:
– There is always a **layer of meaning** between raw data (e.g., “number of cars on the roadâ€�) and public interpretation.
– Understanding policy requires understanding how different groups **read** the same facts differently.
2. For **policy advocates and politicians**:
– Long‑lasting or popular policies are often those with the **strongest and most resonant story**, not necessarily the most efficient or technically optimal policy.
– “Good storiesâ€� can mean: believable, emotionally compelling, or symbolically powerful.
**Reminder of previous symbolic exercises**
– Recalled earlier class activities:
– The **rope picture** and the U.S. case about how people across the country interpreted a rope differently, illustrating **symbolic ambiguity**.
– The **factory image**:
– One frame: factory as **economic growth** (jobs, GDP, stable energy).
– Opposing frame: factory as **pollution and environmental harm** (smoke, water contamination).
– These examples illustrated how different political camps tell **competing stories** about the same physical reality.
**Ambiguity as a strategic resource**
– Reviewed the idea of **“ambiguous signalsâ€�** (from last lesson):
– Ambiguity allows policymakers to **appeal to multiple constituencies at once**—a form of **coalition-building**.
– Example: **“Sustainable developmentâ€�**:
– “Developmentâ€� satisfies pro‑growth constituencies: jobs, production, GDP.
– “Sustainableâ€� reassures environmental or climate‑concerned groups: reduced pollution, cleaner technology.
– An ambiguous term lets different groups **see their own preferred meaning** in the same policy package.
– Stressed: policies that succeed politically often **sit in the middle**—framed in ways that different sides can each interpret positively.
—
### 3. Telegram Caption Activity: Practicing Ambiguous Framing
**Set-up**
– Asked students to **open Telegram** (web or app) and navigate to the pictures and captions they had previously posted in groups.
– Instruction: For each captioned image shown in class, students should:
1. Identify **two opposing sides** in the issue.
2. Explain **how the caption attempts to speak to both sides**, or at least how ambiguity might be created.
**Selected examples discussed**
1. **Free Iran / protest image**
– Caption mentioned “the debate around the futureâ€� heating up on both sides.
– Discussion:
– One student (Abu Bakr) initially framed sides as:
– Supporters of the Shah/monarchy.
– Those wanting restoration of another political order (Bahá’à was mentioned; transcription may be imprecise).
– Instructor pointed out:
– Current caption was a bit of an **“objective blanket statementâ€�** that both sides are engaged, but did not strongly articulate the **specific tensions** or ambiguous middle ground.
2. **Virus / vaccine image (Nipah or norovirus)**
– Caption about a **new scientific discovery** and a vaccine.
– Instructor guided them to see:
– One side: pro‑vaccine, viewing the discovery as **protection against a dangerous virus**.
– Other side: **vaccine‑hesitant or anti‑vaccine** people who might interpret it as a threat (e.g., “poison,â€� DNA conspiracy, etc.).
– Feedback:
– The caption as written leaned too **clearly to the “good vaccineâ€� side**.
– Suggested trying to hit the **middle more firmly** to appeal to both sides via ambiguity.
3. **Bobby (Bobbi?) Lane social media/identity case**
– Image of a well-known influencer/figure doing a signature pose.
– Student explanation:
– Issue: he had allegedly **sold his likeness/identity to one company** for a period of time in exchange for ownership stakes later.
– Two interpretations:
– Positive: entrepreneurial freedom; “good for him,â€� monetizing his brand.
– Negative: exploitation or selling out; long‑term risk or loss of autonomy.
– Instructor noted:
– This was a **difficult image** because there is no obvious “problemâ€� visible in the picture; the conflict is more conceptual and interpretive.
4. **K-pop diplomatic couple / foreign relations image**
– Group used this to raise ambiguity in **foreign relations**:
– Are international relationships primarily about **genuine mutual benefit** and cultural exchange?
– Or are they **Machiavellian, purely interest-driven**, and instrumental?
– Instructor acknowledged:
– Many different ways to interpret foreign relations; again, this connects to **narrative choice** in policy.
