Lani Guinier, "Second Proms and Second Primaries: The Limits of Majority Rule," and:

• Stephen Hall, "Prescription for Profit"
• Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control"
• Martha Nussbaum, "Women and Cultural Universals," and Frans de Waal, "Selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master" (2 versions)
• Frans de Waal, "Selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master"
• Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control", and Frans de Waal, "Selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master"
• Susan Faludi, "The Naked Citadel" and Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control
  

For more assignment ideas involving this essay, please visit the Guinier link-o-mat.

Guinier and Hall: Reciprocity and the Profit Motive

In "Second Proms and Second Primaries," Lani Guinier argues that a commitment to "reciprocity" must lie at the heart of any system that is ethical, just, and fair. Does "reciprocity" have a place in the business of health care? Can one seek a system committed to such reciprocity without sacrificing the ingenuity and creativity that one finds in a system driven by the profit motive?

Back to top

de Waal, Guinier, Kaldor: What is to be gained by "rethinking the world"?

In the selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master we’ve read, Frans de Waal provides us with an optimistic interpretation of human nature, advocating an understanding of human evolution as shaped by “kindness,” rather than “fitness.” He argues, “At least in some cases, we seem to be dealing with the genuine article: a good deed done and intended” (333). Lani Guinier, in “Second Proms and Second Primaries: The Limits of Majority Rule,” argues for a hopeful revision of American politics, one that will fulfill the “ideal of reciprocity… [and] the moral authority” of democracy (339). Both writers rethink old and static ideas in order to construct a better world. In “Beyond Militarism, Arms Races and Arms Control,” Mary Kaldor analyses the nature of armed forces and war in the post-Cold War period. She also extends a new way to think, extending the “humanitarian approach” as a way out of  “wars that cannot be won” (9). All three writers implicitly suggest a role for individuals in changing human, national, and global relations, subscribing to a belief in an essential human equality. Given the world Kaldor describes, does it make sense for the individual to re-think the world? What’s at stake? For whom? In beginning this paper you may want to consider the following: de Waal and Guinier provide specific ways to rethink: for example, in the “survival of the kindness” model, locating acts of intended kindness and altruism and in a proportional system of politics, achieving reciprocity. Use these and other specifics to think though concrete ways to achieve the “humanitarian approach” Kaldor calls for.

I will evaluate your paper by looking at:

1.     Your project: You should express and support your own idea about the assigned topic and use textual evidence from de Waal, Guinier, and Kaldor to help develop and support your claim.

2.     Your organization: You should express, explain, and explore a central claim in each paragraph. Your paragraphs should connect logically to each other. The paragraphs should all work toward developing your central project.

3.     Working with Texts:  Choose relevant concept quotations and examples. Explain the connections between this evidence and your larger project.

4.      Your sentence clarity and correctness: Proofread your essay carefully for grammar and spelling errors.

To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Piper Kendrix Williams

back to top

Guinier, Nussbaum, and de Waal: Finding a Ground for Moral Action

We have now read three authors--de Waal, Guinier, and Nussbaum--all of whom explore in different ways the subject of ethics or morality, whether their concern is altruism among primates, an ethically responsible political system, or the need for universal human rights. None of them argues for divine revelation as the basis of ethics.

For your third assignment, please write an essay that answers the following question:

Do human beings need moral absolutes? If so, where will these absolutes come from? If not, what sort of morality might be an adequate alternative?

As you consider the possible sources of moral absolutes, use the three authors to explore the complexities that are produced by any answer to this question. If you are intrigued by the possibility that moral absolutes might come from science, then please explain how we should respond to disagreements within the scientific community. Consider in particular the debates between de Waal's camp and its opponents. Similar complexities must be faced by those who turn to religion as the bedrock of morality. After all, the various religions do not always agree, and even within a single faith, sharp disagreements are quite common. After considering science and religion as sources of authority, you might turn to our nation's civil institutions: the people, you might argue, should be free to decide on the morality they will abide by. But in that case, who qualifies as "the people"? If we base our ethics on majority rule, does that mean that the majority is always right?

Needless to say, the questions I have posed here are huge ones. Your paper does not necessarily need to reach a firm conclusion: a strong essay might simply explore the complications of the issue or demonstrate the strengths and limitations of various possible answers. If you manage to come up with a truly compelling answer, one developed in a well-organized, persuasive, and articulate way, you will qualify not only for an "A," but also for a Nobel Peace Prize. Good luck!

(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Kurt Spellmeyer

Assignment # 3: Altruism and Universalism

In your last paper I asked you to take a position on the place of kindness and altruism in the workings of democracy.  Frans de Waal calls altruistic acts those than do not involve personal gain, in which the impulse to help becomes “dissociated from the consequences that shaped its evolution,” allowing the impulse to be “genuinely unselfish.”  Lani Guinier, in the meantime, seeks a democracy that is “fair and just," involving a system of proportionality in which one would have to recognize underrepresented groups and provide them with a voice equal to that of the majority.  But what about a situation where what is altruistic becomes unclear? 

Martha Nussbaum, a philosopher and social critic, takes a universalist stance on the rights of women in her essay “Women and Cultural Universals” in presenting her “Central Human Functional Capabilities”; however, she also presents the side of the anti-universalists, the cultural relativists, who place the right to tradition first.  Both universalists and relativists mean well, and act out of a sense of altruism and the greater good for a particular group of people, without any real benefit to themselves.  Both groups see themselves as acting according to a system of proportionality, giving equal rights to those outside the majority; for relativists, it is a matter of placing the rights of non-Western traditions as equal to Western thought, while for the universalists in this article, it is a matter of placing the rights of women as equal to those of men. 

