“Life after the Polar Vortex”
For the time being, the polar vortex is behind us. Nonetheless, as a result of the constantly shifting temperatures and the advent of the rainy season, I once again decide to organize a little soirée to combat the creeping lethargy of my existence. Since you were such a fine guest at my last meal, I invite you first. Then, I invite John Stuart Mill and Vaclav Havel. They seem to share such close views. I am excited because I am certain everyone will get along.
After some useless chit chat about Notre Dame’s recent building projects, I invite my guests to say something profound about politics.
Havel speaks first: “The specific nature of post-totalitarian conditions—with their absence of a normal political life and the fact that any far-reaching political change is unforeseeable—has one positive aspect: it compels us to examine our situation in its deeper coherences and to consider our future in the context of the global, long-range prospects of the world. The most intrinsic and fundamental contradiction between human beings and the system takes place at a level incomparably more profound than that of liberal democratic politics.”
To my surprise, John Stuart’s face reddens and he retorts: “That’s totally ridiculous, Vaclav. The demonstrable benefits of modern liberal democracy provide people with a far greater incentive to ‘live within the truth’ than you would ever find in a post-totalitarian system!”
I can’t believe what I am hearing. Clearly, I was mistaken in thinking Havel and Mill would get along. However, I don’t want to say anything since I want to preserve my good relationship with both of my friends. Since you wrote such a great essay after my last dinner, I decide to pass the buck to you. “So,” I inquire: “Who is right, Vaclav or John Stuart? And as you know, please don’t waffle since you have to satisfy one of my guests!”
Which thinker is right?
Assignment: Please respond to this question in an essay of 3-4 pages (but no more than 4). Your response should be typed, double-spaced, and use 12 point font.
Note: I have slightly modified the quotation from Havel’s “Power or the Powerless” (pp. 205-6) to make this assignment work; rather than using his term “traditional politics,” I have inserted “liberal democratic politics” (since that is what I think he means).
We will evaluate your essay according to four criteria:
- Your understanding of the dispute between Havel and Mill.
- Your explicit identification of both arguments and counterarguments.
- Your direct use of your readings to back up your points concretely.
- And, importantly, your demonstrated ability to think for yourself.
I have no objection if you want to discuss this assignment with your classmates. However, your essay must be absolutely, totally, irrefutably, and unmistakably your own work. Remember the Honor Code!
As always, I have advice.
- Read this assignment closely the moment you receive it. It may seem complicated at first. But if you allow its elements to percolate in your head for a while, you will find that they all flow together.
- Do not put this assignment off until the last moment. If you do so, you will not be a happy camper and neither will we.
- Seek the advice and counsel of both your TA and me. We will each read your intro paragraph and the first sentence of your second paragraph.
- Visit the writing center. Share your essay with an adviser. There is no end to learning how to write better. I am still trying to be a better writer!
You have a week to complete this assignment. You must turn in your essay to your TA no later than 12:00 noon on Friday, March 29. Late papers will be docked 1/3 of a letter grade for each day they are late.
Good luck!
AJM