Frans de Waal, "Survival of the Kindest,"
"Down with Dualism! " and:
- Lani Guinier, "Second Prom and Second Primaries:
The Limits of Majority Rule"
- Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms
Races, and Arms Control"
- Martha Nussbaum, "Women and Cultural Universals"
- Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms
Races, and Arms Control" and Lani Guinier,
"Second Prom and Second Primaries: The Limits of Majority Rule"
For more assignment ideas involving this essay, please
visit the de Waal link-o-mat.
(2 versions) Frans de Waal: The Transformation of
Evolutionary Thought across Knowledge Communities
1. One way to think about knowledge is to see it simply as information
that can be judged either true or false. But another way to think about
knowledge is to view it in terms of "knowledge communities."
Evolutionary biologists make up one knowledge community, a community to
which de Waal himself belongs, as did Darwin before him. Another community
might be described as the "interpreters of evolution," some
of whom are practicing scientists and some of whom are journalists or
freelance writers. Within this community we might include Thomas Henry
Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Robert Wright and Matt Ridley. A third group,
by far the largest, might be called "non-scientists" or, better
yet, the "general public."
For this assignment, I would like you to explore the ways in which knowledge
first created by the community of biologists gradually made its way into
the common knowledge of the general public. What distortions, improvements,
elaborations, or applications did Darwinism undergo along the way? Is
the contemporary public understanding of evolution primarily the outcome
of scientific inquiry or have other forces shaped it just as much as science,
possibly even more. What might these other forces be?
When I ask you to "explore" the transformation of evolutionary
thought as it travels from the knowledge community of biologists to the
larger community of the general public, I really want you to make some
kind of point or argument. In order to make that point, you will need
to draw heavily on the evidence provided by de Waal, but I am not looking
for a simple summary of his argument. The last part of my question–about
the forces that have shaped scientific knowledge after it has left the
hands of scientists themselves–requires you to engage in some intelligent
speculation. Why might non-scientists be so ready to see nature as "red
in tooth and claw," if this is not what Darwin tried to tell us?
Could it be that attitudes and values that have nothing to do with science
have somehow gotten mixed up with our popular understandings of evolution?
What might be some of the cultural, social, or economic sources of those
attitudes and values?
(To see the rest of the assignments in this sequence, please visit our
sample sequences page.)
Kurt Spellmeyer
back to top
Frans de Waal: To be Fit or To be Kind?
Frans de Waal concludes "Survival
of the Kindest" with a description of the animal kingdom that is
bound to shock some readers: he describes dogs who became "depressed"
when exposed to a great deal of death; he discusses strategies that were
pursued to help the dogs recover their "emotional investment"
in helping others; finally, he concludes with the assertion that there
are species of animals who intend to do good deeds. Imagine that de Waal's
revision of the evolution narrative is not simply an academic matter,
but has importance in a larger context. Your project in this paper
is to take a position on the social, cultural, or spiritual ramifications
of de Waal’s assertion of kindness as an organizing principle of
evolution. In beginning this paper you may want to consider the following:
What would change if de Waal were right? That is, what would the consequences
be if de Waal's account of the evolutionary value of kindness replaced
the dominant account of evolution as the arena of "the survival of
the fittest"?
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
for de Waal 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. Your use of quotations and examples:
Choose relevant quotations and examples. Explain the connections between
these quotations and examples 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
(2 versions) Frans de Waal and Lani Guinier:
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?
Basically, this question asks you to decide whether democracy by majority
rule, which Lani Guinier regards with suspicion, is more conducive to altruism
and reciprocity than to selfishness and competition. You might respond in
a variety of ways. Among them are these possibilities:
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 and Guinier: Reciprocity in Politics
In your last paper you considered the social, cultural, or
spiritual ramifications of de Waal’s theory of “survival of
kindness” and “human goodness.” In this assignment we turn
to the political. In “Second Proms and Second Primaries: The Limits
of Majority Rule” Lani Guinier argues that majority rule does not
meet the ideals of the democratic process, proposing instead a system
based on proportionality. de Waal is obviously aware that humans can be
unfair or unjust towards one another as well as kind. Your project
in this paper is to take a position on the place of kindness and altruism
in the workings of democracy. In beginning this paper you may want
to consider the following: How does the reciprocal nature of a proportional
system fit into de Waal’s theory of kindness and altruism? How can
de Waal’s argument be used to shed any light on the working of democracy
in the US? Can evolutionary theories be used to explain or illuminate
Guinier’s account of democracy?
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 and Guinier 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. Your use of quotations and examples: Choose
relevant quotations and examples. Explain the connections between these
quotations and examples 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
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
Frans de Waal, Lani Guinier, Martha Nussbaum:
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
back to top
Frans 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.
Carrie Preston, Spring 2003
For the rest of this assignment sequence, see the Re-Vision,
Tradition & Public Life sequence
|