**Meta‑point of this activity**
– Reinforced that:
– Almost any political or social issue can be framed in ways that **highlight different “sidesâ€�**.
– Ambiguous captions and symbols are tools for **reaching broader audiences**.
– Students are still learning to **balance** the sides; many captions currently skew to one side more than truly sitting in the “ambiguous middle.â€�
—
### 4. From Stories to “Problems�: One-Sentence Problem Statements
**Individual task**
– Students were instructed to:
– Return again to the **Telegram picture library**.
– Choose **one** image.
– Write **one sentence** that states a **policy‑relevant problem** associated with that picture.
– Time limit: about **30 seconds**; simple formulations encouraged.
**Key conceptual bridge**
– Instructor emphasized that **identifying a problem is never purely objective**:
– When we say “this is a problem,â€� we are **implicitly telling a story about why it exists**.
– The **“whyâ€�** behind a problem strongly guides what solution will be judged appropriate.
– This leads into Stone’s typology of **causal stories**.
—
### 5. Mini-Lecture: Stone’s Four Causal Stories
The instructor then systematically introduced Stone’s **four main types of causal stories**, connecting each to a typical **policy solution**:
1. **Mechanical Cause**
– Definition:
– The **system or mechanism itself is broken**.
– Failures stem from flaws in **rules, design, or technical structure**.
– Examples:
– Outdated machines or technology.
– Laws that are poorly written so they do not function as intended.
– Typical Solution:
– **Redesign or rebuild the system**:
– Fix the broken rules, upgrade the infrastructure, adjust procedures so that they work as intended again.
2. **Nature / Accidental Cause**
– Definition:
– The event/problem is caused by **forces of nature** or fundamentally **uncontrollable circumstances**:
– Earthquakes, floods, freak lightning, microbursts, etc.
– Not something that can be fully predicted or completely controlled.
– Typical Solution:
– **Endure or mitigate**:
– Accept that some level of the problem is inevitable.
– Try to **reduce damage** or improve resilience rather than “solveâ€� the problem outright.
3. **Inadvertent Cause**
– Definition:
– Actors were **well‑intentioned**, but their actions produced **unintended side effects**:
– “Good intentions, bad outcomes.â€�
– Typical Solution:
– **Reform or adjust** the policy:
– Tweak implementation, correct side effects, learn from mistakes.
– Keep the core intent, but redesign parts to avoid harmful by‑products.
4. **Intentional Cause**
– Definition:
– The problem stems from **deliberate bad action**—malign actors:
– Greed, corruption, conspiracy, willful negligence.
– Typical Solution:
– **Punish**:
– Sanctions, prosecutions, firing officials, new oversight mechanisms targeting the bad actors.
**Core teaching point**
– Different ways of telling the story of **why** something happened will naturally **steer us toward different types of solutions**.
– In politics, actors often **choose** which causal story to tell in order to justify the solution they prefer.
—
### 6. Matching Student Problems to Causal Stories (Whole-Class Discussion)
**Task**
– Students took the one-sentence problem they had written and:
– Chose which of the four causal stories (mechanical, accidental/natural, inadvertent, intentional) best fit their problem.
– The instructor then **sampled and discussed** several students’ examples, probing how well their chosen story matched and what solution it implied.
**Examples discussed**
1. **Iran protest slogan (“Free Iran�) and oversimplification**
– Student’s problem statement:
– The slogan *“Free Iranâ€�* **compresses a complex situation** into two words, oversimplifying reality.
– Chosen causal story:
– **Inadvertent**.
– Student reasoning:
– Protesters have **good intentions** (political expression, desire for freedom).
– But the oversimplified slogan leads to **unintended negative side effects**:
– Different groups interpret it very differently.
– Potentially increases **hostility and misunderstanding** between different political factions because the slogan is too vague.
– Instructor’s probing:
– Asked the student to articulate:
– The **good intention** (political participation, free expression).
– The **specific harms** (misinterpretation, polarized reactions, failure to convey nuanced demands).
