New Page 1

Guidelines for Papers and Suggested Paper Topics

HMXP 102

Dr. Fike

I have used red boldface below to mark some topics that will work particularly well for Paper 1. Do not use an author in more than one paper; otherwise, you have considerable flexibility. It is perfectly okay to skip ahead and write about a topic related to an author we have not yet discussed. There are even some topics here related to authors that we will not discuss. It is also okay to write later in the course about an author from earlier in the course.

Before suggesting some possible topics for the first unit, I want to cover some very important points that apply to all three papers.

All papers must be submitted in both hardcopy (see “Format for Papers” ) and electronic copy (turnitin.com). Our class I.D. and enrollment password appear in the syllabus and at the top of the calendar of assignments.
All papers must have a focused topic, which means a specific illustration from your personal experience. Papers that are a string of unsupported generalizations will receive F’s.
All of the papers you write this semester must not only make reference to one or more of the readings from The Human Experience but also consider both sides of a controversial issue (argument-objection-reply is the triad to keep in mind). In other words, all of your papers must be classical arguments; see the linked page on the classical argument. The common book and the films that we will view provide appropriate textual connections.
In your paper, use your focused topic (just one main illustration) and something from at least one of the readings to critique or interrogate or evaluate a position/thesis/controversial idea. You should be fairminded (consider both sides), but you should aim to make a judgment. At the end of your paper (conclusion section), reflect on how your inquiry illuminates your sense of self, which is our major concern in HMXP 102. All of these principles for developing your paper hold for all of the topics below.
Your thesis should be an idea (you want to argue that . . . and then fill in the blank with a clause that expresses something controversial). Your thesis may not be a mere topic (it may not just announce that you will discuss X focused topic; instead give me an idea about X). You must also have an "although" clause and a "because" clause in your thesis. As follows: "Although . . . , I will argue that . . . because. . . ." A qualification, then your main point, then a reason/argument that supports the main point. The although and because clauses are in opposition. All three parts of the thesis must contain and be about the focused topic.
You may want to conclude your paper by reflecting on the self in connection with the context of a particular unit (for example, two contexts are education and autonomy). As a result of arguing for a thesis in connection with a focused topic and one or more (con)texts, what have you learned about the self in general and your self in particular?
Every paper must have a list of works cited. If you cite material from The Human Experience, you need to refer to it in the works cited list as a work in an anthology. If you cite two more more selections from our anthology, you must use cross-referencing.
Responding to each part of a topic is essential, but a successful paper requires much more. The topics below provide ways of getting started, not directions for assembling a whole paper. Much depends on your own initiative and exploration. Be sure to do extensive prewriting. Let me emphasize: The following topics are starting points, not blueprints for papers. Making the paper uniquely your own will take time and ingenuity. Regardless of which topic you select, you will need to examine and evaluate who you are.
Unless you want to read ahead (I whole-heartedly endorse doing so), your textual connections are limited early in the course. Plato's "Allegory" is in a sense our "default" text for the first paper.
Many other topics are possible. If you do not want to write about any of the topics below, feel free to suggest your own. I would be happy to discuss it with you. Please get my approval if you want to pursue a topic not suggested below.
More than likely, any paper that you write about the self and nature will require that you do some research beyond reading the anthology pieces and reflecting on your own experience. That is because very few of us are experts on science. Given the necessity to do research, do not leave your work until the last minute. That advice goes for all the papers, by the way.
Under no circumstances should you write about the self as a generic category or as an abstraction. This course asks you to reflect on who YOU are. You may not write about "the individual in today's society," "people," "some people," "most people," "other people," me, or this course. The first five are paper jargon; the last two are inappropriate.
Caveat: It is not appropriate to write a justification of the existence of God or of biblical inerrancy (especially the literal truth of the creation story in Genesis). Come see me if you want to talk about this, but you should absolutely not attempt one of these topics in 5-6 pages.
If you do not understand the assignment after reading this sheet multiple times, it is your responsibility to seek help.

Note: All page numbers below are from previous editions of the textbook.

Plato: Paper 1

Are you a cave dweller? Have you ever been? Do you know someone who is? Explain how Plato’s “Allegory” illuminates your situation (or someone else’s) as regards a specific issue. When is it okay to stay in the cave? (One student wrote about the desirability church-as-cave following the death of her father when she was 10.)
On page 4, Plato alludes to Homer’s Odyssey, Book 11. Find the statement that Achilles makes there about life and death. Explain it in the context of Plato’s “Allegory” and a specific issue. Then apply both Plato and Homer to some specific issue related to life and/or death in your experience.
How do we know what is a truth and what is the truth. What is the difference between truth and Truth? Take an issue that you care about and discuss it in connection with Plato’s “Allegory.” In affirming one position over another, are you espousing truth or Truth? How can you be sure that what you consider to be true is not just your own opinion? Does it matter? What is the role of context and point of view? Be sure to illustrate your issue with a concrete personal experience.
Plato's "Apology" is about civil (dis)obedience. If you have ever experienced anything analogous (e.g., you broke a law that you consider wrong and suffered the consequences), you might have a good focused topic for a paper in connection with Plato. Nice connections are possible to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, by the way.
Alternatively, Socrates speaks in the "Apology" of an inner voice (guidance, intuition) that has helped him since an early age. If you have ever had a psychic experience (a prophetic or revelatory dream, a precognitive insight, an intuitive flash, a near-death experience, an astral projection, etc.), you could make an excellent connection to the "Apology."
Similarly, as we will reveal in our discussion, Plato believes in reincarnation. Do you? Why or why not?

