The following is a skeletal outline of how I will approach my final project, focusing on the methods and scope I plan to use to create a cohesive rhetorical criticism of my movement.
- Research Question – Given the evolving nature of warfare and contemporary moral landscape of developed nations, is the Anti-War Movement relevant anymore?
- The Anti-War movement has taken several forms and multiple identities throughout human history as a reflection of the struggles of whichever time period it represents. It reemerges in different ways depending on the nature of the conflict it surrounds.
- For the purposes of my analysis, I will narrow the scope of the Anti-War movement to the mid to late 20th, as well as early 21st, centuries. The reason I have selected this period is because it represents massive shifts in the public’s ideology, manifesting itself in protests on grand scales and powerful nonviolent demonstrations. Warfare over these years changed so drastically from how it was previously perceived that citizens who opposed traditional wars were forced to reexamine their beliefs.
- I found that the most effective methodologies to critique the rhetoric of the Anti-War movement are ideological, cultural, fantasy-theme, and narrative.
- Using these methods, I aim to examine my research question which challenges the relevancy of the Anti-war movement in modern society. Do we still need a movement that decries war, when the nature of the conflicts we engage in appear so dissimilar to traditional warfare? Should anti-war advocates oppose counter-terrorism missions or interference to topple dictatorships? Don’t these actions act against the potential for war? These questions pose ethically and ideologically challenging notions that I hope to examine with the methods I mentioned above.