When and where did this image appear and for what purposes was it made? What meaning does it hold for those involved in producing the image, viewing it, or circulating it? (See page 319 of Writing Moves for an expanded version of this question.)
What ritualized displays of identity are presented in this image? Remember that while the displays from The Codes of Gender identified displays related to gender, you may consider other elements of identity here as well (race, socio-economic class, regional identity, sexuality, and so forth). It may be interesting to harken back to Jacksons essay from Unit 2 here, as well, as you think about the impact of what Goffman calls commercial realism on viewers.
In what ways is visual grammar working here? Return to Ch 14s terms of visual design here.
How is audience addressed? For this question, you may find it useful to return to the Imagining Readers Badge for prompts relating to the beliefs and demographics that a text addresses in relation to an intended audience.
How is meaning performed here? Remember that in Chapter 14 we see multiple people performing the identity of Rosie the Riveter to convey specific meanings through memes, advertisements, or for personal use. If you have selected an image that has a larger cultural meaning, like Rosies image, how is your text working within this textual ecology?
Your final paper should be a minimum of 1000 words long.

Please read: Osbourne , Archetypal Metaphors (see attached)
Please read the rhetorical artifact analysis paper: The Simpsons (see attached)

Provide a summary of the relevant arguments from the Osbourne article, including quotes and key terms.

Then, in your next paragraph, explain how the findings in the rhetorical artifact analysis paper (The Simpsons)  help you respond to these arguments. Explain how you plan to respond: will your analysis offer additional support to the original argument, apply the claim/argument more widely or extent it to a new kind of artifact, disagree about the classification, point out an oversight or overgeneralization? In other words, explain how your analysis helps you talk back to that original argument. Provide some details and textual evidence to help your reader understand the point you’re trying to make. 

Here’s an example summary-and-response argument paragraph to give you a more concrete sense of what you’re aiming for: 

Source: Michael C. McGee, “The “Ideograph”: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66.1 (1980): 1-16. Print.

-Summary Paragraph: In this article, McGee introduces the term ideograph. Usually a single word or short phrase, ideographs are one-term sums of ideology. More specifically, McGee argues that the ideograph is based upon a way of thinking that possesses both symbolic and material value, so it allows us to more clearly identify positive and negative frames in political discourse. McGee states that human beings are conditioned, not directly to belief and behavior, but to a vocabulary of concepts that function as guides, warrants, reasons, or excuses for behavior and belief…when a claim is warranted by such terms…it is presumed that human beings will react predictably and autonomically (McGee, 6).  Such a “vocabulary of concepts” is culturally specific; because cultures differ so vastly, no cultures ideographs or political discourse are exactly the same. Ultimately, McGee argues that ideographs both unite and divide us, and when an ideograph is not used in its normal manner, society will oftentimes inflict stigma upon those who stray from the norm. 

-Response Paragraph: In my analysis, I will apply McGees notion of the ideograph to analyze the notion of marriage. More specifically, I plan to equate the ideograph of equality with that of marriage  like equality, marriage is an ideograph that unites our society. Nearly everyone can say that they support it; however what equality (or marriage) actually means is ambiguous and ill-defined. The debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most current and prominent issues of equality that our nation is facing, which, in turn, gives us a need to analyze the notion of marriage. I will use my analysis of my artifact (Rachel and Marys wedding) to argue that their union was an extremely powerful rhetorical performance that proved how the notion of marriage possessed characteristics of a socially constructed ideograph: marriage contains aspects of both materialism and symbolism, it is constantly changing, it warrants the use of power, and it conditions us to ideologies and sets of beliefs (for example, that lust is bad unless safely contained with marriage, and that people who are unmarried are dangerous, immature or irresponsible). I will argue that Rachel and Marys wedding shows in our evolving society we must and already are – re-examining the ways that we view and perceive the “ideograph of marriage”.