MBTI: Paper 1 (click the blue link)

This topic could be a very nice alternative to a Plato paper for the first assignment. MBTI is a personality test that you can print out and take on your own. Once you have established your four-letter personality type, look up a description on the internet. For example, your professor is ISTJ, so he would type "ISTJ" into a Google search. You can write a great paper that uses this description as your textual connection (background 1) and then, in the argument/objection/reply sections evaluates your personality's role in something that happened to you (focused topic). Good connections may also be made to Plato's text. How is your personality keeping you in the cave, as it were? In what sense do you need, as it were, to walk away from Omelas? How does knowing your personality type improve your self-understanding? Note: It is okay for the MBTI to be your sole textual connection.

Winter

Pick a story from the Bible and discuss it in light of your own problem of interpretation: biblical literalism vs. scientific rationality. Argue about the alternatives and see if you can come down in the middle, as Winter does, in a realm of poetry and story where interpretation collapses the binary and achieves the spirit of truth, if not literal fact.

Winter mentions the "inexplicable contradiction between belief and behavior (especially over things like business paractices, money and sex)" in par. 33. Do you have Bible-based conflicts about one of these issues or some other? Wrestle with scripture in the same way that Winter does. Try to make some progress in your thinking about an issue that has a big impact on your personal life.

bell hooks's interview with Thich Nhat Hanh

The text contrasts "love ethic" and various definitions of love with -isms, "addiction to love," domination, and power. Write a paper about your experience of love that is contaminated by a lesser value. In the process, think carefully about hooks's sense that love is active rather than passive: something you do, not just something you feel.

Thich Nhat Hanh said to hooks, "Buddhism is in your heart." What did he mean by this? Track down hooks's references to "heart" in her piece: what do they suggest? And what is in your heart? Is that a problem?

TNH emphasizes the importance of loving ourselves in par. 23. Is there some area in which you are not doing so, and is that a problem for you?

bh mentions "mindfulness practice" in par. 31. What does she mean by that? In what area of your life would you benefit from practicing greater mindfulness? Why don't you give it a try and write a paper about your experiment?

bh speaks of "the bridge of illusion" vs. "a real bridge" in par. 42. Do you subscribe to any illusions? What would be a "real bridge" in your case?

Consider par. 48 where TNH is talking about how to responsd to those who hurt us. Think of someone who hurt you and then of your response to that person. Were you right in your response? Do you align with what TNH is saying? Why or why not? You could write a similar paper about something you fear (par. 50-51).

TNH mentions samadhi in par. 53. It has a lot to do with meditation. If you have a meditative practice--or if you want to experiment with meditation--you could write a paper about your experience. Some connection with Moore's text would be very appropriate.

LeGuin: Paper 1

LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" (which we will discuss later in the semester) is a version of "The Allegory of the Cave," but it adds various psychological themes: the unconscious, the shadow, the role of scapegoats, fertility ritual, guilt, the transition from innocence to experience, happiness, individuation, etc. The story also has sex, drugs, and alcohol! In what way are YOU like (or unlike) those who walk away from Omelas or those who stay behind or the child in the basement? What does walking away from Omelas represent? Which is better--staying put or walking away from Omelas? And why do you think so?
[Regarding a previous year's common book: You can also relate the story to other things that we are reading, particularly Timmerman's Where Am I Wearing?. The idyllic situation in Omelas, says the narrator, depends on "the existence of the child" (par. 17). In the same way, doesn't our having nice inexpensive clothes require that children work in sweatshops in third-world countries? How can we be rich if we do not make somebody poor? LeGuin's story gets at this difficulty. We live in a binary, predatorial universe. What do you think?]

Walls: Paper 1: 2015-2016 Common Book (these topics appear, in more readable format, at the end of the Walls PowerPoint).

Values: In her interview at Point Loma Nazarine University (available on Youtube.com), Jeannette (mis?)quotes Oscar Wilde as stating, “A necessity is a luxury once sampled.” Another version of the statement is “A luxury once tasted becomes a necessity.” (The Internet assigns the statement and others like it to various people, so who knows who originally said it?) Her point is that we think that we cannot survive without things we have grown accustomed to. Did reading The Glass Castle help you see any of your values in a different light? Is anything that you always considered a necessity really a luxury? Here is a great opportunity to make a connection to Brian Swimme’s piece on consumerism. (For “values” see TGC, pages 269.)

Science vs. religion: Jeannette makes statements about science and religion on pages 104-05 and 261. Can you embrace religious faith AND reason/science? Of course, science and religion start from very different assumptions, which are mutually exclusive, or are they? Using connections to Jeannette’s book and a narrowly focused experience of your own, explain where you stand on a spectrum ranging from science’s materialism to religion’s emphasis on things not seen. Where does the author stand vis-à-vis science and religion?