2. **Political instability in Iran**
– Problem statement:
– “Political instabilityâ€� in Iran, linked to the regime and protests.
– Chosen causal story:
– **Intentional**.
– Student’s framing:
– Identified **the regime/government** as the **bad actor** causing instability through its actions.
– Implied solution:
– According to Stone’s framework: **punish** or remove the bad actors.
– The student aligned with this by implying regime change or strong punitive measures.
3. **Rising utility prices in Bishkek**
– Problem statement:
– Utility prices (electricity, water, etc.) in Bishkek are **rising monthly**.
– Chosen causal story:
– Presented as **“accidentalâ€�** or **natural‑like** (something people cannot control).
– Class discussion:
– Student suggested individuals **cannot control** these price rises, likening it to forces outside citizens’ control.
– Instructor clarified:
– “Accidentalâ€� here is **not necessarily meteorological nature**, but still refers to events outside the actors’ predictive or direct control.
– However, this framing implies that the **solution is limited**—mostly **endurance or modest mitigation**, not structural reform.
**Transition to next segment**
– Instructor stressed:
– While some pairings between problems and causal stories feel “natural,â€� **in reality most problems can be framed under multiple stories**.
– Depending on which **facts and dimensions** are highlighted, politicians can recast a problem as mechanical, accidental, inadvertent, or intentional to support their preferred solutions.
– This insight set up the next group‑based activity to **reframe the same policy failure in four different ways**.
—
### 7. Group Work I: Locating Failure in the Bishkek Bus-Lane Policy Cycle
**Link to previous homework**
– Students had previously completed a homework assignment:
– A **timeline of events** for the 2023 **Bishkek bus‑lane policy**.
– They were asked to identify **at which stage in the policy cycle** the policy **failed** (e.g., agenda setting, formulation, implementation, evaluation, etc.).
**Small-group democratic discussion**
– Students formed **small groups (mostly of four, one of three)**.
– Task:
– As a group, **debate and agree** on:
– A **single stage** in the policy cycle at which the bus-lane policy **failed**.
– This step was about **“whenâ€�** in the cycle the failure occurred (before moving on to “whyâ€�).
– Instructor framed this as a small “democratic experienceâ€�: groups had to **negotiate** and **reach consensus**.
—
### 8. Group Work II: Explaining Bus-Lane Failure via Different Causal Stories
**New roles and scenario**
– After groups selected the failure stage, the instructor re-framed their role:
– Each group becomes an **analytical team hired by the mayor of Bishkek, Junushaliev**.
– The mayor’s question:
> “What happened? What went wrong with the bus lanes?�
– The mayor is **not yet asking for solutions**; he wants a clear **explanation of failure**.
**Assigned causal stories by group**
– Each group was **assigned one causal story** and asked to explain **why** the bus lanes failed **in those terms**:
1. **Group 1 (corner group of three women)** – **Mechanical cause**
– Must argue:
– The failure was due to **design/structural flaws** in the bus-lane system itself.
2. **Group 2 (front group of four)** – **Accidental/Natural cause**
– Must argue:
– The failure was due to **forces beyond control**, akin to structural constraints or “acts of nature.â€�
3. **Group 3 (middle group)** – **Inadvertent cause**
– Must argue:
– The policy was **well-intentioned** but produced **unintended negative side effects**.
4. **Group 4 (back/right group)** – **Intentional cause**
– Must argue:
– The failure was due to **deliberate bad actions** (corruption, laziness with ulterior motives, etc.).
– Time allotted: **~6 minutes** for groups to prepare a concise explanation linked to:
– When in the cycle they believe failure occurred, and
– Why, in the terms of their assigned causal story.
—
### 9. Group Presentations: Four Competing Stories of Bus-Lane Failure
Each group presented to the “mayor� (the instructor/class), offering a **policy narrative** that combined **a stage of failure** with **their assigned causal explanation**.
#### Group 1 – Mechanical Failure (System Design and Infrastructure Problems)
– Main argument:
– The bus-lane policy failed due to **mechanical/structural flaws** in the transportation system and policy design.
