Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. “The Danger of a Single Story.” Ted.com, TED Talks, July 2009, www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language=en.

This TED talk discusses the theme and dangers of a single story, where one   shouldn’t be focusing on a single story and the harm in doing this. By focusing on the theme of the dangers of a single story, her point of bringing awareness and light to her audience about identifying more than just one point of view towards a subject, is made. These single stories that are created may be due to unawareness of the issue but it can greatly harm and suppress other groups due to prejudice. Adichie makes the point that certain by hearing about a single story of a culture or a race or any topic can distort one’s view of the reality of the issue. Over history, she states that many cultures have been subject to this prejudice and distortion because of another person or culture’s discretion.This source is valuable, being it gives outside ideas and narratives not related to the research topic. This would allow for an outside look and its use as a lens for the research topic. However, this also serves as a weakness because of how it isn’t superficially related to the topic of political polarization. Adichie’s talk would allow me to give more analytical evidence towards my topic. I would be able to explain the dangers of taking a single point of view towards other people and judging them based on that, turning the ideals Adichie provides into a lens that fits into politics. 

 

C-SPAN. “First 2020 Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.” YouTube, 29 Sept. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ.

This youtube video shows the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Here, they discuss different issues that were pertinent during that time and were each given time to discuss their points and debate with each other. This debate shows a theme of looking closely into what is really occurring. Two presidential candidates are presented during their first 2020 debate. However, it can be seen how increasingly different their debate is from other presidential debates. By looking closely and analyzing this debate, the true meaning of what is occurring can be identified. This source would be useful by giving a primary event where the audience can see polarization in effect. The video illustrates how professionalism has left even the highest orders of our society and is not just sectioned in the general population. I wanted to use this source to exemplify how the different parties act towards each other in the present. This debate shows almost no professionalism, with the two candidates continuously insulting each other. This is very different from how previous presidential debates went, showing how polarized the country is becoming. 

Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11, no. 1, June 2008, pp. 563–88. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836.

This peer reviewed article written by Morris Fiorina and Abrams Samuel explains the way polarization has been analyzed in the US. The paper tells about the different geographical areas in the US and how polarization has taken over those areas. The researchers also give evidence-based data to back their research. In this paper, it is evident that their argument is that there is polarization in the US and it is spreading geographically. They also make evidence-based conclusions of the amount of people who are in each party and how they respond to others in different parties. Although this paper is very strong in the way it is able to present data about the topic of polarization, there isn’t too much analysis that comes from the authors themselves but rather from other sources. However, the amount of factual data from the citizens that is shown is extremely useful. This text is meant to give factual evidence towards my topic. It provides different reasons for how politics have become increasingly polarized and gives data and statistics that provide evidence towards the overall point.

Hacking, Ian. “Making up People.” London Review of Books, 17 Aug. 2006, www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n16/ian-hacking/making-up-people.

This lecture gives its own theme of the “Looping Effect” that can be seen in society and what that is a social construct. Ian Hacking identifies this construct and describes how its effect is seen in the way humans make decisions every day. It exemplifies exactly what the Narrative Medicine course tries to push, identifying different aspects of society and knowing how this affects us. The author does not exactly have an argument for polarization but rather functions as an analytical text for different ideas and concepts, with a main purpose of being a lens for this research paper. This paper is very strong in the resources and knowledge it provides as a lens piece. However that is the only useful function it serves for this paper. I want to use this source as a lens or a text that gives evidence as to why these different instances in our political society occur. By introducing the idea of the “Looping Effect”, Hacking shows how classifications are made about people and these people slowly begin to identify with that classification. We can see this occurring in politics, where classifications and stereotypes are made between the two major political parties and the parties become so polarized that they start to identify themselves with these classifications and begin agreeing with their ideals.

Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. “History of U.S. Political Parties”. New York. Chelsea House Publishers. 1973

This source extends the theme of being able to find sources and historical evidence of a topic being researched. This book continues different historical texts from 1789 to 1860 about how the two major political parties began and how they’ve changed over the years. In this text, the author doesn’t make a singular argument but takes in documents and historical pieces about both political parties and lists them out. It is seen that he does not take a position but rather takes on a neutral position in order to better address the differences between the parties and give adequate information on how each is structured and some events that have occurred concerning both parties. This source functions as an artifact that gives information on both major political parties from the beginning of their immersion and how they’ve been changing. However, the book only has information up to 1860 and does not have any current information about the parties. I want to use this artifact as a way to show the beginning of the two parties and how vividly different they are from the current state of the two major political parties. By showing the beginning ideologies of the two parties, it would be possible to compare it to the ideologies of Democrats and Republicans in the present. 

“Inside the Capitol Hill Riots – YouTube.” Www.youtube.com, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfP_5L8epow.

This video depicts one of the occurrences that happened because of those on the extreme right, where they illegally stormed the capitol building. It’s able to give first hand evidence of this occurring and serve as a primary artifact. This source doesn’t have a position or argument but rather serves as a video giving evidence towards the argument that there is political polarization in the US. This source is useful in terms of it providing information as a primary source, giving a real event that contributes to the point being made. However, it is not able to provide any analysis of that event that happened but only shows what happened during the invasion. This source’s use was to be another piece of evidence towards the extreme events that have occurred due to how polarized our country has become. Extremists have been created on both political sides and this case shows how republican extremists go as far as invading a Federal building.