City life vs. wilderness: Rex Walls, for all his problems, loved nature. “‘These cities will kill you,’ he said” (34). Later, Jeannette writes a paragraph that begins, “Dad missed the wilderness,” in which she develops her father’s biophelia (106; see also the top paragraph on 185). Later, of course, working in “untamed country” in upstate New York seems to do him some good versus the temptations of NYC (262). On the other hand, one might argue that a couple of days in the desert would be more likely to kill you than life in the city. Using an example from your own experience, engage with Rex’s view and its opposite in order to inquire into your own environmental ethic. Will cities really kill you? If so, in what sense?

Harm vs. benefit: To a large extent, The Glass Castle is a book about growing up while “living in a state of neglect” (193). Yet Jeannette suggests that a hardship that one considers a curse may become a blessing in later life. As her mother says, “‘What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’” (179). Believe it or not, Jeannette even states in her Point Loma Nazarine interview that her parents gave her “incredible gifts.” In the same interview, she mentions a specific example, how her father pimped her out in a bar. She calls it “the worst experience of my life . . . but also the best experience of my life.” What is the worst experience in your life? Is there something in your own life that seemed like a curse at the time but is in retrospect a blessing? How might a Wallsian approach shed a positive light on a dark moment in your life?

Victim vs. perpetrator: When Jeanette is sexually assaulted by Uncle Stanley, her mother tells her “that sexual assault was a crime of perception” and that her uncle was “‘so lonely’” (184). Think about a time when someone harmed you in some way. Then think compassionately about why s/he might have done that. For example, maybe you were bullied, as Jeannette was by Dinitia Hewitt. Does Jeannette’s awareness to the ills in Dinitia’s life have a corresponding realization about your own antagonist?

Pride: This concept, which Christians consider a “deadly sin,” is a major theme in TGC. See the earlier slide that lists all the page numbers where pride rears its head. In that context, consider how your own pride may (or may not) have been a problem for you in a specific situation. For example, have you ever resisted authority just for the heck of it?

Gross: No longer in the anthology

"Hindu Female Deities" gives you an opportunity to reflect on the patriarchal nature of the Christian faith as you may have experienced it. Identify some aspect of your Christian practice--perhaps, in the spirit of L&J, some of the metaphorical or imagistic language frequently used in your church--and try to raise your awareness of assumptions and context. In other words, in what respect is your faith or religious practice an extension of culture rather than a reflection of transcendent truth? This topic ties in nicely with the theme of leaving the cave and illustrates one of this course's fundamental points: knowledge is a construct.

Lakoff and Johnson

How would these authors read Plato’s “Allegory”? Does their approach suggest a way of critiquing him—of finding him guilty of the thing that he criticizes? If Plato had not been so eager to advocate the role of the philosopher, might he have been less critical of those who do not espouse a philosophical approach to human experience? Is there actually a positive way of viewing the cave dwellers? Or in Emerson’s terms, does the metaphor you use to describe your life enable or prevent self-reliance?
The authors discuss argument as war. Come up with a similar metaphor relevant to your own life, discuss it, and evaluate it. You might then make a connection to Plato: Does your metaphor obscure the truth or liberate you from mental darkness, and how do you know that it does one or the other?
You are taking this course during the lead-up to the 2016 presidential primary season. What metaphors do you find in the media's reports of the primaries? What are the strengths and weaknesses of viewing politics, say, as war? How does political metaphor relate to YOU?

Morrow and Tyson: No longer in the anthology

The authors are writing against the black-and-white thinking that pervades literalist Christian interpretation of the Bible. In other words, they oppose the binary of heterosexual (good) and LGBT (bad). They oppose heterosexism on two basic grounds: 1) if one cherry picks the scriptures, then a literal interpretation of culturally bound statements on homosexuality is illogical and heterosexist; and 2) normal sexuality is a continuum that includes orientations other than heterosexuality. For some of you, reading Morrow and Tyson's argument must have been a bit like getting dragged out of Plato's cave or seeing the scapegoat in LeGuin's cellar. How did you react to the message that heterosexuality is not the only normal sexual orientation and their implication that your Bible-based condemnation of homosexuality (or of any position other than heterosexuality) is intellectually suspicious? Are you going to stay in the cave, or will you do some version of walking away from Omelas?

Nussbaum and Bandura: Bandura is no longer in the anthology.

Nussbaum's text nicely articulates a rationale for becoming the kind of "cosmopolitan" that Winthrop's Global Learning Initiative seeks to create; however, it is possible that you can experience what Bandura calls "disengagement in the exercise of moral agency." So here is the question: are you a cosmopolitan with active moral agency (what Kelsey Timmerman calls a "glocal" who thinks globally and acts locally), are you a provincial thinker who really does not care about anyone beyond your immediate sphere, or are you somewhere in between these extremes? Using a focused topic, argue for your location on a continuum that ranges from a cosmopolitan/glocal point of view to provincial disengagement.

Mill

Mill uses words like “doctrine,” “creed,” and “dogma,” which are essentially what Emerson calls “the dear old doctrines of the church.” Take one such idea, discuss your position on it, and then evaluate your adherence to it. In taking the position you do, are you a cave dweller? Are you self-reliant?
The author mentions “sophism” on page 36 ("The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion"). Figure out what this term means. Then discuss an example of it from contemporary America or from your personal experience. Do you think that your example of sophism is as bad as our authors suggest? Does it make you a cave dweller? Does it make you self-reliant? Does it have anything to do with metaphor? Plato disapproved of the sophists too, by the way, and it would be very helpful to make a connection to what he says about them.
Mill's point, of course, is that free thought and expression are good things, but can you think of a case in which censorship can be beneficial and/or justifiable? This is a tricky topic because the temptation will be to generalize. Be sure that you start with a narrowly focused topic; otherwise, your paper will go awry.