– Specific points mentioned:
– **Lack of enforcement infrastructure**:
– No or insufficient **cameras** and **fines** to deter cars from entering bus lanes.
– **Drivers ignored markings** because:
– There were no robust **physical or legal deterrents**.
– **Physical infrastructure problems**:
– Bus lanes were **too short** or interrupted, reducing effectiveness.
– Ongoing or poor **road construction** made dedicated lanes impractical or inconsistent.
– **Poor integration into existing infrastructure**:
– Layout did not fit well within the city’s traffic patterns, creating confusion and inefficiency.
– Instructor’s link to solutions:
– If the story is “mechanical,â€� the implied remedies are:
– **Fix the roads** (repair or redesign sections to support true dedicated lanes).
– Install **physical barriers** to prevent car encroachment.
– Improve traffic engineering and signaling.
#### Group 2 – Accidental/Natural Constraints (City Structure as “Given�)
– Main argument:
– The bus‑lane failure was driven by **structural constraints of the city** that operate like a **natural limitation**.
– Specific points:
– The **urban layout** and road network (built largely in Soviet times) is **densely built** and difficult to reconfigure.
– Buildings, narrow corridors, and lack of spare road width create an environment where **dedicated bus lanes are inherently hard to implement**.
– The group framed this as **“baked inâ€�**: something the current administration **inherited** and could not easily change.
– Causal framing:
– The failure is analogous to a **natural or accidental cause**:
– The city’s physical structure behaves like an **external constraint** similar to geography or natural features.
– Implied solution:
– Within Stone’s framework, this story orients toward **enduring** constraints or making **minor mitigations**, as full “fixingâ€� is seen as nearly impossible or extremely costly.
#### Group 3 – Inadvertent Failure (Good Intentions, Bad Side Effects)
– Main argument:
– The policy was **well‑intentioned**—aimed at improving public transport and reducing congestion—but caused **unintended negative outcomes**.
– Likely points (based on transcript fragments and instructor reinforcement):
– Policymakers **wanted**:
– Faster bus travel, higher public transit usage, reduced congestion.
– Unexpected side effects:
– Regular drivers found themselves **forced to use bus lanes** in practice due to chronic congestion; they did not set out to violate rules, but structural realities pushed them into it.
– This contributed to **rule erosion**: once many people use the lane improperly, social norms and enforcement credibility collapse.
– The **policy design and communication** may have underestimated how existing traffic behavior and constraints would interact with the new rules.
– Causal framing:
– No malign intent, but **failure to foresee side effects**.
– Implied solution:
– **Reform** the bus-lane policy:
– Adjust lane locations, lengths, and enforcement to minimize unintended consequences.
– Possibly pair bus lanes with **alternative routes** or complementary measures.
#### Group 4 – Intentional Failure (Corruption, Laziness, and Misuse of Funds)
– Main argument:
– The bus-lane policy failed because of **intentional bad actions** by officials or contractors.
– Specific themes raised:
– **Corruption / financial misconduct**:
– Suggestion that the budget allocated for bus lanes may have been **under‑utilized on purpose** so that excess funds could be **pocketed**.
– Minimal investment in real infrastructure or enforcement.
– **Laziness / willful neglect**:
– Policymakers **knew** the plan was weak or poorly adapted but proceeded anyway, perhaps because:
– Their goal was to **appear active** rather than to actually solve congestion.
– They did not want to invest the necessary effort in planning or stakeholder engagement.
– The group linked this to failure at the **formulation stage**:
– The design of the policy (choice of lanes, resource allocation, etc.) was distorted by corrupt or self‑interested motives.
– Instructor comments:
– Noted that **laziness alone** would normally be ambiguous (could be inadvertent), but combined with **corruption and financial motives** it becomes **intentional**.
– Implied solution:
– Under Stone’s logic, this narrative points toward **punishment**:
– Investigations, anti‑corruption measures, sanctions, and possibly legal action against responsible officials.
