ASSIGNMENT #2 INTERPRETIVE & ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
ASSIGNMENT #2 INTERPRETIVE & ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY Your second assignment is to write an interpretive & argumentative paper. This paper should be between 6-8 pages double spaced in 12 pt. font with standard margins. Your citations should be in Chicago style. The most important feature of Chicago style is the use of footnotes rather than in text citations. You should include a brief Works Cited page at the end of your paper. The Works Cited page does not count towards the page guidelines. You do not need a title page. Success in this assignment requires you to write a paper that i) takes a clear stand on the prompt, i.e. expresses a well-defined point of view, ii) defends the point of view with arguments (reasons, evidence, examples) iii) mixes direct quotations & paraphrasing from primary source material demonstrating serious engagement with the relevant texts, iv) addresses at least one possible counterargument, v) is well organized into subsections, vi) is written in lucid, straightforward prose, vii) and properly invokes relevant concepts from the course. You do not need to cite any secondary sources. I am interested, principally, in your reading of these thinkers and your evaluations of their views. If your paper does not develop a clear point of view, it will not be successful. It will not suffice to say things like: “both views are persuasive”. You must also include, either with your essay or in a separate document, a 1-2 paragraph “Self-Assessment”. This should start with a one sentence summary of your argument. Then, it should offer a brief explanation of any difficulties you had in thinking through and crafting your argument. Next, identify at least one limit to your argument that you did not address. Finally, I would like you to identify the grade you think your work deserves – using any metric you like, e.g. numbers, letter grades, smiley faces, vibes, etc. – and say a bit about why. PROMPTS 1. Emerson and Mill offer accounts of individual autonomy (IA) as a form of self-expression. Kant offers another account of IA as self-legislation. Explain the differences between these models. In your opinion, which approach better captures the true nature of IA? Relevant Concepts: individual autonomy, self-expression, self-legislation, desires and inclinations, inner-character, nature/freedom dualism (realm of causes/realm of reasons) 2. “Emerson and Mill are both social atomists. This commitment, and their related understanding of freedom as self-expression, leads them to be suspicious of social relations. Even the most well- intentioned people might restrict our freedom. Hence, society is always a potential ‘tyrant’.” Explain this quotation. Why does their atomist social theory and related account of individual autonomy lead Emerson/Mill to be wary of other people? What is the threat other people pose? Are they correct about this worry, or is their concern overblown? Relevant Concepts: social atomism, inner-character, individual autonomy, self-expression, social influence, social tyranny / tyranny of majority opinion 3. What is Mary Wollstonecraft’s explanation for the differences between man and woman? What is her critique of Rousseau in this regard? Do you think she is correct? What, if any, limitations are there with her approach? To answer this final evaluative question you might consider how more contemporary and/or more radical feminists have criticized her. Relevant Concepts: social construction (attitude-dependent), natural / god given (attitude- independent) 4. “Kant thinks that individual autonomy (IA) requires ‘mastering our inner-animal’. In doing so, we show ourselves to be more than just natural beings. Schiller agrees with part of Kant’s idea, but pushes back against the notion of mastering or overcoming nature. Human beings have the capacity to control themselves and act in ways contrary to nature, he admits, but mastery is impossible. True freedom is better understood as a sort of harmony between the natural and reasoning side of human beings.” Explain Kant’s view and Schiller’s critique of it. Who do you think is correct? Does human freedom require mastering nature or harmonizing with it? Relevant Concepts: nature/freedom dualism (realm of causes/realm of reasons), mastery, inner-animal, freedom as play, distinctions v. dualisms 5. “Emerson/Mill/Kant each offer accounts of individual autonomy (IA). Hegel is the rare critic of IA. He believes it is a model of freedom improperly calibrated to the reality of human life. We are too dependent to ever be the autonomous beings Emerson/Mill/Kant imagine.” Explain what IA is about (in any of its forms). Then, explain Hegel’s critique of IA. Finally, evaluate Hegel’s argument: Is he correct that autonomy is beyond the grasp of human beings? Does he overstate how central dependence is to the human condition? Relevant Concepts: individual autonomy, mastery, self-expression, self-legislation, independence, dependence, ‘we’ or group subjectivity, individuals as particular versions of their normative systems, social atomism 6. “Hobbes, Bentham, and Mill are empiricists. This epistemological commitment leads them to the atomist conclusion that human beings are independent creatures. In other words, they think the experience of being human proves atomism is correct. Hegel disagrees. He thinks 1) sometimes our experiences can be misleading and 2) that we sometimes experiences ourselves as more than independent atoms but as ‘we’ units or groups. This ‘we’ standpoint, he argues, is just as real as the individual one.” Explain this quotation with reference to Hobbes/Bentham/Mill and Hegel. Do you think Hobbes/Bentham/Mill are correct that the experience of being human proves the social atomist position? Note: You can pick 1-2 of the triumvirate (Hobbes/Bentham/Mill) to focus on. You do not need to engage with all three. Relevant Concepts: epistemology, empiricism, social atomism, ‘we’ or group subjectivity Sample paper!!!! The Differences Between Man and Woman: Nature or Society? Mary Wollstonecraft’s explanation for the differences between man and woman is based on the idea of social construction. She critiques Rousseau in this regard because he uncritically elevates a descriptive claim that the male sex is stronger than the female sex. In this paper, I argue that