Participants: Ully, Caitlin


*Find the thesis. What is the author's main claim? What are the supporting claims (on what assumptions is the claim predicated? what are the implications?) How long is the thesis? How many claims comprise the author's general purpose for writing?

- Carnivalesque public protest as a potential catalyst for social change among less politically and economically powerful groups
- Supporting claims:
- Effective throughout Western Europe– provides examples from multiple time periods
- Creates window for opportunity to generate media coverage
- Certain conditions lend themselves to allowing the carnivalesque to succeed


*What tactic(s), phenomenon(s), community(ies) is the author studying? What theoretical lens(es) is s/he using to unpack his/her case study?

- Bruner is examining carnivalesque tactics, which include a critical inversion of official hierarchies, an attitude of creative disrespect and a retextualization of social formation
- The communities being examined include the serfs of the middle ages, WTO protestors
- Theoretical lens = Habermas, Baber, Zizek, Bahktin, Neitzsche, Foucault, Eagleton


*How does the author negotiate rhetoric as embodied praxis? How does s/he make the case for a body rhetoric? In what sort of relationship does the author place this sort of rhetoric with language? (and/both, in place of, before/after)?
- Argues carnivalesque is embodied rhetoric, author makes case citing instances when carnivaliesque tactics are successful as compared to non-carnivalesque tactics at generating media coverage
- On language: “there is a very interesting and thououghgoing relationship between language in use and political formations, both ideational and institutional” (p. 150)
Bahktin considers joking, laughter, etc. as the language being used by the protestors utilizing the carnivalesque approach. The “language” here is what we use our bodies to communicate


*How is the article organized? What "sections" can you (or has the author already) broken the article into? Describe the "content" of each section. (Lit. review of XXX. Example that shows YYY)

1.) Intro
2.) General Characteristics of Political Carnival
3.) Carnivaleque Protests and Their Window of Opportunity
4.) Humor, Corruption and Critical Theory


*Examine the introduction and the conclusion. What happens in each, both in terms of content and form.

*What concepts/key terms does the author overtly define? How does s/he do it? Does s/he insert another theorist's definition and let it stand on its own? Does s/he use, but then qualify/adjust an excepted definition? Does s/he offer an original definition?

*Clip a good example of the author's rhetorical analysis of his/her chosen site, tactic, phenomenon. Detail how the author describes the site, tactic, phenomenon. Does this happen in a prior section in detail and then in brief alongside the analysis? The opposite? Does the author introduce us to the site, tactic, phenomenon as s/he analyzes it? What does s/he draw on to make her/his analysis? What does "rhetorical analysis" look like?