Emerson

If you found “Self-Reliance” to be hard to read, that is because it is aphoristic: each sentence is a kernel of meaning that can stand alone. Go to http://transcendentalists.com/self_reliance_analysis.htm and have a look at the sentences that are listed there (or find an interesting sentence or passage of your own). Then write a paper in which you discuss a focused topic in order to support or challenge something that Emerson asserts.
Various other approaches to “Self-Reliance” are also possible. Have a look at the questions that appear on the website mentioned in #9 and use one of them as the foundation for a paper.
It may be appropriate to discuss “Self-Reliance” in connection with liberal and conservative politics. Lakoff writes about liberal vs. conservative in “Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust” (available at http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html). How does an understanding of metaphor suggest an evaluation of your liberal or conservative stance on a particular political issue (one that you can illustrate with a specific example, of course? Are you really as politically “self-reliant” (in the Emersonian sense) as you thought when you started addressing this topic?
Many of you have gone on trips with your families, church groups, or high school classes. Emerson says, "Traveling is a fool's paradise." Based on your experience as a traveler, argue for or against his statement. This is one of the best topics on the whole list.
Here is material from bartleby.com: Man the Reformer. III. Essays. A Lecture Read before the Mechanics Apprentices' Library Association, Boston, January 25, 1841. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. 1909-14. Essays and English Traits. The Harvard Classics
" . . . youth who is still under the dominion of his own wild thoughts, and not yet harnessed in the team of society to drag with us all in the ruts of custom, I see at once...." Emerson, of course, is not talking about sports teams, but his use of the word "team" CAN be related to your own experience on a team in high school or in college. How does the experience of teamwork relate to Emersonian self-reliance, and how (paradoxically) can teamwork on the court or playing field lead to self-reliance when you are on your own apart from your teammates?

The Secret: This is a film that you will have to watch on your own; there are clips on Youtube.com.

Write a paper about an experiment that you conduct on the power of attraction (i.e., the so-called "secret"). Select something that you would like to have--not a house or a million dollars but something modest. For example, one of the speakers in the film says, "Make it your intention to attract a cup of coffee today." One of my former students selected more time with her son as the thing that she wanted to attract; Winthrop then had a snow day. Another student set out to attract his next girlfriend; he then met her at a party. In my own case, the secret worked with a chicken sandwich. I was getting dressed after a swim at the old gym and thought, "I'd really like to eat some chicken today." Within half an hour, someone brought me a chicken sandwich from Dinkins--a person who in all the years that I have known her brought me food only that one time. As these examples suggest, it is important to pick something that can actually come to you within the time frame of this paper assignment. Unite desire with imagination. Feel gratitude for the object of your desire as if you are already in possession of it. Release to the universe an image of having the thing that you desire. But do not emphasize WANT: Do not say, "I want a cup of coffee." Want means desire, but also means lack, and the universe is likely to give you more lack if you say "want." Instead, as the movie suggests, say, "I am so happy and grateful now that...." After you have set the wheels of attraction in motion, sit back, wait, and see what happens. Write a paper about the success or failure of your experiment. Why did it work or not work? What other explanations might be ventured? What have you learned about your self in the process? Of course, some of you are saying, "It's not biblical!" Oh really? See Paul's comment in Philippians 4:6. See also Mark 11:24. When he says that we should pray "with thanksgiving," he means that we should think about what we want as though we had it already, as though it were a present fact in our lives. That is the law of attraction in a nutshell.

Myers

Possible topics related to David G. Myers’s “Ingroup and Outgroup”: If you choose to connect your paper to Myers’s interesting selection, try to locate a focused topic in connection with one of his key words and phrases. These include bias, favoritism, self-serving bias, ethnic pride, conformity, prejudice, fraternity, sorority, race, religion, conformity, nonconformity, norms, stereotypes, white pride, black pride, male superiority, and feminist consciousness.
Here are some questions that Myers asks: "Is ethnic pride conducive to prejudice? Does women's solidarity with other women stimulate them to dislike men? Does enthusiastic loyalty to a particular fraternity or sorority lead its members to deprecate independents and members of other fraternities and sororities?" (62). A focus within one of these questions would be enough material for a whole paper.
Myers writes: "In short, it appears that people's attitudes are formed partly as mirrored images of surrounding attitudes, be those attitudes of 'White pride,' 'Black pride,' 'male superiority,' or 'feminist consciousness'" (63). A focus within one of these areas would be enough material for a whole paper.

DuBois

Although it is written much differently than Myers’s selection, W. E. B. DuBois’s The Souls of Black Folk may be considered an illustration of what it feels like to be a member of an “outgroup.” Once again, you need to evaluate an idea/thesis related to a focused topic in connection with the reading. Here are some suggestions to get you started. Remember that I am once again suggesting areas of inquiry, not ready-to-write-about focused topics; put some major effort into focusing and prewriting.