Wollstonecraft correctly explains the difference between men and women because she properly captures the socially constructed, attitude-dependent origin of these differences, specifically locating them in the ways that we educate and treat one another. To advance my argument, I begin by providing a summary of Wollstonecraft’s argument regarding the gap between men and women. Next, I explain Rousseau’s claim about women, through Wollstonecraft’s reading of him. Finally, I evaluate why Wollstonecraft’s approach to women’s rights is more persuasive than Rousseau’s view by pointing to the ways that contemporary history has proven the former to be correct and the latter incorrect. I. Wollstonecraft’s Views on Women Wollstonecraft argues that there is a significant gap between men and women. She states that the vast majority of writers have regarded “females as women rather than as human creatures”.1 Past philosophers have evaluated the being of humans differently from the being of women. However, Wollstonecraft mentions that God has given us all equal reason to steer clear from bias and allow us to gain a more objective mindset. She states that this plays a major role in how men use reason to justify prejudices against women. Men are using reason to say women are better suited for certain jobs and positions in society surrounding a familial role. Yet, “reason is not gendered” because it is modeled after God “who is neither male nor female”.2 Wollstonecraft states men are wrong, and our 1 Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, p. 4 2 Berges, The Routledge Guidebook to Wollstonecraft’s a Vindication of the Rights of Woman, p. 46 duties are not ontological, meaning that they are not built into who we are as women. Therefore, our rights have come from a socially constructed idea based on reason, and reason alone. Wollstonecraft is the first person to make an argument that the differences between sexes are socially constructed. Men have argued that women are in need of the guidance of a man and “ought never to have the free use of reason…”.3 Wollstonecraft responds by saying women are held back by this notion that they must only be educated on how to please and care for their husbands. Young girls are taught to suppress their “strength of body and mind” and instead generate a “desire to get themselves settled by marriage”. 4 As women are surrounded by these values their entire lives, they end up believing them as true, even when the outrageous claims lack an argument. This desire for marriage makes women into “mere animals” and “weak beings” meaning that they no longer use reason.5 This is where differences are created, and these differences become a result of what we teach to one another. Wollstonecraft emphasizes this inequality isn’t just about how men treat women, it is a story about how women are taught to treat themselves. She argues that, at some point in our lives, women should be allowed to use reason and become independent thinkers. Wollstonecraft believes that “women’s attitudes support, rather than undermine, the injustices of civil life”.6 However, this can only be stopped by educating women “to think as human beings, rather than simply as wives and daughters”.7 Once women are afforded the same educational opportunities as men, the gap between the sexes will begin to dissipate. After this constant cycle of degrading women into a submissive state, Wollstonecraft emphasizes how this will turn women into good liars. Essentially, Wollstonecraft is saying that the women individuals want to create are actually coming back to bite them in the back. In this society, 3 Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, p. 24 4 Ibid, p. 6 5 Ibid., 6 6 Berges, The Routledge Guidebook to Wollstonecraft’s a Vindication of the Rights of Woman, p. 30 7 Berges, The Routledge Guidebook to Wollstonecraft’s a Vindication of the Rights of Woman, p. 30 pleasure has become “the business of a woman’s life”. 8 There is no longer any circumstance for women to evolve past their state as a so-called, weak being. Women will change their character if we allow them to be free from the ill-considered thought of a man. Wollstonecraft is correct in saying that gender roles are socially constructed through the persistent degradation of women by diminishing their range of understanding. II. Rousseau’s View on Women Wollstonecraft introduces Rousseau’s argument by explaining how he believes that individuals should stay near to their natural state of being. This is a key point to consider throughout Rousseau’s argument, as he bases many of his ideals for the role of women on this. He begins his argument by stating how the men of this world are sensible in their use of reason and women must follow. Rousseau is adamant that women should be inferior to men, stating that women “must have the skill to incline us to do everything that she needs or wants and that her sex won’t enable her to do herself”.9 He believes that men set the standard for women and while doing so, women should be compliant and weak. Rousseau makes it clear that women are in need of a strong, aggressive husband or freedom will get into women’s heads and they will become too powerful. He goes on to say that women learn from the actions of their husband and their only role is to please them. Rousseau explicitly states that women “ought to study the mind of man thoroughly” because without this they would be completely useless.10 He strongly emphasizes that it is a women’s job to be observant of a man because men are the only ones who should reason. Throughout this entire argument, Rousseau believes that observing is the only thing women are capable enough to do. 8 Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 38 9 Ibid., 27 Rousseau also argues that the difference between men and women is apparent from a very young age. He compares young girls to young boys in their different preferences of toys to play with. He states that little girls must grow up to do household work due to their preference of playing with dolls. Rousseau deduces that with all this practice, as a young girl learns to care for her doll, she would be eagerly ready to care for her household and decorate herself in order to please her husband. Rousseau also argues that we should train women, early on, to restrain themselves properly. He believes that this adversity “is inseparable from their sex” and must be taught young to avoid future issues.11 Additionally, after learning this act of restraint, women will be better prepared for the suppression and submission they will encounter later on. Rousseau is essentially saying that women need to internalize this restraint of themselves at a young age because it will help them adequately grow into their roles as women in society. Rousseau further emphasizes how women don’t have the natural capacity to be different from what is expected of them. He states that “women ought not to have much liberty” because after they are given all this freedom they will “indulge in it excessively”.12 That is why we must keep women away from power or they will not know what to do with themselves. Therefore, “the most important qualification in a woman is good nature”. 