1
POG 4
Fall 2021
Paper 2
Instructions:
Please pick ONE of the following topics and write a response of 5 to 7 pages (doublespaced, 12-point font, 1-inch margins). Make sure to refer to and cite the relevant
readings in your answer. You are not required to cite any material beyond the readings
on the syllabus.
Please submit your paper on D2L (Assessments à Assignments). Your paper is due on
Monday, November 15 at 11:59pm.
Late papers will lose a third of a letter grade per day. Please note that I use
Turnitin.com, a plagiarism-detection service (see the Syllabus for the course Turnitin
policy).
- Friedrich Hayek contrasts two versions of equality: the idea of “careers open to
talents” (no legal barriers preventing people from being hired for jobs they are
qualified for), and the idea that “all must be assured an equal start and the same
prospects.” Why does Hayek argue that that the former idea of equality is
superior? Do you agree with him? Why or why not? - In The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt describes a model of political life that is
derived from the city-states of ancient Greece. These were small societies in
which political participation was usually limited to native-born adult males who
were not slaves. Could Arendt’s model apply to a contemporary society that is
much bigger, and that has a more expansive idea of equality? What would have
to change in order to make Arendt’s model of political life possible in a
contemporary society? Would this be a worthy model for a contemporary
society to pursue? - Prime Minister Trudeau made this statement on National Indigenous Peoples
Day in 2018: https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2018/06/21/statementprime-minister-national-indigenous-peoples-day. Based on your reading of Red
Skin, White Masks, how do you think Glen Sean Coulthard would respond to it?
What parts of the statement (if any) would he agree with, and what parts (if any)
would he disagree with, and why?
2
Writing Advice
(Adapted from “Anatomy of an Essay in Political Thought” by Alison
McQueen, Stanford University)
Argument
Your Paper Must Have an Argument
If your paper lacks a clear and coherent argument, it is not a successful paper. As a
reader, one wants to see not only that you understand the material you’re discussing
but that you can use, interpret, and evaluate it to make some point of your own.
Interpretation and Evaluation
Interpretation is fundamentally about reconstructing the meaning and logical structure
of a thinker’s argument (e.g. what does Rousseau mean when he writes that those who
do not obey the general will will be “forced to be free”?). There are four main criteria
for determining whether an interpretation is a strong one. These are as follows. - Precise fit: Does the interpretation I’ve offered fit with the specific things that
the author writes? If an author argues not-X (e.g. monarchy is not a legitimate
form of rule) and my interpretation suggests that the author argues X (e.g. that
the author argues monarchy is a legitimate form of a rule), there is a problem of
fit. - Complete fit: Does the interpretation I have offered square with what the author
writes in the text as a whole? Unless we have very good reasons to believe
otherwise, we should assume that authors aimed to be consistent. So, if in
interpreting a particular passage, we ascribe positions to them that can’t be
easily squared with what they write elsewhere in their work, there is a problem
of complete fit. (If you think you do have very good reasons to believe that an
author was intentionally inconsistent, you must defend and give evidence for
this position in the paper). - Coherence: Is the interpretation I have offered logically consistent? Or, does it
contain argumentative gaps or contradictions? Unless we have very good
reasons to believe otherwise, we should assume that authors aimed to offer
arguments that are logically coherent. The authors you are reading in this
course are careful thinkers who spent a lot of time and effort considering and
crafting their arguments. If you find yourself attributing incoherent or foolish
positions to them, assume that you have misinterpreted them. (If you think you
do have very good reasons to believe that an author was incoherent or foolish in
3
his argument, you must defend and give evidence for this position in the
paper). - Plausibility: Is the interpretation I have offered plausible? Is it reasonable to
expect that the view that I attribute to a thinker is a view that the thinker
(knowing what we do about him and his political and intellectual context) could
have endorsed? For instance, an interpretation of Machiavelli as a critic of the
French Revolution would be “historically absurd” and therefore implausible.