**Synthesis**
– Together, the four group presentations illustrated how:
– The **same policy failure** (Bishkek bus lanes) can be told as:
– A mechanical story,
– A natural/accidental story,
– An inadvertent story, or
– An intentional story.
– Each narrative naturally **justifies different policy responses** and different political blame assignments.
– This exercise concretely demonstrated the **political power of causal framing**.
—
### 10. Homework Assignment: De‑Emotionalizing a Political Speech
**Task description**
– Students were assigned their **first major at‑home homework** (separate from in-class work):
**Assignment:**
– Find **one political speech** from anywhere in the world:
– Any country, time period, or level (national, local, etc.).
– Purpose and topic are open.
– Carefully **strip out the emotional language**:
– Identify **emotionally charged rhetoric**, symbolic phrases, and persuasive flourishes used to appeal to audience feelings.
– Remove or neutralize these, leaving a more **plain, analytic formulation**.
– Extract the underlying **policy content**:
– What **problems** does the politician say exist?
– What **solutions** or actions does the politician propose?
– End product: a roughly **one‑page document** that:
– Presents the **de‑emotionalized version** of the speech’s core arguments (problems + solutions).
– The detailed step‑by‑step instructions will be posted on **eCourse**.
**Format and deadline**
– **Length:** about **one page** (instructor explicitly rejected strict word limits).
– **Formatting guidance:**
– ~1 page, **12‑point Times New Roman**, **double-spaced**.
– **Due date:** **Next Thursday** (one week from the lesson date).
– **Submission details and rubric:** to be provided on **eCourse**.
—
## Actionable Items for the Instructor
### High Priority – Before Next Class
– **Post Complete Homework Instructions on eCourse**
– Ensure the **political speech assignment** instructions are clearly uploaded:
– Criteria for selecting the speech.
– Definition/examples of “emotional language.â€�
– What exactly students should turn in (e.g., paraphrase only vs. annotated original + paraphrase).
– Clear expectations for identifying **problems** and **solutions** in the speech.
– Consider adding a **short example** (e.g., 1–2 sentences of an actual speech and a de‑emotionalized rewrite).
– **Clarify Causal Story Types in Writing**
– Upload or distribute a **concise reference sheet** distinguishing:
– Mechanical vs. Inadvertent vs. Accidental (Nature) vs. Intentional causes.
– Explicitly note:
– Accidental/natural = **uncontrollable forces or structural constraints**, not “we didn’t try.â€�
– Inadvertent = **good intentions, unforeseen harms**.
– Intentional = **knowing, self‑interested or harmful actions**.
– This will help students as they apply the framework in homework and later units.
– **Collect and Review Bus-Lane Timelines**
– Gather students’ **bus-lane policy timeline homework** if not already collected.
– Skim to:
– See which **policy stages** students most often identified as the point of failure.
– Identify any **common misconceptions** about the policy cycle stages to address in the next class.
### Medium Priority – Next 1–2 Weeks
– **Plan a Follow-up Discussion Using the Political Speech Homework**
– Design an activity where:
– Students bring their **de‑emotionalized speech summaries**.
– Compare:
– How different politicians construct **problems** (rise/decline, causal stories).
– Which **solutions** they steer toward.
– Optionally, have students **re‑insert alternative emotional frames** to see how narratives shift.
– **Revisit Ambiguity and “Middleâ€� Framing**
– In a future session, provide a short mini‑exercise where:
– Students must write **two highly biased captions** for an image (each from a different side).
– Then write a **deliberately ambiguous caption** that could appeal to both sides.
– This will reinforce lessons from the Telegram caption critique, as several groups still tended to **favor one side** strongly.
### Lower Priority / Ongoing
– **Monitor Engagement and Attendance**
– Note the students listed as absent (Aidana, Nusi, Berekia, Shibak, Muqaddas, Hadeejah) and check for:
– Patterns of recurring absence.
– Any need for outreach or support (especially for students supposed to join online, like Hadeejah).
– **Link Current Content to the Stone Text**
– In future lessons, explicitly cross-reference:
– The **rope** and **factory** imagery with the exact sections in Stone.
