“A Most Unsavory Exchange of Opinion”
It has been a strange winter. In anticipation of South Bend’s famous 9 days of spring, I decide to host a pre-celebratory dinner at South Bend’s only Michelin five-star restaurant. I invite two old friends, James Madison and John Dewey, to join me. They have already expressed curiosity about our dining place. Since you have been toiling over their works, I also invite you, my newest friend, to join us.
Our meal of Chicken fricassée aux morilles is as delicious as I hoped. 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, criminal charges against a former US President, and Tucker Carlson’s recent discovery that his wife has secretly been making donations to the Democratic Party. I am feeling so good about the evening that, without giving the issue much thought, I ask the two philosophers to share their views about the applicability of each other’s work to our troubled times. 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 real ‘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.’ If the popularity of demagogic populist politicians in America demonstrates anything, it is that most citizens do not have the talent or common sense to decide what is good for themselves.”
A shocked Dewey takes a deep breath, shakes his head, and responds: “Well, James, I initially hoped that we could reach a mutually agreeable understanding about how to remedy America’s ills. Yet, you are the ignorant person in this room. Your view of the ‘nature of man’ is totally wrong. The people you describe may be imperfect, but each has the capacity to fulfill his or her human potential. This is what the search for a common good is all about. The political turbulence of the past decade has demonstrated the dangers of giving your ‘small [numbers] of citizens’ the power to make every important decision about the ordering of society. These elites 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! In these politically polarized times, 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 pretty sure 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: Please respond to my question by taking a firm stand on who is right, James or John. You must commit yourself unequivocally to one position or the other.
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–yes, your sojourn at Catholic Disneyland is almost over–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 about the rival positions on this issue; and 3) a persuasive argument about why one of the two positions is right while the other is wrong.
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 must persuade your reader that one of the great philosophers is wrong by rebutting 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, do not ask them or anyone else (outside of the Writing Center) to read or critique the essay. Your essay and argument must be absolutely, completely, and unmistakably your own work. In addition, do not use ChatGPT or any of its evil kin in any way in completing this assignment. I know each of you well enough that I can hear your voice when you write. Chat GPT is lifeless and no more inspiring than a Led Zeppelin cover band.
I strongly encourage you to share your essay with anyone in the Writing Center. (Get an appointment soon). We–both you and I–always benefit by having an outsider read what we have written.
Finally, I will be glad to read and comment on the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph of your essay. To guarantee that I can help on time, send me this material at least two days before the deadline.
Your essay should be no more than four (4) double-spaced 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. None of us is perfect. 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 Tuesday, February 27 at 9:00 am. You might consider turning it in much earlier.
See the information about assignments and grading on the Requirements page. I will only allow extensions if you provide ample documentation, such as a doctor’s excuse.
I strongly recommend that you begin working on this assignment immediately.
Good luck!