Writing responses: Weekly directions

Here's how the rhythm of the class will work once we start discussing your 5-page papers...

Each Monday will, consist of one (or in a pinch, two) discussion(s), each led by a student--the presenter. (Well, except for the first two evenings when we discuss your topics and give you some time to get going on your 5-page papers).

The class must be prepared to engage in the Monday night discussion. So each presenter will begin by providing background as follows:

Friday, by evening -The presenter(s) will post a 5-page paper in a Moodle forum (set up by Paul). The five page paper describes his or her research topic.

The five pages should serve to introduce the topic in straightforward language, describe the questions and difficulties that seem to face people about the topic, and suggest some areas for consideration in the discussion. The author of the 5-pager of the night should provide at least an informal bibliography--enough information for us to track down an article or book you're referring to, but not necessarily in strict MLA format.

Saturday (before midnight)-all students will post their analysis of the topic as a response in the presenter's forum.

In your analysis speak to the topic. Be blunt. If you disagree with things, say so. The presenter will read all of these and plan the presentation for Monday in part based on the responses.

Initial responses: Suggestions

Here are a few suggestions of useful kinds of initial responses: (Many others are possible beyond this list):

Making connections between experiences you've had or things you have read and the ideas in the paper,
Thinking about implications: "If this idea is true, then wouldn't it mean that...",
Looking up terms and ideas and other perspectives: The web is very handy. Look up some terms or ideas that came up in the paper. Follow up some ideas that the paper reminds you about. Let us know what you find out. (And give a "shout out" (link and/or informal citation) to your sources.)
Asking questions of clarification; of intended meaning; about alternatives; asking related questions these ideas raise for you.
Gut reactions: What ideas do you find really attractive, or what makes you feel uncomfortable, even if you can't (yet) put your finger on exactly why you have a particular reaction.
Situations / examples in which these ideas are really useful, or in which these ideas seem to break down.
Identifying assumptions: Assumptions that might not have been stated in the ideas at hand. Or perhaps identifying how these ideas challenge or resonate with assumptions that you make.

Your initial response might be the equivalent of a page or so of handwriting.

If what you write leaves the suspicion that you have not read what the presenter has written and thought carefully about it, I shall respond accordingly!

Monday night presentation(s) and reflection writing

Monday, 7:00 pm - The presenter(s) will each lead a discussion on their topic.

Typically each presenter might start with some response to the initial reactions that others wrote (keep this to 5-7 minutes). The presenter should *not* take time to re-cap what was in the 5-pager: we have all read that.

Monday, approximately 8:00-8:45 - all students and the presenter(s) will write a reflection on the discussion.

You may bring a computer and type up your reflection, or bring a pen and write out a reflection. You will hand your reflections in as appropriate: Either posting computer written responses in the available forum, or taking a snapshot of your hand-writing and upload the pictures.

More about what to write in your reflections below...

Paul will grade your initial responses and post-presentation reflections based on HOW WELL YOU THINK. I do not care if you agree with what the presenter thinks, or what the rest of us think. I want you to think. Explore your own thoughts. Write about the topic based on your thoughts.

Some reflections on writing reflections.

You should rely on your life experience, both outside the classroom, and inside (e.g. reading you have done for other classes).

There are some similarities with book reviews, but there are some elements of this reflection that are different. As an example, consider this
review written by H Allen Orr of Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscapes" (NYRB) (While keeping in mind that Orr probably had weeks and weeks to write his review, and could consult all manner of resources, and is likely a well-recognized expert in the field himself!)

In Harris' words "I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science."

Some things that Orr does that *are* kind of cool, that you could do:

Figures out something that the book is not trying to do...

"He is not attempting to provide an evolutionary account of the origins of human morality. Our moral sense may or may not reflect much about our evolutionary history as a species. The logic of natural selection might or might not, for example, account for the tendency of human beings to act altruistically to close genetic relatives, as many proponents of evolutionary psychology suggest."

Spinning out some implications of the ideas at hand, and giving one's personal reaction:

"Who can possibly find appealing the image of a sect of experts, attired in white lab coats, instructing us in what we “should do and should want”?"

"It seems odd to try to assess the relationship between two ideas or judgments by analyzing whether the same brain regions are active when each is represented in the human mind. Surely such an assessment requires one to analyze the ideas or judgments themselves. If the same brain regions are active when people mentally perform addition and multiplication, would Harris conclude that the addition/multiplication distinction is illusory?"

" Harris’s view that morality concerns the maximization of well-being of conscious creatures doesn’t follow from science. What experiment or body of scientific theory yielded such a conclusion? Clearly, none."

Judgements and reactions by comparing the ideas to one's own reading and one's own life experience...

Harris doesn’t seem to take seriously the fact that different peoples at different times have had different visions of morality. When Trotsky said, “We Bolsheviks do not accept the bourgeois theory of ‘the sanctity of human life,’” was he endorsing Harris’s “beneficence, trust, creativity,” and “wholesome pleasures,” all enjoyed in a “prosperous civil society”?

Several of these comments illustrate the idea of "taking a stand" or commitment in writing: Rather than throwing up your hands in the face of competing well-thought out arguments, you should try to come to a judgement, based on the limited information available to you up to this point in your life, and give your reasons.

Things you do not need to do (that Orr's review does do):

Do not summarize the argument.
You need not place it in the context of the larger, ongoing discussions in academia.
You do not need to try to come up with an overall judgement about the topic at hand. It's OK to concentrate on whatever aspects you feel most led to comment on.

If more than one topic is presented in a night you do not need to respond to both. You should pick out one issue that was raised during the evening (or occurred to you in the course of the evening) that you want to explore in greater depth and write about that issue. It should be something you care about, or want to explore in greater detail. Unlike Orr, you are not reacting to the overall argument of the presenter, but rather, you are reacting to the ideas presented, in ways that deepen the conversation with the presenter.