Something Mysterious and Inexplicable

Carrie Hyde, Rutgers University, Fall 2005

Assignment 1

[T]he controversy concerning identity is not merely a dispute of words. For when we attribute identity, in an improper sense, to variable or interrupted objects, our mistake is not confined to the expression, but is commonly attended with a fiction, either of something invariable and interrupted, or of something mysterious and inexplicable, or at least with a propensity to such fictions

—David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part IV

Writing Prompt and Question:

The “empathy gap” in Gertner and the “power of context” in Gladwell, respectively emphasize the emotional and social conditions that influence our decisions and actions. Gladwell argues at one point that “[c]haracter is more like a bundle of habits and tendencies and interest, loosely bound together and dependent, at certain times, on circumstance and context.” In what ways do the ideas in Gertner, complicate, complement or contradict Gladwell’s statement? How do social and emotional contexts determine and limit individual agency and choice in both essays? How do these contexts change our understanding of an individual’s agency in and responsibility for the commission of crimes and acts of violence?

Getting Started:

• When developing your project, keep in mind the important differences between the two essays. In particular, you might consider what difference it makes that Gertner emphasizes the impact of emotional states (rather than social conditions) on decision making. Does the category of individual identity remain relatively intact in Gertner?
• What type of agency, if any, does the individual have in each essay?

Assignment 2

Writing Prompt and Question:

In very different ways, Gladwell and Scott both emphasize the extent to which an individual’s actions are influenced and limited by society. But where Broken Windows theory and the “Power of Context” suggest that “an epidemic can be reversed…by tinkering with the smallest details of the immediate environment,” Scott argues that “if we wish to move beyond apparent consent and to grasp potential acts…we have little choice but to explore the realm of the hidden transcript.” Taking into consideration both Gladwell and Scott’s arguments about the public transcript (Power of Context in Gladwell), to what extent should the hidden transcript be made visible or public? What are some of the political and social implications of “explor[ing] the realm of the hidden transcript?”

Getting Started:

• What happens when the hidden transcript is made public? How does it change the public transcript?
• Is “explor[ing] the realm of the hidden transcript” the same thing as making it public? How might Scott’s argument about this towards the end of his essay actually be implemented?
• Power is a central issue in both essays, but it is understood and theorized differently in each: What does power mean in Scott and Gladwell? How do these different theories of power inform the relationship between the public and hidden transcripts?
• In what way does the distinction between public and hidden transcripts in Scott, complicate, complement or contradict Gladwell’s theory of the Power of Context?
• When developing your project and using Scott to frame Gladwell’s essay, remember to take into account the limits of your frame: Are there certain places where Scott’s ideas seem insufficient for analyzing the type of problems Gladwell discusses? What do we learn from Gladwell that we can’t understand from reading Scott alone, and vice versa?
• Also, be sure to be attentive to the fundamental differences between the politics of Gladwell and Scott, and in particular their different approaches to dissent.

Assignment 3

Writing Prompt and Question

Towards the end of “How to Tell a True War Story” O’Brien says, “A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (396). The essay is full of complicated and seemingly contradictory statements like this that dramatize the difficulty of making sense of war and violence. How does the context (Gladwell) of war complicate truth? How does the telling of a war story (its public and or hidden transcripts) further complicate these questions of truth and meaning in the essay? Using the arguments about the “power of context” (Gladwell) and the public and hidden transcripts (Scott) to create a frame for interpreting “How to Tell a True War Story,” address the following question/issue: What is the relationship between the experience of war and the representation of it?

Getting Started:

• Based on Gladwell’s theory of the “power of context,” how might the context of the war shape meaning and truth in “How to Tell a True War Story”?
• The following question from the making connections section following Scott’s essay is a great starting point for thinking about O’Brien in relationship to Scott: “In ‘How to Tell a True Story,’ Tim O’Brien insists that the story he has to tell is true, even though that story comes from O’Brien’s collection The Things they Carried, which he explicitly labels a work of fiction. Is O’Brien providing ‘the public transcript’ or the hidden transcript of what it means to go to war? If one accepts Scott’s terminology, it is possible to speak definitively of ‘truth’ and fiction’ or do all accounts become subject to the charge that their authors are interested, biased, or invested in a certain point of view? In fact, is it even possible to tell a true war story’?” (536).
• When working through these questions of truth, keep in mind the subjectivity of experience and interpretation, as well as the way writing is shaped by imperatives of social performativity?
• Also, as always, when creating your theoretical frame for the essay, remember to take into account the differences between Scott and Gladwell as well as the limits of applying either to O’Brien’s essay.

Back to top

Back to Sample Sequences