It has been a long winter. In anticipation of South Bend’s impending 9 days of Spring, I decide to host a casual dinner at the largely unknown and modestly appointed 1842 Club in Notre Dame stadium. I invite two old friends, James Madison and John Dewey, whom I have miraculously brought back to life. Since you have been toiling over their works, I also invite you, my newest friend, to join me.
For the first hour or so, I listen with fascination as my guests discuss some of the most pressing questions facing humanity—the war in Ukraine, the immanent criminal charges against a former US President, and Tucker Carlson’s discovery of dark conspiracies within his own family. Then, without thinking, I ask the two philosophers to share their views about each other’s work. Since Madison has recently read the “Search for a Great Community,” I ask him to begin. Out of the corner of my eye, I see that Dewey has tensed up.
Madison bows in my direction and turns to Dewey: “John, I have given your idea of the Great Community a great deal of thought. To be frank, John, I find it hopelessly utopian. By putting your idea of “community” at the center of your argument, you demonstrate that you know nothing about the true ‘nature of man.’ Your ignorance will almost certainly undermine the conception of liberal democracy that you wish to defend. Before we can even begin to talk about community, we must recognize the absolute necessity of ‘delegating the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.’”
A shocked Dewey takes a deep breath and responds: “Well, James, if you insist on being frank, I initially hoped that we could reach a mutually agreeable understanding about the pursuit of the ideal political order. Yet, you are the ignorant person in this room. Your view of the ‘nature of man’ is totally wrong. The ‘men’ you describe may be imperfect, but each has the capacity to learn to be human. This is what the search for a common good is all about. Left to make every important decision by themselves, the “small number of citizens” whom you favor will sooner be inclined to form “robber bands” than serve the whole people. ‘Only when we start from a community as a fact, grasp the fact in thought so as to clarify and enhance its constituent elements can we reach an idea of democracy which is not utopian.’”
What have I done! I had expected that my dinner would bring my friends together, not split them apart.
Logically, Madison and Dewey can’t both be right. Indeed, I am convinced that one of the two arguments is absolutely correct and the other entirely wrong. Yet, I don’t want to say anything that would damage my friendship with either thinker. Thus, I decide to pass the buck to you. Well, my new friend, who is right, James or John? And please don’t equivocate. I can tell that James and John want an answer now. Your success in this assignment will play a large role in determining whether I invite you to future meals!
Assignment: I have designed this assignment to encourage you to teach yourself while you are thinking and writing. The skill of taking a stand on a difficult issue will be useful throughout your remaining year at ND and beyond.
This assignment is all about making and defending an argument. A persuasive argument always has three features: 1) a clear and concise statement about the issue at hand; 2) an equally clear and concise statement of where you stand; and 3) an explanation of your reasons for taking this position rather than its rival. As every good epidemiologist, climate scientist, Ukrainian military commander, and chess coach knows, a successful argument or strategy must anticipate the counterargument or counterstrategy of one’s opponent. In the case of this assignment, this means that you should persuade your reader that one of the great philosophers is wrong by countering each of his likely assumptions.
I will evaluate your essay according to three criteria: the clarity and consistency of your argument; your use of readings and discussions to back up your points concretely; and, importantly, your demonstrated ability to think for yourself. Remember: if you are not sure what you are saying, I will not be sure what you are saying either. Explain yourself and do so in the clearest possible fashion! Remember Orwell (WWOS?).
When referring to your readings, feel free to use any simple citation form (e.g., author and page). It is fine to use short quotations, but indicate why you are using them. Quotations do not speak for themselves.
Finally, don’t forget the Shaker hymn: “ ‘tis a joy to be simple . . .” State your argument boldly; justify it in a logical fashion; when you are done, stop.
The Honor Code to which you have affixed your signature applies! It is fine with me if you discuss this assignment with your classmates. However, the formulation of your essay and argument must be absolutely, completely, and unmistakably your own work. The only exception to this rule will be meeting with me or consulting with someone at the Writing Center or with me. And please do take advantage of these opportunities!
I will be glad to comment on your introductory paragraph and the first sentence of your second paragraph if you send your draft to me soon. I am likely to have much less time closer to the deadline.
Your essay should be no more than four (4) pages. It should have a carefully chosen title. Please double space the essay and use 12 point. Don’t forget to put your name on it.
Please adhere to every word of these guidelines as well as my all-important Tips for Great Writing. Over the decades, I have been amazed at how difficult it is to get universal cooperation on these simple rules. If you do not follow my request, you will hear my teeth gnashing across campus. You may even find that I send your essay back to you.
My expectations are not unreasonable. I simply request that you write the best essay you have ever written in your life.
Your essay is due in your folder no later than
I highly recommend that you begin thinking about this assignment immediately.