Can cultural relativism and cultural universalism be reconciled or made compatible at all?  Do you believe that Nussbaum finds a compromise in her Central Human Functional Capabilities?  Does being kind to one group while potentially violating the rights of another compromise an act’s altruistic intentions?  You may consider the following questions:  De Waal offers a picture of evolution based on a mixture of “survival of the fittest” and “survival of the kindest”; how might these roles work according to relativists and/or universalists?  Are the women in Nussbaum’s article less entitled to enfranchisement that the blacks in Phillips County because their tradition still prohibits it?  Or, is it wrong for Western democracy to impose change upon a culture, rather than allowing it the autonomy to change on its own?  You should use at least three main supports to your argument, and each support should contain at least three quotations, one from each author.

(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Megan Heller

back to top


Guinier and de Waal: Culture and Biology, Voting and Altruism

For your second assignment, I would like you to use de Waal and Guinier to make an argument that answers this deceptively simple question:

Is the principle of "majority rule" consistent with genuine Darwinism, as Frans de Waal represents it, or is it more consistent with the "survival of the fittest" mentality that de Waal calls into doubt?

If you decide that majority rule is indeed consistent with altruism, then you might also make case that Guinier's idea of proportional representation is less consistent with altruism or completely contradicts it.

On the other hand, if you decide that Guinier's proposal is consistent with altruism, you might also try to demonstrate that majority rule undermines reciprocity and therefore flies in the face of our biological heritage.

Alternately, you might make the case that evolutionary biology cannot give us any meaningful guidance at all about the conduct of our political affairs. Remember, however, that you will need to explain in some detail--drawing on de Waal as well as Guinier--why biology and culture constitute completely separate domains.

Finally, you might argue that evolutionary biology lends support to both majority rule and proportional representation. Perhaps both serve the ends of evolution in different ways.

Please bear in mind that this assignment is not asking you to compare and contrast de Waal with Guinier. Instead, it asks you to explain how the evidence provided by de Waal might confirm, contradict, and/or complicate Guinier's argument.

(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our sample sequences page.)

Kurt Spellmeyer

back to top

de Waal, Guinier, Kaldor: Three Approaches to Revising the World

In "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control," Mary Kaldor describes the different types of armed forces that have developed in the world following the Cold War. She offers the "humanitarian approach" and the institution of "laws of war" as strategies that will prevent both a "war of global annihilation" and the present "series of real wars that cannot be won" (394). Just as Guinier rethinks the ideals of democracy and de Waal rethinks the role of kindness in evolutionary theory, Mary Kaldor suggests ways for changing the position of national armed forces in contemporary society.

How does Kaldor's humanitarian approach ask you to reevaluate Guinier's "system of proportionality" and de Waal's "survival of the kindest"? Did reading Kaldor help you recognize strengths and weaknesses in Guinier and de Waal?

This paper asks you to compare and evaluate these three approaches to revising the world. To answer this question, you might want to consider if proportional voting or majority rule would fit into Kaldor's "humanitarian approach." Does Kaldor's essay question assumptions regarding kindness, altruism, or human goodness? Is altruism a prerequisite to peacekeeping and "humanitarian law enforcement?" You can develop a project based on your own ideas and questions, but be sure to evaluate the action horizons of each author.

For the rest of this assignment sequence, see the Re-Vision, Tradition & Public Life sequence

back to top

Faludi, Guinier, Kaldor: Tradition and Exclusion

In "The Naked Citadel," Faludi explores the distinctive culture of the Citadel, a state-funded military institution in South Carolina, which, until the controversial case of Shannon Faulkner, was exclusively male. The faculty, administration, alumni, and cadets who opposed admitting women were deeply invested in, and committed to, the traditions and rituals that have developed since the institution was founded in 1882. The reason most frequently cited for excluding Faulkner and other women was, "She would be destroying a long and proud tradition" (256). Both Guinier and Kaldor also discuss cultures and traditions that are exclusive. In "Second Proms and Second Primaries: The Limits of Majority Rule," Guinier offers two examples of majority rule that exclude a specific minority group: racialized voting in Phillips County and the prom at Brother Rice High School. According to the judge in the case of Whitfield, et al. vs. State Democratic Party, "Americans have traditionally been schooled in the notion of majority rule…" (qtd. in Guinier 342). Similarly, in "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control," Mary Kaldor discusses the "new wars" involving informal or private military networks ("netforce"), which cohere around "an extreme political ideology based on the exclusive claim to state power on the basis of identity - ethnic chauvinism or religious communalism" (386).

Using Faludi and either Guinier or Kaldor, consider why these traditions exclude certain groups, genders, and/or races. There are thousands of traditions ranging from the familiar and formal ritual of Christian Communion or Jewish Shabbat to the private rituals of a family surrounding various holidays.

Are all traditions inherently exclusive, or can traditions and cultures be fully inclusive? Are traditions a positive or negative force in human society, and what right, if any, should they have to exist?

To help you write this essay, you might want to consider the relationship between traditions and family groups, violence or war, citizenship, gender roles (masculinity, femininity), political power, and/or religion.

Carrie Preston, Spring 2003

For the rest of this assignment sequence, see the Re-Vision, Tradition & Public Life sequence

back to top