I met with Professor Hardig this morning, December 8, for 25 minutes from 10:05 to 10:30. I discussed with him my decision to select the interpretivist methodology for my research project. Originally, I thought I would research discourse on how the Bush Administration constructed their role of morality and security on the Iraq War before it began. I was specifically interested in the years between 9/11 and the start of the war, focusing on government discourses and how the Bush Administration perceived their role in the world.

Professor Hardig suggested I research discourse of the Bush Administration after the war on the reconstruction and rebuilding process, and how the US government constructed the identities of Iraqis and defined sectarian dynamics in Iraq. He mentioned how identity politics are formed, as they are not a naturally occurring phenomenon, and compared this to his own work in Lebanon. Dictators, like Saddam, are often seen as the lid over which sectarian violence is boiling, yet Professor Hardig argues such sectarian divisions are created, not naturally formed. Thus, I could research the discourse of the Bush Administration on sectarian divisions and violence of Iraqis.

Looking ahead, I need to more clearly define what discourses I will analyzing within the Bush Administration. There is the puzzle of why sectarian violence happens after an intervention and the removal and powerful dictator, but what explains this and how can the discourse of the US government shed light on how such identities are formed? I will need to read quite a bit more, although the discourse of the Iraqis themselves may be hard to research as I would be unable to understand the subtleties in the language. Though it may not be required to read over winter break, it would probably be a good idea to continue reading and cementing my methodology.

As I look ahead to SISU-306 I am concerned about formatting my methodology correctly and researching enough discourse while remaining reflexive to my own position.