DuBois says, “The shades of the prison-house closed round about us all” on page 65. This statement alludes to William Wordsworth’s poem “Ode: Intimations on Immortality,” line 67. Place the “prison-house” metaphor in its original context (i.e., go read the poem and figure out what WW is saying). Is he saying the same thing that DuBois is saying? How can you apply the writers’ opinions/situations to your own experience or someone else’s? Have the shades of the prison house closed around you too? Why or why not?
Here is DuBois again: “the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,--a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world.” He calls this phenomenon “double-consciousness” (65). On the same page, DuBois adds that “the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his [the black man’s] face.” He is suggesting that African Americans’ state of socio-economic disadvantage is imposed on them by persons who unjustly subjugate them. On the other hand, The Souls of Black Folk also contains statements suggesting that African Americans are at least partly responsible for their own situation. What is your own view of what DuBois calls “Negroes’ social responsibilities” (68)? Be sure to illustrate your paper with a focused topic and to consider both sides of the issue that you construct.
Write a paper about what DuBois calls the “innate love of harmony and beauty” and “the soul-beauty of a race” (66). What does this mean? How can you illustrate it? Do African Americans have a “soul-beauty” that is exclusive to them? Have they merely developed a faculty that lies latent in other races? Or are these the wrong questions to ask? (I once had a very good paper on this topic that used hymns as a focus.)
DuBois’s phrase “wooing false gods” is highly provocative (66). What kind of false god or gods might he be talking about? How does your own experience (or someone else’s) illustrate such falseness? Almost nothing is only true or only false (or wholly good or wholly bad); therefore, it will be essential to examine the plusses and minuses of your focused topic. The paper you write in response to DuBois's phrase may well make a connection to race, but it does not have to (there are plenty of false idols to go around). You do not have to be African American to write about this topic.

Loury and McIntosh

You could write a paper in connection with Loury's phrase "racial authenticity" (71) or about related phrases--"one's genuine self" (72) and "mythic authentic blackness" (73). Does a focused topic illustrate one of these phrases or not?
Loury writes on 73: "Who am I, then? Foremost, I am a child of God, created in his image, imbued with his spirit, endowed with his gifts, set free by his grace." You could write a paper in which you take this apart and agree or disagree.
If you have ever encountered a conflict like Loury's betrayal of Woody, you could write a paper about it: was it right or wrong given the circumstances?
Loury and McIntosh agree that "racial identity in America is inherently a social and cultural, not simply a biological construct" (Loury 70). Using an example from your experience (or from the experience of some whom you know) and argue for or against this idea.

Feminist Writers

The following authors fall into this category: McIntosh, Gilligan (from a former edition of the book), Sojourner Truth, bell hooks, and the unidentified authors of "Declaration of Sentiments" (from a previous edition). But of course "feminism" is defined in various ways (see hooks's selection). Using a specific example, talk about your preferred orientation toward feminism. Are you against all sexism wherever it may lie? How does your position relate to age, class, and race? Are you a woman who hates men? Are you a man who hates women? If you are a man, are you a feminist, a misogynist, or a little of both?

Gilligan: No longer in the anthology (but the blue link is to the text)

Just as the African American students in our class may find DuBois especially provocative, the women may gravitate to Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice, but you do not have to be black or female to write about either of these selections. Nonetheless, the female students may want to think about issues in their lives from Gilligan’s feminist perspective. Here are some suggestions:

She writes about a study that related “the view of self and thinking about morality to experiences of moral conflict and the making of life choices” (84). This is a powerful nexus of ideas. What sort of personal experience illustrates it? (She goes on to mention abortion, but please realize that your professor is weary of abortion papers.)
She mentions “the differences between the sexes” on page 85. It would be impossible to catalog all such differences, but you could write a good paper about one difference that stands out in your experience. Be sure to make reference to some of Gilligan’s statements on gender difference.
A whole paper could be written to illustrate or challenge or qualify this statement on page 87: “Since masculinity is defined through separation while femininity is defined through attachment, male gender identity is threatened by intimacy while female gender identity is threatened by separation. Thus males tend to have difficulty with relationships, while females tend to have problems with individuation.”
There is a paper to be written about “children’s games” and the “sex differences in the games that children play” (87). Gilligan argues that boys are to rules and girls are to feelings and relationships. Does your own experience (or someone else’s) illustrate or qualify her point?
Competition (see page 88) opens up many fruitful topics, particularly for those of you who are on an athletic team.
Evaluate this interesting statement: “While for men, identity precedes intimacy and generativity in the optimal cycle of human separation and attachment, for women these tasks seem instead to be fused. Intimacy goes along with identity, as the female comes to know herself as she is known, through her relationships with others” (89).
Competition (see page 88) opens up many interesting topics, particularly for those of you who are on an athletic team.
Write a paper about what Gilligan calls “fear success” in connection with a competitive activity (90).
On 91-92 the author discusses “masculine values,” “moral concern,” “moral weakness,” “moral strength,” and women’s roles. She states that “morality is conceived in interpersonal terms and goodness is equated with helping and pleasing others.” Do you agree? How might you illustrate your position? What is your own position on women’s roles and on your particular role as a woman? Be sure to focus on an example of one role.
On page 93 Gilligan quotes someone who asks, “What does morality mean to you?” You cannot write about all of morality; however, one moral strand, if properly illustrated and critiqued, should yield a good paper.
Critique the statement on page 101 “that narcissism leads to death.”

