Paper 3 (Connection)

Assignment
Learning goals: As you move towards being able to make your own contributions to an academic conversation, you must develop the ability to summarize and characterize

the conversation up to this point, what is often called a “literature review.” The purpose of such a characterization is to set up the need for your contribution.
Summaries of an academic conversation usually go in one of two directions. They may focus on a disagreement in the claims, reasons, or possibly even evidence used by

different authors. This means that there is an unresolved problem in the conversation, which in turn creates a need for your contribution to address. Alternatively,

they may identify a general consensus or agreement that exists in the conversation, which then allows you to argue for a new implication or added level of knowledge.
General Structure: In a typical “literature review” authors may make a connection between two texts in a single sentence or a single paragraph. Sometimes, however,

scholars will make their whole paper about the way in which two texts relate. In this case, the issue is a significant one that both texts address and that the reader

of your paper should therefore also be interested in. Thus the paper begins by making the reader aware of the issue and how the two texts address it.  The rest of the

argument may take one of two forms.
1.    The problem can be one that both texts address. Your characterization of the two texts will help resolve the problem more clearly than either author’s single

contribution. Your resolution to the problem may show that the two texts disagree but only one is right (unresolved problem); or your resolution could also show how

they agree and that together they provide stronger evidence for the solution to the problem (general consensus).  Your conclusion will often look beyond the solution

and talk about the implications of the solution.
2.    Alternatively, the problem may be an expectation that readers could have about how the texts should relate, which you then argue is false.  In this case you

must start by establishing why readers might expect the two authors to agree or disagree. Then you make a claim that in fact the opposite is true. The conclusion of

this type of argument usually then explains how the “real” truth suggests a solution to the problem addressed by the two texts or even by a problem that the reader had

not been aware of.

Your assignment: For your paper, connect one of the following pairs of authors using one of the above patterns.
Option 1:
Trent, B. (2007). Media in a capitalist culture. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 9(1). doi:10.7771/1481-4374.1032
Vargas Llosa, M. (2001, January 1). The culture of liberty. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2001/01/01/the_culture_of_liberty
Option 2:
Giddens, A. (1999). Lecture 1: Globalisation – London. Reith Lectures 1999. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith1999/lecture1.shtml#top
Vargas Llosa, M. (2001, January 1). The culture of liberty. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2001/01/01/the_culture_of_liberty
Option 3:
Vargas Llosa, M. (2001, January 1). The culture of liberty. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2001/01/01/the_culture_of_liberty
Tomlinson, J. (2003). Globalization and cultural identity. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), The global transformations reader (2nd ed., pp. 269–277). Oxford, UK: Wiley-

Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.polity.co.uk/global/pdf/GTreader2eTomlinson.pdf

Expound on the topic