– The **causal stories** with the textbook’s terminology and examples.
– This will help students connect classroom exercises to the reading, aiding retention and exam prep.
– **Archive Examples Used in Class**
– Keep a **record of the Telegram images and captions** used (Iran protests, virus/vaccine, influencer identity sale, K‑pop/foreign relations, etc.).
– These can be:
– Reused in later assessments, or
– Incorporated into a **review sheet** that illustrates each type of narrative and causal story.
This report should allow you to quickly reconstruct the lesson’s flow, key teaching moves, and the logic behind each activity, as well as what needs follow-up in upcoming sessions.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: De‑emotionalizing a Political Speech
You will analyze one political speech of your choice and practice stripping away its emotional and symbolic language so that you can clearly see the underlying policy problems and proposed solutions. This builds directly on our lesson about how policymakers use narratives, ambiguity, and emotionally resonant stories (Polis) instead of just “pure data� (Rationality Project) to frame policies.
Instructions:
1. **Choose an appropriate political speech**
1.1. Select one political speech from anywhere in the world.
1.2. Time, place, and purpose are completely open: it can be historic or contemporary, from any country, and on any political topic (e.g., public transport, environment, social policy, foreign policy, etc.).
1.3. Make sure it is long enough to contain a few clear arguments (a short press statement of 3–4 sentences will be too thin; a typical campaign speech, major address, or parliamentary speech is ideal).
1.4. Use a speech where you can find the **full written text** (for example, from a government website, reputable news site, or an official transcript), so you can quote and rewrite accurately.
2. **Record the basic information about the speech**
At the top of your assignment (before your main text), clearly note:
– Speaker’s name
– Position/role (e.g., President of X, Mayor of Y, Party leader, MP, etc.)
– Title of the speech (if it has one)
– Date and place (or at least date and country)
– Where you found the transcript (website or source)
Keep this brief so you still fit within about one page total.
3. **Read the speech for overall meaning**
3.1. Read the speech once all the way through **without taking notes**.
3.2. As you read, ask yourself:
– What general **problem(s)** is the speaker saying exist in the world?
– What **solution(s)** or actions are they proposing?
– Which “storyâ€� are they leaning on: **rise or decline**, crisis or progress?
3.3. Keep in mind our discussion that beneath emotional rhetoric there are usually:
– Descriptions of problems
– Explanations of *why* those problems exist (mechanical, natural/accidental, inadvertent, or intentional causes)
– Suggested solutions or responses
4. **Identify the emotional and symbolic language**
4.1. Read the speech a second time, now **actively marking** emotional or symbolic language. You can either:
– Print it and highlight, or
– Copy-paste it into a document and use bold/underline/colour.
4.2. Mark any of the following as “emotional/symbolic�:
– Highly charged adjectives or adverbs (e.g., “disastrousâ€�, “shamefulâ€�, “heroicâ€�, “gloriousâ€�, “corrupt elitesâ€�, “innocent citizensâ€�)
– Metaphors, images, or stories (e.g., “our nation is on its kneesâ€�, “we will rise from the ashesâ€�, “the heart of our democracyâ€�)
– Slogans and simplified phrases (like the “Free Iranâ€� slogans we discussed)
– Appeals to fear, hope, pride, anger, etc. (e.g., “we must not be afraidâ€�, “our children’s future is at stakeâ€�, “we will not tolerate this any longerâ€�)
– Vague but positive/negative terms that are not specific (e.g., “strong valuesâ€�, “evil forcesâ€�, “real patriotsâ€�, “enemies of the peopleâ€�)
4.3. You do **not** have to mark every single word; focus on phrases that clearly try to **move emotions** or **frame a story**, rather than simply state a fact.
5. **Extract the underlying problems and solutions**
5.1. On a separate page or section (for yourself), list:
– The main **problem(s)** the speaker says exist.
– The main **solution(s)** or policy actions the speaker proposes (laws, programs, reforms, punishments, etc.).
5.2. For each major problem, ask:
– How is the speaker implicitly explaining *why* this problem exists?