In contrast to interpretation, evaluation is fundamentally about developing a reasoned
judgment about the persuasiveness of one or more arguments (e.g. how persuasive do I
find Rousseau’s argument that we can be “forced to be free”?). There are various
criteria by which you can evaluate the persuasiveness of an argument.
Here are some examples of criteria one might use to evaluate the persuasiveness of an
argument. - Logical consistency: Here, I would be concerned with whether the relevant
thinker’s conclusion follows from the premises (validity) and whether the
premises themselves are true (soundness). For instance, if I were evaluating
the validity of Hobbes’ argument that the state of nature is a state of war, I
would ask myself whether the conclusion (that the state of nature is a state of
war) follows from the premises (equality in capacity to kill one another, equality
of hope, competition, etc.). If I were evaluating the soundness of Hobbes’
argument that the state of nature is a state of war, I would ask myself whether
the premises are true (e.g. is the only rational strategy in Hobbes’ state of nature
a strategy of anticipation/preemption?). - Normative force: Here, I would be concerned with how well the relevant
thinker’s argument squares with our moral intuitions and values. For instance, if
we value the rule of law (i.e. the principle that all citizens—including rulers and
law-makers—are subject to the law), we might have good reason to find Hobbes’
account of the rights and powers of the sovereign unpersuasive on these
grounds. If I were making this argument, I would want to explain why we should
value the rule of law, how Hobbes’ argument for the rights and powers of the
sovereign fails to uphold this normative commitment, and why the values that
the argument does uphold (e.g. order and stability) are not sufficient
compensation for its failure to uphold a commitment to the rule of law. - Practical “implementability”: Here, I would be concerned with whether it is
possible to put the relevant thinker’s political vision into practice in the “real
world.” For instance, if I were evaluating Hobbes’ argument that the only stable
solution to the problems of the state of nature is a virtually absolute state, I
might ask whether it is possible to implement this solution in the contemporary
4
world. If I concluded that such implementation would be impossible, I might
have reason to find Hobbes’ argument unpersuasive on practical grounds. If I
were making such an argument, I would want to identify which specific elements
of our contemporary world make implementation impossible or prohibitively
difficult. I would also want to consider the conditions under which these
elements would be subject to change (i.e. I would think about what needs to
happen in the world for Hobbes’ solution to be “implementable”).
These are not the only possible criteria for evaluating the persuasiveness of a thinker’s
argument. If you get to choose the criteria you will use, be sure to be explicit about
which you’re using.
Framing an Argument
A well-framed argument has three main features. First, it is specific. It is difficult to
support a broad claim, particularly in a relatively short paper. Specific claims, on the
other hand, can be easily supported and provide the reader with useful
information. For example:
Broad: Contrary to popular readings, Machiavelli’s Prince can be read as an
ethical book.
Specific: While many see Machiavelli’s Prince as an amoral work, a closer
analysis reveals an ethical vision that is consequentialist and oriented toward the
basic needs of the populace.
Second, a good argument is contestable. That is, someone should be able to disagree
with your claim. If you have a claim about which there could be no disagreement, there
is little point in writing a paper to defend it. If you have a contestable claim, defend it
well, and anticipate alternative interpretations and counterarguments, your paper will
be quite strong.
Not contestable: While the Prince and the Discourses on Livy contain some
similarities in their ethical arguments, they are also very different.
Contestable: While the Prince is primarily concerned with the value of
maintaining political order and the Discourses on Livy with republican virtue, the
two works offer a consistent ethical vision that is consequentialist and oriented
toward the basic needs of the populace.
5
Finally, a sound argument must be reasonable. This does not mean that your argument
cannot be shocking or radical. However, it does mean that your argument must be
supported with evidence and thoughtful, well-grounded interpretations of that
evidence. The reader will see through attempts to contort the evidence to support an
unreasonable argument. So, please do not do this.
Introduction
The Purpose of an Introduction
The introduction to your paper is your chance to make a good first impression. You
should aim to engage the reader and draw her in to your argument. This is your chance
to make the case for the importance of your topic—to tell the reader why she should
care about what you are discussing. Your introduction also provides a roadmap to the
rest of your paper. You should include a thesis statement that offers your main
argument. The introduction should also give the reader a sense of where your paper is
going and of its general organization. Finally, the introduction is an opportunity to
define any important terms you intend to use. You can restrict these definitions to
those terms and concepts that are essential to understanding the central
argument. Feel free to define other terms and concepts in the body of the paper, as the
need arises.
Writing an Effective Introduction
One of the biggest challenges in writing an introduction is deciding how to begin. It is
often useful to open with a sentence that grabs the reader’s attention. You might begin
with: an interesting example, a provocative quotation, or a thought-provoking question
or puzzle.
On the whole, you should aim to be as direct and clear as possible in your
introduction. Some writers find that they can best achieve this when they write their
introduction last, after they have a clearer sense of where the paper is going. Others
write a tentative introduction and then go back later to make changes to it.
Introductions to Avoid
Here are some types of introductions that you will want to avoid: - The placeholder introduction. Example: The social contract thinkers all have
different visions of human nature. Each vision produces a different theory of the
6
purpose of government. This is the kind of introduction written by someone with
little to say. It is often vague and exists only to take up space. - The restated question introduction. Example: Hobbes and Locke give different
accounts of the purpose of the state. I will compare these accounts and discuss
which one I find most persuasive. This introduction merely restates an assigned
question. Restating the question in your own words can be an effective
strategy. However, it is important that your introduction do more than this. The
reader is aware of the assigned questions. What she is really interested in is
your response to those questions. - The dictionary definition introduction. Example: The Oxford English Dictionary
defines democracy as “government by the whole population”… While it is often
useful to define the terms you are using in your paper, the dictionary is not an
authoritative source for understanding the meaning of contested terms like
‘democracy’ and ‘liberalism.’ Also, anyone can look up a word in a
dictionary. Why not develop your own definition of terms in ways that are
attentive to the context of the course and your chosen question? - The “human history” introduction. Example: Since the beginning of human
history, people have debated the purpose of the state… This type of
introduction makes broad statements about the importance of the topic since
the dawn of time. It is often too general and does not connect clearly to the
argument. As a general rule, any introduction that you could imagine being read
by Redd Pepper (“In a world…”) is likely problematic. - The book report introduction. Example: John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty was first
published in 1859. In it, he makes important arguments about individual
freedom… We are all familiar with this type of introduction from book
reports. Generally, writers resort to this kind of introduction in order to fill
space. Unfortunately, it simply tells the reader information that she already
knows and fails to articulate an argument.
Body
Elements of a Paragraph
The body of your paper consists of a series of paragraphs which should all play a role in
supporting your central argument. Generally, a paragraph in the body of the essay
contains several elements. - A main point. The main point of an individual paragraph is often an argument
that is part of your paper’s larger claim. Many writers choose to make this main
point in the first sentence of the paragraph. Others may make it elsewhere. The
important thing is that the reader should not be left wondering what the point of
7
the paragraph is. As a general rule, it is a good idea to make one key point per
paragraph. - Evidence. In order to support your point, you will need to offer some
evidence. In a political thought course, this evidence will often consist of quoted
or paraphrased material from the texts you are discussing. (Be sure to provide
the page numbers for quoted or paraphrased material). Sometimes, your
evidence may consist of a chain of logical reasoning. (Be sure to indicate when
this reasoning is not your own, but rather that of a thinker you are discussing). - Analysis. Your evidence is raw material. It means little without your
interpretation and analysis. If you leave your evidence unexplained, you let your
reader draw her own conclusions. These conclusions may be very different from
those you intend. So, make sure you interpret the evidence you present and
explain how it proves the point you are trying to make. - Link back to central argument. Indicate to your reader how the point you have
made connects to the paper’s larger claim. This can often be done implicitly or
as part of your analysis of the evidence you present. The important thing is to
avoid leaving the reader wondering why you included a particular paragraph in
your paper.
These are guidelines, rather than strict rules. Not every paragraph needs to contain
each of these elements. Some paragraphs may provide elaborations or clarifications on
a point previously made. Others may offer important conceptual definitions or
distinctions. However, these guidelines provide a useful indication of how to
structure many of the body paragraphs in your paper.
Paragraphing and Transitions
Try to keep paragraphs as clear and concise as possible. That said, there is no universal
rule on the length of a good paragraph. You should aim to start a new paragraph when
you begin a new point. If a given paragraph is longer than one double-spaced page, you
should consider whether it actually contains more than one point and could therefore
be broken into two paragraphs. If this is not the case, you could also consider whether
you have made your point as concisely as possible.
When making a transition from one paragraph to another, aim to make the link
between the two paragraphs clear to the reader. How does the idea you are presenting
now relate to the point you previously made? Good transitions remind the reader of
the underlying organizational logic of your paper. Smooth transitions between
paragraphs can often be as easy as using words like “however” and “similarly” and
terms like “for example” and “in contrast.” Transitions can occur at the end of one
paragraph, the beginning of the following one, or in both places.
8
Conclusion
The Purpose of a Conclusion
A conclusion is your final word. It is your chance to remind the reader of your argument
and why what you have said is important, make a good final impression on your reader,
and gesture toward the broader significance of what you have said. However, avoid
making any new substantive points related to your thesis. This is an occasion to sum up
and reflect.
Writing an Effective Conclusion
In thinking about your conclusion, you may wish to do any or all of the following: think
about why your topic is important; tie together the points made in your paper; consider
provocative insights you have gained by thinking about the topic; or point to the
broader implications of what you have said.
Conclusions to Avoid
Here are some types of conclusions that you will want to avoid. - The “that’s that” conclusion. Example: In conclusion,
Machiavelli’s Prince reveals an ethical vision that is consequentialist and oriented
toward the basic needs of the populace. This conclusion simply restates the
thesis and is often extremely short. It is the kind of conclusion one writes when
one can’t think of anything else to say. - The sentimental conclusion. Example: Locke’s influence on the ideas of the
American Revolution means that this liberal thinker is truly an American
hero. This kind of conclusion relies on sentimental, emotional appeals. It may
come from the heart, but it often does not fit with (what one hopes is) the more
analytical tone of the rest of the paper. - The ‘and another thing’ conclusion. Example: In addition to being a book with a
developed ethical theory, Machiavelli’s Prince is an example of a work that
privileges masculine virtues. It is also the first truly modern work of political
philosophy and a precursor to many of the methods of explanation used in
contemporary political science. This conclusion uses random pieces of
information that could not be included in the body of the paper. While it is
tempting to include every bit of information you have learned about a given
topic, doing this can create confusion in an otherwise well-organized paper.
9
Citations and Plagiarism
Be aware of the University’s plagiarism policy. (Plagiarism and other academic
misconduct is defined here in Appendix A:
https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/senate/policies/pol60.pdf). Plagiarism can cause
you to receive a 0 for the assignment, and can also lead to more serious penalties, such
as an F for the course or even expulsion from the University. In general, plagiarism is
passing off someone else’s work as your own. You can avoid this by citing your sources.
If you are using a direct quotation, cite it, using the page number. If you are
paraphrasing an argument from one of the writers, make that clear in your text, and cite
the page number of the passage you are paraphrasing. You can use parenthetical or
footnote citations, as long as you’re consistent in the style you use.
Citation for direct quotation:
Foucault writes that “the power in the hierarchized surveillance of the disciplines is not
possessed as a thing, or transferred as a property; it functions like a piece of
machinery.”1
[When citing a text you’ve already cited]: Foucault adds that “‘it is the apparatus as a
whole that produces ‘power.’”2
Citation for a paraphrase:
In Discipline and Punish, Foucault argues that no one can be said to possess disciplinary
power, even when it seems as though a given person occupies the top of the disciplinary
hierarchy.3
1 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage,
1977), 177.
2 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 177. 3 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage,
1977), 177.
0 comments