When we analyze the content of primary source material -- in this case we are using images -- there are four steps that we should go through: (1) we should present the factual context; (2) we should describe the image; (3) we should interpret the image; and (4) we should evaluate the image.
I will walk you through this process.
The Factual Context
When we discuss the factual context of an image we must be careful to just present the relevant facts, and to minimize opinion. There will be plenty of room to discuss our opinions later. Typically, the factual context is confined to identifying the "who, what, when, and where" that is represented by the primary source you are working with.
The question of "why" usually takes us more into the realm of opinion, so we try to avoid asking "why" questions until after we have gotten our objective and factual descriptions nailed down.
Below you will see examples of each of the four steps involved in writing about primary source material. The regular print shows what I would write to meet the requirements for an assignment; the italicized print reveals the moves I am making when I am writing.
The first step is to provide the factual context.
Factual Context: On April 15th, 2013 two bomb explosions were detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Two people died and more than 170 people were injured. Within the first 72 hours, no suspects had been identified and no one claimed responsibility for the bombings. No motive could be discerned. In the immediate aftermath of the attack many laypersons and professional journalists began to create a narrative and frame the events. They began to "spin" what little information they had in order to satisfy the public's need to have an explanation for what had happened.
In a post in my "Current History" blog I reviewed eight initial reactions that appeared on the internet, including professional and social media commentaries. At some point you may want to see my comments on how people "framed" this event within its first 24 hours. Note that in that blog post I focused more on interpretation than on description and evaluation because I was writing a larger piece that relied heavily on synthesizing content rather than analyzing it. If you read the piece closely, however, you will notice that elements of description and evaluation are still there.
The point is that you will have to do some detective work as you are working with these digital artifacts (primary sources). You will have to use the internet to search for additional information to give you the context, background, and various perspectives on what was occurring when the artifact was created and what its creators might have been responding to. You have an artifact, but you will have to dig for additional information about the circumstances in which it was created. This is what a good journalist, or historian, does.
Now, Consider the following image:
The Description
Description: Here you have three women, dressed in clothing that suggests that they are Muslim. Two are in the foreground. One seems to be in her 20s or 30s, and has darker skin than the other, who seems to be in her 50s, or maybe early 60s. They are both holding a sign that suggests they are from Afghanistan because the sign references Kabul, which is the capital of Afghanistan. The sign reads "To Boston From Kabul With Love". The expressions on all three women's faces are somber -- they look serious, even saddened. In the background I see sheets of paper attached to the wall. These sheets of paper seem to have text on them that is written in Arabic, further suggesting the Muslim context.
Notice that the description part of this exercise is mostly factual. I simply describe what is there in the primary source, with minimal interpretation and little or no evaluation of the contents. I take the time to notice details and to write about them. I also draw contrasts and comparisons when they suggest themselves.
Again, it is helpful if you think about this activity as being a kind of "detective work" where you are looking for clues. If, for example, you were puzzled by the name "Kabul", which appears in the artifact, you should look it up so that you will have a better understanding of how to interpret the artifact. Look for the details; they are clues to be explored.
The Interpretation
Interpretation: This image seems to be directed toward an American, or Western, audience. The references concerning Kabul and Boston seem designed to convey a sense of commonality, or shared suffering. At the time of the attack on Boston American military drones were regularly bombing Afghan and Pakistani targets, often killing civilians. In fact, about 24 hours before the bombs went off in Boston 30 people had been killed in Afghanistan in an American drone strike that hit a wedding party. Many of the casualties were children. If this post was directed toward a Western audience, one of the ways it can be interpreted is to express empathy and sorrow to the survivors of the tragedy in Boston -- but, why was the reference to Kabul necessary? This seems to suggest that they want the survivors, or the larger Western audience, to know that the people in Kabul know what the people in Boston were going through. They are expressing empathy with the people of Boston in the hopes that they will get empathy in return.
Who do these women see as being the cause of their suffering? They may be saying that the same people who were suspected of being behind the attacks in Boston are also behind the attacks on civilians in Afghanistan -- this would be groups such as Al Qaeda. An alternative interpretation would be that just as Americans may feel terrorized by Al Qaeda, many people in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia feel terrorized by American military activity in their region -- particularly the drone strikes. In any event, the appeal seems to be for empathy and the sense that people who live in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia do not condone, and do not celebrate, actions of terror.
It is as though they are saying, "We can identify with your suffering, and we want you to identify with our suffering too." They may also be saying, "Look, we weren't responsible for these actions and we do not condone acts of violence."