– As a **mechanical** failure (system/rules/design are broken)?
– As a **natural/accidental** cause (beyond human control, like fate or “the global economyâ€�)?
– As an **inadvertent** cause (good intentions but bad side effects)?
– As an **intentional** cause (bad actors, corruption, conspiracy, enemies)?
You don’t have to write out this full analysis in detail, but you should understand it in your notes, because it will help you rewrite the speech in neutral terms.
6. **Rewrite key parts of the speech in neutral, non‑emotional language**
This is the core of the assignment.
6.1. Select **the most important parts** of the speech (you do not need to rewrite the entire speech word-for-word; focus on the sections where the main problems and solutions are stated).
6.2. For each selected passage:
– Start from the original text.
– Remove emotional adjectives, metaphors, and appeals to identity, pride, fear, etc.
– Replace them with **precise, factual, or neutral wording** that preserves the basic meaning:
– Who is doing what?
– What problem is being claimed?
– What action is being proposed?
6.3. Aim to keep:
– The **same policy content** (same problems and solutions),
– But without emotional colouring or storytelling.
6.4. Example (fabricated, just to illustrate the method):
– Original: “Our brave citizens are being crushed under the unbearable weight of a corrupt system that serves only the rich.â€�
– Neutral rewrite: “Many citizens experience financial hardship, which the speaker attributes to economic and political rules that they believe disproportionately benefit high‑income groups.â€�
6.5. As you rewrite, pay attention to:
– Removing **rise/decline drama** while keeping the factual claims.
– Making ambiguous terms more specific, or at least clearly descriptive rather than emotional.
– Avoiding value judgments such as “goodâ€�, “evilâ€�, “traitorousâ€�, “heroicâ€�, unless you translate them into neutral descriptions (e.g., “the speaker characterizes this group as…â€�, “the speaker claims that…â€�).
7. **Write your one‑page assignment**
You will now turn your work into a **short written piece of about one page**, formatted as specified.
Suggested structure (adapt this to fit within one page):
7.1. **Header (2–3 lines)**
– Basic information about the speech (speaker, role, date, title/source) as in Step 2.
7.2. **Very brief summary (2–4 sentences)**
– Describe in neutral terms what the speech is about:
– What main problem(s) it highlights.
– What main solution(s) it proposes.
7.3. **De‑emotionalized version of key parts (the main body)**
– In one or two short paragraphs, present your **neutral rewrite** of the core of the speech:
– Describe the key problems in unemotional, descriptive language.
– Describe the proposed solutions or policy actions in the same way.
– You may briefly refer to original rhetoric using phrases like:
– “In the original speech, the speaker describes the current situation as a ‘disaster’. In neutral terms, this can be expressed as…â€�
– But keep quotations brief so you stay within one page.
7.4. **Mini reflection (2–4 sentences)**
– In a final short paragraph, connect your rewrite to our course concepts, for example:
– Comment on how much of the original speech was emotional narrative (Polis) versus concrete data/solutions (Rationality Project).
– Note which type(s) of causal story the speaker relied on (mechanical, natural/accidental, inadvertent, intentional).
– Briefly state how removing emotional language changed your perception of the policy being proposed.
Keep the total length to **about one page** of text.
8. **Formatting and length**
8.1. Length: around **one page** of text. If you are slightly over or under, that is fine as long as the work is complete.
8.2. Font: **12‑point Times New Roman**.
8.3. Line spacing: **double‑spaced**.
8.4. Use normal margins and standard paragraph formatting; no need for a separate title page.
9. **Submission and deadline**
9.1. Submit your completed assignment by **next Thursday’s class**.
9.2. Ensure you have:
– Clearly identified the speech.
– Demonstrated that you have removed emotional language from the core arguments.
– Shown that you understand the underlying problems and solutions in neutral terms.
– Included a brief reflection linking your work to the concepts discussed in class (Rationality Project vs. Polis, narratives, causal stories).
Follow these steps so that, when you read your own final text, you can see clearly what the politician is actually claiming and proposing once the emotional “story� is removed.