How Malesic evaluates procrastination as an individual matter project

For Project 2, we have analyzed Tom Hodgkinson’s “After Frankenstein” to uncover his strategies for evaluating Peter Thiel’s declaration that the state of “nature is a hostile force which man uses his ingenuity to overcome” (5), a notion he adapts from Thomas Hobbes’sLeviathan(1651). Hodgkinson defines what he sees as Thiel’s version of man’s ingenuity overcoming nature in the past, contrasting it with recent examples of natureoverwhelming man’s ingenuity. Without noting any current victories for man’s ingenuity, Hodgkinson insists that we are worse off psychologically, particularly in the sphere of work. This work-related miseryalluded to in Hodgkinson is clarified in Tom Malesic’s essay, “America Wants You to Feel Ashamed about Procrastinating. Don’t.” Information in Malesic qualifies (narrows the scope) this miseryas “work’s expansion” (16), “a more collective societal failure” (8), to which people react by procrastinating. In a structure that happens to reflect Hodgkinson’s, Malesic defines the American culture’s historical emphasis on individual productivity—an anti-procrastination value—and briefly examines how the work culture might have collectively pushed productivity too far. In short, Hodgkinson is evaluating Peter Theil’s declaration—after he defines his interpretation of it (“state of nature”)—through criteria he draws from Huxley’s Brave New World, as heobserves phenomena in modern society. Also concerned about this dilemma in modern society, Malesic is evaluating the underlying assumption of psychologists, particularly Piers Steel, that views procrastination as an “individual matter” (9). Self-preservation, in the Hobbesian sense, applies as an underlying assumption for both arguments.

Prompt: For this project, your task is to construct an account of how Malesic evaluates the psychological assumption that procrastination is an individual matter, and use the steps in your account to examine the way Hodgkinson evaluates Peter Thiel. To do this, describe the projects of both Hodgkinson and Malesic; analyze Malesic’s rhetorical strategies before focusing on how Malesic questions the psychologists; then analyze Hodgkinson for how he evaluates Peter Thiel’s declaration. Also insert a comment to include Audre Lorde during your analysis of Malesic or incorporate it into your conclusion. Your analyses of Malesic and Hodgkinson should begin with a clear/accurate presentation (brief overview) of each argument followed by a careful examination of two strategies and their effects through appeals used in the sections you cover to influence the intended reader. The strategies that you cover for Malesic should equate to the strategies you cover for Hodgkinson; this is for overall coherence in your own argument. Finally, use a strategy/information in one of the arguments to evaluate a strategy/information in the other.

Criteria for Evaluation
Successful papers will accomplish the following tasks:
1. Describe for a reader unfamiliar with these texts the common issues relating to self-preservation and modern life in the post-industrial, digital age.
2. Provide a brief introduction to the projects in your two targeted texts (Hodgkinson and Malesic). One to two sentences for each text will suffice. You may paraphrase from this prompt’s opening if you wish.
3. End your introduction with a clear thesis that sets up your analysis & mentions Malesic’s main claim. {1}
4. In one paragraph, give a brief overview of Malesic (modified rhetorical précis with evidence for audience), note context (historical/cultural/economic) and examine how he uses definition and noting exceptions with examples to evaluate Steel’s declaration that Malesic paraphrases as us “becoming less disciplined and more distractible” {2}.
5. In 2-3 paragraphs, analyze the argument by Malesic, for his use of rhetorical strategies (cover definition and noting exceptions at some point) and appeals, addressing the following tasks in an appropriate order:
**Provide a brief sketch of the argument by Malesic, clearly identifying purpose, audience, main claim, historical/cultural context, structure and one key dependent claim, connecting his viewpoint to Hodgkinson’s conclusion that we are worse off; introduce Hodgkinson’s conclusion if you did not insert it into your introduction. (A modified rhetorical précis would work nicely here!) {3}
**Analyze the strategies used by Malesic to develop this dependent claim, including the one you mention in your overview. (Part of this should be able to be linked back to Hodgkinson in a future paragraph.)
? paraphrase or directly quote the dependent claim you will work on;
? describe the type of evidence you see supporting the claim;
? discuss what you see as the development strategy for this evidence;
? note whether the evidence seems to appeal as ethos, logos or pathos; interpret howthe reader might react;
? note a rhetorical device;
? discuss what you see as the purpose strategy for this evidence (how does it add power to this claim);
? evaluate to what degree you find this claim and evidence effective in persuading his intended reader;
? support your analysis with concrete examples (direct and indirect quotes!) from the essay;
? insert a comment at a relevant spot to examine Malesic’s position in comparison to Audre Lorde’s. {3-5}
6. In one paragraph, revisit the strategies of definition and noting exceptions with examples, as used by Malesic. Use this to list the criteria that you will use to examine Hodgkinson’s evaluation of Peter Theil’s take on Hobbes. Compare and contrast Hodgkinson and Malesic for specific rhetorical elements (e.g. referencing literature versus scholarly material; noting ethos of the materials; defining key terms; reflecting real life examples; listing; questioning assumptions; logical reasoning).
**Use the terms “qualify” or “clarify” to transition from an idea in Malesic to a point in Hodgkinson, but avoid asserting that Malesic clarifies Hodgkinson because he neither cites nor quotes Hodgkinson.
**Mention that each author defines a key concept, then compare/contrast how.
**Mention that each author notes exceptions with examples, then compare/contrast how.
**Support your argument using concrete examples (direct and indirect quotes!) from the text.
**Wrap up your analysis by discussing why Malesic’s evaluation of psychologists/Steel is weaker or stronger than Hodgkinson’s evaluation of Theil. {6}
7. Based directlyon your analysis in this paper (highlight interesting insights drawn from your analysis), describe an exciting insight one might gain when focusing on evaluating an argument. Discuss the significance of Hodgkinson’s and Malesic’s arguments and how each argument reflects historical/cultural/economic elements of modern societal ills, and/or ingenuity. Address how each aligns with the underlying assumption of self-preservation, by briefly bringing in Hobbes. Examine a connection with Lorde if it is not in your analysis of Malesic. {7}
8. Use active, strong, and rhetorically accurate verbs when analyzing the authors’ arguments, and avoid generic terms like “text,” “throughout,” “is able to,” “understand.”
9. Support your analysis with direct evidence from the texts, using short direct integrated quotes and paraphrase. When you make an analytical claim, back it up with textual evidence and supporting examples. Avoid unsubstantiated claims and vague references to the texts. Cite the paragraph numbers for quotations and paraphrased material—e.g., (par. #) or (#).
10. Maintain paragraph unity in your analysis paragraphs. Each paragraph should focus on one main analytical idea that is illustrated with short integrated quotes from the text. Each quote and example should be followed by your analysis and commentary.
11. Use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the next (coherence), and thoroughly edit your paper so that sentences and vocabulary are readable and appropriate for an academic audience. Avoid relying on series of short simple sentences as much as possible. Do a careful review for redundancy and wordiness!
12. Read over your feedback for P1FD before you submit your final draft, taking care to avoid the same shortcomings. This is critical for your grade.

Guidelines:
Length: Maximum 2000 words (4 pages maximum).
Format: Follow standard MLA formatting guidelines (Raimes 340-342)
One-inch margins
Double-space text
Use standard 12-point font (e.g., Times, Palatino, Ariel)