It is also unlikely that the women in the photo actually posted this digital artifact. In this case the people who posted the artifact were members of a leftist political organization called "The Other 98%". Looking at The Other 98%'s Facebook page and their website one sees that they tend to oppose military spending and military intervention in other countries. This suggests that the image is not simply a goodwill gesture; it is also intended to convey a message about the pain and suffering that inflicted by American military action overseas. This interpretation fits the other positions taken on the organization's webpage.
As you can see, it is very important to search for additional information related to the artifact you are writing about. You will have to do some detective work to flesh out the context, background, surrounding circumstances, and even who created and/or circulated the artifact you are writing about. Your writing, then, is a process of thinking out loud about the detective work you are doing.
There are several things to notice about the "interpretation" stage. Who is the intended audience? First, you will notice that you want to think about who you think the target audience is for the primary source you are examining.
What effect did producers of the artifact want to have on their intended audience? Second, you want to consider what effect you think the people who created, or posted, the primary source intended to have on their target audience.
How can I paraphrase their message? Third, you want to be able to paraphrase the message of the primary source, when there appears to be a message intended. Put the various messages that may be intended in your own words. Frequently, however, primary sources don't have an intended message, or the message may be indirect. When line dancing was the rage, in the mid-1990s, for example, you could see this as a cultural artifact that expressed the desire for group belonging and participation even though that was not explicitly stated in the lyrics of the music. In this sense, the "clue" to the "meaning" was the social function that it served. When there is an explicit message, however, you want to be able to paraphrase it.
Let me examine my assumptions. Fourth, you want to ask yourself a series of questions in order to force yourself to think more deeply and examine your initial assumptions. Any time you have an interpretation, there is a high probability that there will be a very good rival hypothesis. You want to consider multiple ways of interpreting your primary sources.
Who created and distributed this artifact? You have to do some detective work. When you are looking at your primary source you are looking for clues about what you think the creators of the artifact intended, and perhaps meanings, perhaps unintended, that the artifact conveys. Not only do you want to try to identify the target audience, you also want to try to identify the producer and the distributor of the content -- and what their intention was in creating and distributing it. When you interpret a document you want to be able to discuss how you know what you know -- did you visit their website? Are you relying on someone else's reading of the source to shape and inform your own reading of it? How did you come to this particular interpretation?
The Evaluation
Evaluation: This post is effective because it is disarming. After the bombs were detonated in Boston there were people who assumed, without evidence, (1) that the bombers were Muslim and (2) that the entire Islamic world celebrated the bombing. Part of the reason this image is disarming is because it relies on women who are middle-age, or approaching middle-age. I wonder whether or not the image would have been as effective if it had had younger men, around 26 years old, holding the sign. It is also effective because it doesn't make its message explicit. It doesn't come right out and say "If you don't like what happened in Boston, think about how we feel about the drone strikes you are using against us." It also doesn't come right out and say, "Don't blame us -- we are not all the same and we didn't do this." The sign simply sends thoughts of love, and, through their facial expressions, conveys the sense that the women in the photo take the crisis the people in Boston were going through very seriously.
Notice how, during the evaluation stage, you begin to build upon, and work with, the meaning you inferred during the interpretive stage. The details matter when you evaluate the effectiveness, or usefulness, of the artifact. During the evaluation stage you don't simply state that you think the artifact was useful or effective, you discuss how and why it was effective. Part of this process involves thinking about alternative ways the artifact could have been structured. In this case you are asking, what if they had used men instead of women? What if they had made a more explicit statement instead of an implied statement? You ask the "What if?" questions. You may also consider what would happen if the artifact had been targeted toward another audience. If what you are looking at is a historical artifact you might ask yourself what how that artifact might look if it were being produced today.
Putting it all together
So, these are the four steps you should go through as you write about primary sources: (1) provide background information and discuss the context in which the source was produced; (2) describe the artifact in detail -- focusing mostly on the objective facts rather than interpretation and opinion; (3) interpret the source, thinking about who the intended audience was -- what the intended effect was for the intended audience -- how you might paraphrase the artifact's message -- what might be alternative ways of interpreting the artifact -- and who actually created and distributed the artifact if this is not the same as the people who appear in it -- and think about what the agenda of the producers and distributors might have been; and (4) In what ways is this artifact effective in what it does? What would happen if it were structured differently -- or had be created by a different source -- or had been intended for a different audience?
Not surprisingly, these skills will be useful as you assess contemporary internet content. The skills you use to discuss primary sources will extend beyond the study of history. As you can see, at each step along the way you have to take time to pay careful attention to the details and to look up additional information about the circumstances surrounding the artifact in order to fill in gaps in your knowledge. You will want to use the artifact to prompt yourself to learn more about the circumstances and context under which it was produced.
Now, try your had at the following three digital artifacts related to Boston Marathon Bombings.
Artifact A:
Artifact B:
Artifact C:
