8 Sample Writing assignments

VIII. Sample Writing Assignments

The following paragraphs provide sample writing assignments of the course taught at the University of Chicago: Alternative Models of Political Theorizing and the two courses taught at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Sciences and Art: 1. Studies of Modern Society: 1798 to the Present; 2. Texts and Contexts: Old Worlds and New.

1. Alternative Models of Political Theorizing

Institution: The University of Chicago
Department: Political Science
Date: spring 2007
Course-level: graduate course; open to undergraduate students with prior knowledge
Format: seminar
Enrollment: 18
Position: Visiting Assistant Professor

1. Does the Foucauldian understanding of power relate to one (or more) of the three domains (the imaginary, the symbolic and the Real) through which Lacan maps his thought?

2. Does Sandra Lee Bartky’s account of disciplined femininity challenge or complement theories (such as Judith Butler’s) that understand femininity as performed?

3. Compare the subject/object relationship in Lacan and Foucault.

4. Discuss a recent political example where we can find what Zizek calls a surplus- jouissance?

5. Discuss Lacan’s (and Zizek’s) reservations to “love your neighbor as yourself” (which implies for them a narcissistic reduction of the other to me) in relation to a recent political example.

6. What do you think are the most important strengths of Young’s reformulated deliberative model? What do you think she misses or leaves out? What, if anything, does her turn away from a deliberative model privileging argument lose that might be valuable for inclusive democratic practices?

7. In what ways is Young’s model of deliberative democracy compatible/incompatible with Butler’s model of feminist politics?

2. Studies of Modern Society: 1798 to the Present

Institution: The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, New York Department: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Date: spring 2003
Course-level: undergraduate course
Format: seminar
Enrollment size: 24
Position: Adjunct Professor

1. Hannah Arendt in “Origins of Totalitarianism” outlines the central components of totalitarian rule. Theodor W. Adorno in “Elements of Antisemitism” and “Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda” explains components of fascist rule. Discuss these two thinkers with each other and thereby answer the following questions: What are the similarities/differences of their conceptualizations of totalitarian/fascist regimes? How does propaganda work in these regimes? What is the function of the ruler in totalitarian/fascist regimes?

2. Max Weber in “Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” establishes the link between the protestant ethic and the capitalist enterprise. How does he establish this link? What examples does he provide to justify this link? Do you agree with Weber, that there is such a link?

3. “Guilt and innocence before the law are of an objective nature, and even if eighty million Germans had done as you did, this would not have been an excuse for you (Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, p. 278).” Analyze Hannah Arendt’s report of the trial of the German Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann in “Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil” and thereby discuss the following questions: Does Arendt believe that perpetrators in totalitarian regimes are guilty for their crimes they committed under totalitarian rule? How does she conceptualize the perpetrator? Does she believe that those who did not actually commit crimes, but were aware of them, are guilty as well? What does she think is necessary to alleviate the injustice of totalitarian rule?

4. Whereas Sigmund Freud in “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” elaborates libido as the central concept to understand the psychology of groups (p. 29), Le Bon in “The Crowd” discusses power, contagion and hypnosis as the central features that determine the psychology of crowds (p. 18). Discuss these two thinkers with each other and thereby answer the following questions: How does Freud define groups? How does Gustave Le Bon define crowds? What are the similarities and/or differences in their understanding of the psychology of groups/crowds? How do you explain these difference/similarities in their concepts?

3. Texts and Contexts: Old Worlds and New

Institution: The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, New York Department: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Date: fall 2002
Course level: undergraduate course
Enrollment size: 22
Format: seminar
Position: Adjunct Professor

1. In What is Enlightenment? the German philosopher Immanuel Kant outlines the two moments, why people do not emerge into the state of enlightenment, which is for him a state where people use their own understanding without the assistance of others: 1. people remain in an unenlightened stage because it is comfortable to be there. 2. they remain there because certain people have an interest in keeping others from using their own understanding. Whereas his first point refers to the own responsibility of people to remain in a subjected position, the second aspect refers to the power structures with a given society that allow certain people to keep others subjected. Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman outlines those aspects that keep women in a subjected position. Into which Kantian category would you place Wollstonecraft’s elaboration of the subjection of women? What is her solution that should lead to the liberation of women? Do you find this solution plausible?

2. The colonial theme, expressed in the master-slave relationship between the Europeans and non-Europeans is expressed in both Shakespeare’s The Tempest in the figure of Canibal as well as in More’s Utopia (p. 41). Compare the different assessment of colonial rule in the political philosophy of these thinkers and thereby answer the following questions: What kind of assumptions about the nature of non-European people are expressed in the figure of Canibal and in the discussion of colonial rule in Utopia? What is the problematic aspect of these assumptions? In what ways are these assumptions crucial for the justification of colonial rule?

3. In chapter XVIII Hobbes in The Leviathan argues that a sovereign by institution cannot commit injustice or injury towards her or his subjects, only inequity, because the subjects have voluntarily established the sovereign via contract. Thus, to Hobbes, they cannot accuse or punish the sovereign. In chapter XXI Hobbes outlines those moments of inequity, which allows the subjects to resist sovereign authority. Mary Astell in Reflections Upon Marriage is critical about the sovereign’s commitment to not injure her or his subjects. Like Hobbes, she extends the contract between the sovereign and her or his subjects to the relations between wife and husband. Unlike Hobbes, Astell outlines the injuries of the sovereign-husband committed against the wife, once she has agreed to the marriage contract. First, compare the moments of inequity in Hobbes with the moments of injury or injustice of the sovereign in Astell. Second, contrast the moments of rebellion in Hobbes and Astell. Third, discuss their respective ideas of an ideal government. Which one makes more sense to you?

4. Machiavelli outlines in The Prince his concept of virtue in his discussion of generosity, mercifulness versus cruelty and keeping promises. What does Machiavelli understand under the concept of virtue? In what ways is this concept related to his understanding of human nature? Finally, how is this concept related to his philosophy of leadership?

BACK HOME