Belenky: No longer in the anthology (but the blue link is to the text)

Mary Field Belenky’s “Silence” offers numerous other possible directions for interesting papers. It is no longer in the anthology, but I can provide a copy if you want to write about it. Consider the following:

“Words were perceived as weapons” (98).
“The inability of the silent women to find meaning in the words of others is reflected also in their relations with authorities” (100).
If you have ever said that something is against your religion, this is your opportunity to look into the reasons why (or why not) in connection with page 100.
Write a paper about a sex-role stereotype.
“…play itself is a precursor to symbolization and meaning-making. Play provides children with their first experiences in creating metaphors” (103).
If you think that any of these authors--DuBois, Gilligan, or Belenky--is out of date, write a paper in which you use a personal experience (or the experience of someone whom you know well) to argue your point.

Hemingway, "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber": No longer in the anthology (but the blue link is to the text); my handout: Hemingway activity

The story provides insight into numerous issues: hypocrisy, fear/courage, dysfunctional relationships, animals/hunting, manly activity, “bitchery,” and perhaps others. Pick one of these themes and write a paper that brings together material from the story and something from personal experience. Remember that your paper, like all your papers, must be argumentative—it must argue for a thesis but then consider reasons why you might be wrong.

Swimme

Take an ad and explicate it with respect to the idea of dissatisfaction/craving and your own sense of these things. What is the “philosophy” behind your ad? If you select an ad from a magazine, make sure that you include it with your paper. If you use a TV commercial, you must at least provide a detailed description of the ad; a video copy of it would be even better.
Swimme writes of initiation into the world of consumerism and calls consumerism a “cosmology.” Do you agree? What’s your own cosmology? Is it true that there is little or no “authentic spiritual development” these days? Is your consumerist cosmology of what Tillich calls "ultimate concern"? Are you guilty of idolatry in your emphasis on getting stuff?
Who represents consumerism on a scale equal to that of Martin Luther King, Jesus, and others? Identify and write an evaluative essay on such a person.
You can make a great connection to Guha's Environmentalism: A Global History, par. 16 (the last 10 lines of the par.). Consumerism has global environmental implications. Guha's statement is astounding (and damning). Think about your comfortable lifestyle--your car, the utilities in your home, your air travel, etc. Your lifestyle--our lifestyle--is built on the backs of people like those Timmerman writes about. If you are going to be a global citizen--Timmerman's "glocal"--what things will have to change in your lifestyle? Select one aspect of the way you live and evaluate it.
Sometimes you just have to have the next version of the iPod (or whatever). Write a paper that evaluates this need.

Marx

Can your work experience or that of someone else whom you know be characterized as slavery or as alienation?
Write in Marxist terms about your collision with another social/economic class.
“The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation” (116). Agree or disagree in connection with a focused topic.
Do we have “royalty” in this country? Why do we who work hard for low wages tolerate people who make $1 million for a thirty-minute TV show or more than ten times that much for a movie? Why do humans not only tolerate but need to elevate a small segment of our population?
Marx writes, "The more people place in God, the less they retain in themselves." Do you agree or disagree--and why? You will need to account for his scattered statements about religion if you choose this topic.
Establish what Marx means by “bourgeoisie.” Then evaluate this statement: “Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (121). Of course, he was wrong. Work with a focused topic to try to explain why.
“Social scum”: If you are familiar with such people in your home town, write a paper about how they relate to or illustrate (or not) Marx’s ideas. (Walls's family could be considered in this category. You might make some nice connections to TGC.)

Friedman

Friedman and Marx are diametrically opposed: whereas Marx believes that the free market enslaves and alienates, Friedman thinks that it is the rising tide that floats all boats. Using an experience that you have had with capitalism or one of its subcategories (e.g., a job), argue that one or the other is more correct in your case. In the process, you may want to refer to "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Menkiti: No longer in the anthology

The following homology sums up the author’s main point: in terms of personhood, African society privileges community over the individual, whereas Western society privileges the individual over community. That is a straightforward point, but the article raises many issues that you might write about:

What are some images “of the lone individual” in our culture?
Menkiti asserts that “language and its associated social rules” foster a sense of community in traditional African society. Cannot the same be said of our culture as well?
He also attributes “a long process of social and ritual transformation” to African culture as if we lack identity-related rituals in our own culture. These “rituals of incorporation,” he says, involve “the overarching necessity of learning the social rules by which the community lives.” These include “those of initiation at puberty time.” Again, he is writing about traditional African society, but we too develop in our knowledge of social rules through ritualistic activities, do we not? How might identity formation in America be “processual” and/or ritualistic?
Menkiti associates “personhood” with “ethical maturity.” Echoing other thinkers he states that “the transgression of accepted moral rules gives rise not just to a feeling of guilt but to a feeling of shame—." There is an important nexus of concepts here—transgression, moral rules, guilt, shame—about which you could write a fine essay.
Menkiti brings up the issue of animal rights and states that “the domain of animals is bound to undermine, sooner or later, the clearness of our conception of what it means to be a person.” Do you agree or disagree? (Please bear in mind, however, that this is not the time or place to write the standard freshman paper on things like chicken farms or the testing of substances on house pets or vivisection.)
Of course, the article raises the issue of freedom. If one’s identity/personhood depends on connections to community, can one be free nonetheless? On the other hand, is it possible to be an isolato and still be constrained? In your opinion, what is the essence of freedom? Does it really have to do with being a part of a community (or not)?
Find out more about Existentialist Philosophy and try it on for size. Does it fit? Why or why not?
Does the African American community emphasize community over individual or the reverse? In other words, does the development of personhood echo Western culture or African culture?

