For your next essay, you will describe and analyze a particular paradigm and then form a critique of that paradigm. You choose which paradigm to analyze, so long as

1.) it is a specific social group you are at least somewhat familiar with and 2.) you get your paradigm approved by me before writing your paper.

(If you do not feel you understand what a “paradigm” is, re-read the online lecture “Intro to Paradigms.”)

Paradigms relating to sports teams and religions are not allowed. If you have a paradigm indirectly associated to sports or religion but is not belonging to a specific

team nor specific religion, that’s ok. (Example: Member of the Mt. SAC football team = not ok; coach of Pee Wee football = ok; member of the Church of Latter Day

Saints = not ok; camp counselor at a Mormon summer camp = ok). (Note: If you earned a B or A on the last paper and if you make a strong case that you can write an

excellent analysis of a sports team or religion, then email me and I will consider making an exception for you.)

Your paradigm can be almost any group who shares a collective point of view towards a particular field: a group who share the same work or profession; a particular

club or organization’s members; people who belong to the same sporting team; a group of people who share the same hobby or past-time activity; people who share the

same major in school; any specific religious or political group; a subculture of some kind; enthusiasts or fans of any kind, etc.  Be creative, but again, choose a

paradigm you know in some manner.

You must pick this paradigm by the end of class of our week seven meeting.

Once your paradigm choice is approved, describe and analyze that paradigm in depth and detail.  (See the details of how to do this on the essay advice below once

you’re ready to write.)

The more detailed your answers, the better. Research is highly encouraged.

Your next task is to use what you’ve described to raise problems or point out negative effects of  your paradigm. As a general start, ask yourself if the paradigm

seems psychologically healthy for its members or not; if not, explain why not. Present at least two main effects, one paragraph per effect. (For anyone aiming for an

“A” paper, I suggest going after three effects for a more thorough critique.)

Since you have early advance knowledge of this question, you can technically begin writing this paper immediately.  Read the lectures to help guide your analysis.

Advice

This advice isn’t going to matter to you until you sit down to write seriously. Only consider this advice, then, when you start to have questions about structure or

how to go about writing this paper more specifically.

INTRODUCTION:
First, explain the bare basics of what your paradigm is about to establish your topic clearly and directly. Launch into these basics in the very first sentence—no

set-up or “hook.”

Next, quickly sum up how people typically view the members of this paradigm. What is the traditional perception of the paradigm by outsiders?

Directly after that, briefly state whether that general perception is accurate or not, based on your analysis. This will help you pivot toward your thesis statement.

State a thesis. The thesis statement in this paper has two parts: one part to quickly summarize your analysis of the paradigm and a second part to mention three

“critique points”—that is, your evaluation and opinion, negative or positive, of three aspects of the paradigm you are about to analyze.

BODY PART 1: ANALYSIS
Your analysis is meant to break down your paradigm into specific details in order to describe it and offer insights about its nature. You have considerable

freedom in which specific areas of analysis to choose, so select which fit your topic and the ones for which you have sufficient information. Organize your analytical

data into paragraphs where each paragraph focuses one particular aspect of your paradigm, aspects such as the following:
•    HISTORY of the paradigm—its origin, background information. History can take any one (or more) of three forms: DEEP history (the traditions, stretching back in

time for decades or even hundreds of years, leading to your parad igm today); RECENT history (the trends and main developments that have influenced your paradigm in

the past 10 years or less); and PERSONAL history (your own “origin story” of how you came to belong to this paradigm, how you became an insider).
•    INSIDERS/ MEMBERS of the paradigm—who are these people exactly? What are they like psychologically (emotionally, intellectually, attitude, lifestyle) and in

terms of their relationships (to other insiders and also to outsiders)?
•    GOALS—both superficial (the obvious ones everyone admits to) and deep and hidden (the less obvious ones that no one likes to talk about)
•    ASSUMPTIONS, EXPECTATIONS, and GENERAL THINKING within the paradigm. What ideas do the insiders take for granted? What do they expect to happen? What other

forms of thinking or logic do you notice about this paradigm?
•    COMPARE and CONTRAST—note the similarities and especially the differences between this paradigm and any one or more related to it.
•    LANGUAGE—insider lingo, specialized terminology, words with unique meanings to members, “insider” talk, anything relating to how insiders communicate and

articulate themselves within the paradigm.
•    DAY IN THE LIFE—walk the reader through a typical day in the life of an insider. If it is a job-related paradigm, for example, walk through a typical work

shift. If it is a music-related paradigm, walk through a music concert, for instance. Describe not just the physical components of the experience but your emotional

and psychology ones, too. Walk through the preparation for the day, the day or experience itself, and the aftereffects.
•    EXTREME CASES—if applicable, describe the more radical or extreme elements of your paradigm and discuss how these extreme cases affect the moderate insiders.
•    Two things will make this analysis strong: details and insight. Details include vivid descriptiveness, specific details, and most important of all, examples.

Insight means that you are including observations that are interesting and deep, ideas beyond the obvious and superficial, ideas that reflect thoughtful and deeper

observation. If an outsider can guess what you’re saying, it is too obvious; if an outsider would be surprised to read what you are sharing, that’s a good sign you are

being insightful.

BODY PART 2: CRITIQUE
The critique portion of your paper follows your analysis immediately, with no page break or subheading; the critique starts in the paragraph right after the last

paragraph of your analysis, in other words.

You will present two different critique points (maybe three, if you’re aiming for an A-level paper). A “critique point” is a specific negative opinion that you state

about this paradigm. I do not want you to critique the truth or falsehood or the validity or absurdity of this social paradigm; I instead want you to address the

paradigm’s effects on its members, psychologically (emotional well being, stress level, personal satisfaction, quality of relationships such as family, marriages,

friendships). Separate your critique points into separate paragraphs. And if you have more than two critique points, by all means include them.

Be sure to explain and support your opinion with reasons and examples. These paragraphs may be fewer than those in the analysis, but this critique is key to showing me

your level of independent and critical thinking, so devote proper time and detail to your reasoning here.

CONCLUSION:
In direct response to your negative critique points, offer proposals for reforming or correcting those problems. Explain why your proposal will make the

paradigm better.

GENERAL ADVICE:

•    Your paradigm MUST be approved by me. Any paper about any paradigm that I did not expressly approve of will receive no grade. Once your topic is posted or

approved, that’s it—you’re locked in as if I had assigned you that topic. No second guessing or changes at the last minute.
•    Follow MLA guidelines for citing research, including a Works Cited page. Personal stories and experiences require no citing, but personal interviews need to

include names and dates for the Works Cited page (if you wish to keep subjects anonymous, ask me how to proceed).
•    Since your critique is negative overall, try make the ideas of your paper speak of the problem rather than any emotionalism. It’s normal to include personal

experience and feelings, but if overdone, negative passion can make the essay seem like a rant rather than an educated opinion.
•    There is no minimum or maximum page length. It is likely, however, that your paper is longer in order to include all the details and examples it needs to be

strong. If your essay is four pages or shorter, that is probably a red flag that you are not including enough detail.