Theory Response #2

Some things we’ve gleaned as we’ve read so far

 

In the course of our reading of Smith, Marx and Tocqueville, several things have begun to stand out.

• Each theorist identifies what they see as the key and defining features of modern society.
• Although the theorists are looking at more or the less the same society around them, each highlights something different and builds a distinct set of arguments as to why these things are central and how society (organized around these central things) actually works.
• In the process of doing so, each theorist develops key concepts or “terms of art” whose specific meanings allow them to formulate and work through their arguments.   The concepts or “terms of art”, therefore, are doing double duty:  they specify with some precision what the theorist sees as very, very important characteristics of society or social relationships; AND those concepts form a central piece of how theorists fashion their claims about why and how society works in a particular way.

 

This has certain implications for us as readers and analysts of theory.

• Any effort to reconstruct a theorist’s central arguments about modern society necessarily involves our specifying and using the concepts that theorist relies on to articulate that theorist’s own claims about modern society.
• As we move through the course, we are trying both to reconstruct each individual theorist’s arguments AND to place them in dialogue with other thinkers and their claims.

 

And when we place two or more theorists in dialogue, we are likely to note two additional things:

1. As thinkers characterize what is central to modern society in different ways, they may use the same term as one another in their arguments but mean entirely different things by that term or highlight a different aspect of it.

                          Think, for example, of the division of labor.  For Smith, it’s all about how wealth is created by increasing efficiency in production. For Marx, it’s all about property, and how ownership gives control over the production process, the product of labor and the laborer her/himself.

2. We also see examples where a term (even one we use all the time) has a distinct, specialized meaning in each theorist’s work, AND because this central notion means something different to each of the two different thinkers, the two thinkers may actually characterize what’s important about modern society in apparently opposite or contradictory ways.

 

 

 

Using this to set up Theory Response #2

 

We see a very powerful and significant instance of this last observation when we look at Marx and Tocqueville side by side. Both thinkers argue that modern society is all about equality—or its absence. For Marx, modern society is defined by a particular kind of inequality. For Tocqueville, modern society is defined by a particular kind of equality. Not only are these claims opposed, in a sense, but also they appear to be contradictory. And that’s what makes things interesting!

 

In this assignment, we want you to grapple with the notion of inequality in Marx and equality Tocqueville, and to do so in a way that will help you learn the skills of analytic comparison.

 

For our purposes, we want to focus on a group of skills connected to working with key concepts and comparison. There are four such skills highlighted in TR #2: (i.) interpretation of a verbatim quotation from a theorist, where you draw out what’s important or significant in the quote– because quotations do not simply speak for themselves; (ii.) specification of a concept within a theorist’s work; (iii.) use of that concept as you reconstruct a major argument offered by the theorist; and (iv.) bringing two theorists together on a specific question and offering your own analysis of what difference it makes that the two theorists approach the question/issue differently.

 

 

 

 

Theory Response #2 – the assignment

 

In this assignment, we’d like you to write and turn in 7 numbered short paragraphs. Numbers 1-3 are about Marx. Numbers 4-6 are about Tocqueville. Number 7 specifically addresses both theorists together.  The paragraphs will build, in a sense, on the ones that have come before. We understand the two questions asking you to interpret a quotation could lead to a long response, so we’re giving some guidance on how to keep it brief but clear and precise. Keep your paragraph 1 (on Marx) and 4 (on Tocqueville) to 2 or at most 3 sentences, no more!  Why?  Not only to spur you to be focused and direct, but also because the numbered questions that follow 1 and then 4 will expand on what you’ve just said in valuable ways. The concept specification and argument reconstruction questions should be written in 2 to perhaps 4 sentences each. The comparison across two thinkers in the last paragraph may go longer as you explain why you contend the differences with respect to inequality/equality matter, and what to make of them.

 

When you turn in your assignment, please include only what you have written. Please do NOT include the quotations from the theorists OR the questions themselves. If you do include them in the document submitted, they will unfortunately generate red flags in the TurnItIn originality checker, because they will be word-for-word identical across multiple submissions—but this is readily avoidable.

 

Also, a reminder:  We are asking you to do this work of interpretation and analysis yourselves.  You do not need to use outside sources.  But if you do draw upon any outside sources, you must cite them, and if you offer verbatim or near-verbatim text from another source, you must place that material in quotation marks, cite it and explain it.   Failure to cite outside sources — even when you only loosely paraphrase — is plagiarism.

 

 

 

 

TR #2 in 3 sections

A. Marx

 

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

—from The Communist Manifesto, p. 473 in The Marx-Engels Reader.

 

1. Examine the quotation from Marx and offer your own interpretation of what he’s contending in the quoted passage. Keep it short and clear, and focus on what Marx is saying is most important about how to understand modern society. (2, maybe 3, good sentences)

2. Focus on a central concept: Lay out the particular way Marx wants us to understand inequality in modern society. What form does it take, and what does it consist in? (2-4 sentences)

3. Reconstruct an argument: How does Marx contend that this particular understanding of inequality is especially significant with respect to the structure and workings of modern society? In the process, be sure to identify how Marx labels or names modern society. (2-4 sentences)

 

 

B. Tocqueville

 

“So the more I studied American society, the more clearly I saw equality of conditions as the creative element from which each particular fact derived, and all my observations constantly returned to this nodal point.”

 

—from Democracy in America, p. 9.

 

4. Examine the quotation from Tocqueville and offer your own interpretation of what he’s contending in the quoted passage. Keep it short and clear, and focus on what Tocqueville is saying is most important about how to understand modern society. (2, maybe 3, good sentences)

5. Focus on a central concept: Lay out the particular way Tocqueville wants us to understand equality in modern society. What form does it take, and what does it consist in? (2-4 sentences)

6. Reconstruct an argument: How does Tocqueville argue that this particular understanding of equality is especially significant with respect to the structure and workings of modern society? In the process, be sure to identify how Tocqueville labels or names modern society. (2-4 sentences)

 

C. Comparing Marx and Tocqueville

 

7. What difference does it make that Marx sees inequality of a particular sort as the defining feature of modern society, and Tocqueville sees equality of a different kind as the defining feature of modern society? What do you believe we can take away from this? What does each “see” or focus upon that the other may not?  One thing you might consider is, do you think one tells you something more important or worthwhile, and if so, why (or why not)? (a good paragraph; several sentences, whatever it takes to make your claim.  And recognize, here we’re asking you to make and then reason through claims about the two theorists, and how you say we can think about them when we consider them together.)