Kamkwamba: A former common book

Pages 99-100 mention family traditions: “In our culture, family life follows many rules that have been passed down by our ancestors” (99). What rules have been passed down in YOUR family? To what extent are you tradition’s pawn? Obviously you would need to focus on just one tradition and go into detail.

William basically uses what we call the Law of Attraction, which is the subject of a book and a film called The Secret. My list of paper assignments includes an excellent experience-based topic related to using the LOA. This topic goes hand-in-hand with the sense of conviction about something that others considered crazy or something that they considered garbage. See 188-90. What do you make of humans’ basic conservatism (their resistance to any kind of change) versus William’s (and your own) use of desire, imagination, and gratitude to achieve your goal? Here are some statements that relate to the LOA to help you get started:

73: “‘When you go to see the lake, you also see the hippos.’”
269: “‘I try, and I made it!’”
275: “‘Whatever you want to do, if you do it with all your heart, it will happen.’” Moral of the story.
280: “I went to sleep dreaming of Malawi, and all the things made possible when your dreams are powered by your heart.”
8 in the back matter: “‘Trust yourself and believe,’ I told them. ‘And whatever happens, don’t give up.’”

What is the role of the feminine in William’s book? Consider talk about girls (64), mention of prostitutes in bars (34), PDA (26), breast milk image (59), the fact that daughters never eat with the father or son with the mother (99), and the issue of pregnancy and the body (100-01). What do you make of the relative dearth of information about women in the book, and how does that intersect with your own human experience?

Have you ever believed strongly in something that others thought was crazy? If so, you could possibly get a nice paper out of it in connection with William’s similar situation.

Has a book ever had an impact on you like the impact science books had on William? Here too there are possibilities for excellent papers.

Bellah, "Community Properly Understood: A Defense of 'Democratic Communitarianism": No longer in the anthology (but the blue link is to the text)

Evaluate Bellah's idea that groups need not only "a contractual association" but also "common values." Write about one element of your own value system in connection with a group of people who share your view (or not).
Bellah is critical of "'ontological individualism'--the belief that the truth of our condition is not in our society or in our relations to others, but in our isolated and inviolable selves." Of course, he is describing Emerson's position. Whose view do you favor?
Bellah mentions "conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat." Which are you? Why are you one or the other as regards a specific value or issue?

Bellah, "Why Do We Need a Public Affairs Mission?--The Moral Crisis in American Public Life"

Bellah argues (along with Lincoln) that "true freedom is the freedom only to do that which is good, just and honest" rather than "the freedom to do anything they [people] want." Which view do you espouse in your own life? Argue that one view is right or stake out your own definition. Building in Menkiti's views on freedom would also help.
Bellah's statements about "the overclass" and "the underclass" and about workers' loss of economic ground relate not only to Marx's distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat but also to John Edwards's campaign speeches about "the two Americas." Do you think that there is truth to such distinctions in present-day America? Careful now: Do not forget the need to have a focused topic in your paper.

Pinker ("My Genome") and Ridley ("Human Nature"): Pinker is no longer in the anthology.

Both Pinker and Ridley take stands on the age-old controversy that is summed up by "nature vs. nurture." Using something that you enjoy doing (e.g., one student wrote about playing softball), argue that your interest falls in a particular spot on the nature-nurture continuum.

Ridley

Ridley's text invites you to think about your life from the dual standpoints of nature and nurther. Pick something well focused and argue that it may be due to one factor of the other. What may be an instance of "'designed' behavior" (par. 32)? Dating and marriage are appropriate to write about. So is male psychology--see especially Ridley's statements about competition in par. 45.

Eiseley

Eiseley does not know exactly what causes the transition from inert matter to living matter, but he sees a whisper of it in the fact that "a sunning backsnake" is "like the very simulacrum" (my italics) of the metaphor ("the egg of night") that he uses to describe the secret. This lack of clarity leads him to suggest in his final sentence that there is some kind of transcendent mystery behind nature. What I want you to think about is the possibility that there is divinity in nature. Have you ever heard someone say, "Nature is my cathedral," or "All I need is God in nature"? Do you agree or disagree with this kind of thinking? Why or why not? Make an argument. Do not just rehearse your preconceptions; really give the opposition its due this time. What if you are wrong? Be sure to discuss a focused topic--not all of nature in general but perhaps some specific person or experience.
In paragraph seven, Eiseley discusses myth in a way that may or may not connect with Quinn's use of the term (you should make your own case for connection or disconnection). He mentions two specific types of myth--theological and scientific--but we deal with many other categories of myth every day, do we not? Pick one and evaluate it. Does it work for you? Why or why not? And if not, what should you do about that? If your myth now lies in ruins, what are you going to do about it?