13 She must learn to put up with grievances because that is what is expected of her. Rousseau implies that any retaliation will just result in abuse, hence women should stay silent for their husband’s sake. Rousseau touches on the multiple characteristics of a woman that are exclusively natural to the female sex. He states how subtlety is one of these natural talents and it perfectly aligns with a women’s role as a wife. This leads into Rousseau’s expression of his belief that “our natural 11 Ibid., p 56 12 Ibid., p 56 13 Ibid., p. 56 inclinations are right and good in themselves”.14 Here, he is trying to use the argument that our natural state of being is what leads us to the differences between men and women. That is the reason why women are more drawn to household work and wanting to be pretty, and men are more drawn to being active and dominant. He states this is why women’s liberties are the way they are and there is no justification for changing this because it is built into our natural state of being. III. Wollstonecraft’s View over Rousseau’s Wollstonecraft rebuts many of Rousseau’s claims on the basis of reasoning. Her central argument is that Rousseau’s reasoning is wrong because he elevates a descriptive claim which is namely that the male sex is stronger than the female sex and elevates this into a normative principle. During this process, Rousseau elevates an ‘is’ statement into an ‘ought’ statement; this is known as an is/ought error. He has taken a descriptive fact about women and converted it into a moral principle dictating the role of women in society, without further argument. This is an inadequate way to argue. Simply because women are seen a certain way does not mean they ought to act that way. If how things are were always how they should be, then no historical change would ever be justified. Throughout Rousseau’s claims, he offers no genuine argument; he merely relies on his empirical observations about women. But, to put the point clearly, simply because Rousseau notices that women in his social milieu appear weak and passive does not mean he can jump straight to the conclusion that they are naturally this way, nor that this is how things ought to be. In today’s world, we have given women nearly equal opportunities as men and Wollstonecraft’s arguments have proved their validity. The way we see women now is very different from how we saw women back then. Women are now driven by passion and knowledge and have grown immensely since that period in time. When we gave women freedom, they were able to prove 14 Ibid., 58 they can do equal things as men. A clear example of this is when we gave women the ability to study medicine. Once this opportunity became available, we saw a high influx of women who became doctors. As a result, we now see the field of pediatrics being dominated by women. The same thing applies to when we allowed women to go to law school. Now that we have made the option available, an overwhelming number of women have attended law school and done extremely well in the field. As I see it, my mother is an excellent example for proving Wollstonecraft’s argument about the differences between men and women. My mother grew up in the country of Pakistan where, for centuries, women were only seen in their duty to one day become a wife and serve their husband. This came from a long-standing stereotype of women having the nurturing and caring traits built into them. Everyone believed women were perfectly suited for the lifestyle of bring a wife and never challenged this belief. It was not until opportunities were created that people noticed women had the potential to become intelligent, strong, and independent. The traditional female role was slowly dissolving and women all over the country began to realize they could do so much more with their lives. For my mother, this meant a shift in expectations from my grandparents. She was no longer expected to simply get married and give her life away by being a mother and wife. The new expectation was to attend college and get a job all because the claim that women were not suited for that lifestyle had been proven wrong. My mother went on to graduate top of her class at an all-girls university in Pakistan. She studied psychology and now is a successful behavioral analyst in the U.S. working with kids on the spectrum. Hundreds of years ago women would have never fathomed going to college and pursuing a job like my mother’s. Rousseau may have argued that this was because women were simply created to stay weak and passive, but we can see Wollstonecraft’s Name Pols 4020 claims unfold throughout time showing that women are capable of much more than men had ever imagined. Conclusion I argued in favor of Wollstonecraft’s explanation for the differences between man and woman over Rousseau’s argument because these differences are the result of a constant cycle of teaching women values and ideals based on social construction. To do so, I summarized Wollstonecraft’s view on women through their rights, sexual differences, education, and persistent degradation. Next, I introduced Rousseau’s claim about women including the role of men and how that impacts the values we teach women. Finally, I defended Wollstonecraft’s view over Rousseau’s by pointing to how recent history has proven her account to be correct. Works Cited Berges, Sandrine, and Sandrine Bergáes. The Routledge Guidebook to Wollstonecraft’s a Vindication of the Wollstonecraft, Mary. “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects.” Jonathan Bennett, 2017.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