Sandel: No longer in the anthology

The author discusses what we call "designer babies." I do not want you to write an awful generic regurgitation of commonly held maxims on this subject; however, you could get a very good paper out of considering the opposite of what Sandel is talking about. He is writing about using technology to enhance the genome; you could write about using technology to avoid unacceptable genetic deficiencies. Here is an example of the kind of personal experience that would work as a focused topic. One of my students, who started out as prolife, spent the summer shadowing her mother, a nurse, at a home for persons with a specific type of retardation. After realizing that abortion based on prenatal screening is justifiable in such cases because it could prevent a lifetime of institutionalization and suffering, the student embraced a qualified version of the prochoice position. There are, of course, ways to object to her conclusion; but you get the idea: focusing your topic is key.

Sovacool and Brown: No longer in the anthology

These authors suggest that our attitude toward the use of energy depends to a large degree upon the myths we tell ourselves about it. They state that "investigating energy myths pushes otherwise invisible elements of our culture to the foreground" (par. 10). Using one such myth (or a tight nexus of myths) as your focused topic, analyze your own position as regards the energy issue. In other words, do what the authors call "demystification" (par. 8). (Note that par. 5 provides an excellent example of myth: "Paul Bunyan and Babe the Big Blue Ox.")

Wilson: No longer rin the anthology (no longer in the book; the chapter is from the book The Future of Life, which is on reserve for CRTW 201 in the library)

Human beings are "the planetary killer" mentioned in the chapter's title: human actions are responsible for the high rate at which species are going extinct. Write a paper in which you discuss the situation of one endangered species (or of one extinct species). Ultimately, this topic invites you to think about who you are as a co-participant with other living things in the natural world. Does your attitude toward the species you choose to write about reflect your overall relationship to the natural world? Do you even care? Why or why not? Do you agree with the position that economic development and environmental preservation are mutually exclusive (think, for example, about the spotted owl)? In other words, do not forget the fact that YOUR OWN biophilia/biophobic attitude is the main event that you will use the species (focused topic) to understand better.

Quinn

Quinn's story points out that evolution is a "myth" because the way we tell the story of evolution focuses on human beings and ignores other forms of life. The way the character Ishmael (a gorilla) uses the term "myth" is problematic in some ways, but let me be clear about the way in which evolution is a problematic topic for a HMXP paper. Some of you will be tempted to assert (a) that the Bible (a nonscientific source) overrules the science of evolution or (b) that evolution is "just a theory." The former (a) is a false use of authority (I did not say just that the Bible is a "false authority"; I mean that using it to disprove science is jarringly illogical; the Bible conveys truth but not always fact). The latter (b) reflects a misunderstanding of definition: a "theory" is an idea that has received scientific support; you mean "hypothesis" (an idea that has not yet been proven and needs to be subjected to the scientific method). However, you can write an excellent paper if your time at Winthrop, especially your exposure to biological science, has led you to shift paradigms from creation to evolution. Our course's four main questions--what do I believe, why do I believe it, and what if I'm wrong, and what can I learn about myself by thinking through an issue like this?--are very relevant here. I will not allow you to write a Bible-based paper that argues for the falsity of evolution (such an argument is a fallacy; therefore, it is inappropriate in college writing; in fact, it is as inappropriate as any other false use of authority across disciplinary boundaries), but a science-based paper that argues for the falsity of the biblical creation accounts (there are two, remember?) could work very nicely. In other words, in the spirit of Winter and Tillich, you can explore that story not as natural history but as an allegory of some truth about human nature. If you write about evolution, though, you should read the selections by Winter, Ridley, and Morrow and Tyson in your anthology. Finally, you may not write a paper about the paragraph that you are now reading or about me, Dr. Fike. The course is about who you are; analyze yourself. If you are ticked off that I will not accept an anti-evolution, pro-creationism, pro-intelligent design paper that just recapitulates your preconceptions, pick another topic.

Bodian: No longer in the anthology

A paper related to the interview with Arne Naess would also require some research. Naess asks, "Why do we think that economic growth and high levels of consumption are so important?" He is critiquing the widespread idea that promoting the environment and safeguarding the economy are not complementary imperatives--i.e., you cannot have both a healthy economy and a clean environment. Using a focus on one specific thing on which you have done some research, take a stand that this dichotomy is true or false.
Another sort of paper is possible here, one that might connect to Wilson's text. Are you a proponent of "deep ecology"? Do you favor "shallow ecology"? Do you fall somewhere in between these extremes? Why? Bringing in information about Rachel Carson (also mentioned in Swimme's text) could enhance a paper on deep ecology.

Orr (7th edition, 2011): No longer in the anthology, but the blue link is to the text.

The author presents a couple of helpful terms to enhance your discussion of your orientation toward nature: biophilia and biophobia. He argues that Native American culture had the right orientation toward the land. What does he mean by this? Do you agree or disagree? How do you know?
At the same time, he seems critical of genetic engineering and nanotechnology. He mentions problems like ozone depletion and global warming. What do you think about just one of these issues? Are you an activist? Do you not care at all? Or are you a "free rider"? And why is that? Like some of the topics above, responding to Orr will require some research.