--Please note: You
will not get feedback because this is being submitted at the end of the semester. Do NOT email
asking how you did; wait until the official posting of grades, and if you then have
a question about your class grade or grade on the exam, get in touch with Prof.
Fantina, the earlier part of Summer A term, through his FIU email:
richard.fantina@fiu.edu.
WHEN:
--The Synthesis Essay is due on April
24th, no later than the dawn of April 25th.
--The Synthesis Essay question will be posted on the online syllabus on April
16th.
--Turn it in as a single-spaced WebCT attachment, with the title
YourlastnameYourfirstnameFinal.
WHO:
--You write it--no Wikipedia excerpts,
no snippets from a website here, a website there. You! No outside
sources are allowed; plagiarism will conclude in an "F" for the course.
--However, you may consult with your fellow classmates about pertinent ideas or
approaches in the Discussion Forum, and a special section will be set up
accordingly, starting on April 16th. If you consult in the Discussion Forum, do NOT post paragraphs you anticipate sending in as part of your essay and ask for feedback;
keep the discussion to the "I was confused by what the professor said in his
lectures about Darwinian evolution being totally random" sort or the "Clearly,
Locke and Marx place a great deal emphasis on the importance of labor.
Locke, however, does not seem to think that labor should be self-fulfiling, as
Marx did" sort or the "I could not get Marx's Communist Manifesto,
but the professor's summary helped" sort.
--Ultimately, of course, the essay is yours so you have to
devise your own approach to the question.
--Do not string together paraphrases from the online lectures. Do not rely
upon the online lectures overly much; you will not succeed if you just mimic the
lectures.
HOW:
--The essay should be between two (full!)
and four pages SINGLE-SPACED. DO NOT PAD—this is a bad strategy.
Especially do not have an opening paragraph that spins-its-tires in abstract
profundity: "As long as humankind has endured, the ages have been witness
to...". Get to the point, so your orientation/focus is immediately known:
"As we move from non-technological society to highly technological,
job-specialized society, it is no surprise that xxxxx has been xxxx. Great
thinkers such as aaa, bbb, ccc, and ddd help us see that xxxx."
--You
should have several brief quotes from our texts to show that your ideas are
anchored in specific texts (showing us that you've read them!), not just a product of your
generalized memory of the
course's texts. Do not, however, use up too much
space quoting.
--Effective
organization, a decent style and clean grammar/punctuation, and lots and lots
of thoughtfulness are expected.
--About
organization: generally speaking, it is best to discuss each author/text in
turn (1st 5th devote to Locke, 2nd 5th
devoted to Equiano, 3rd 5th devoted to Wordsworth, etc.),
with comparative loop-backs (e.g., “unlike Equiano, Wordsworth does not define
himself in terms of economics; he instead is searching for…"). However, you also need to show you have
synthesized our readings/the issues … five separate mini-essays on five authors, strung
together, will not be highly rewarded.
WHAT: Choose one of the questions
to be posted on the online syllabus on April 16.
--Below is a question that will not
be posted on April 16, but which will give you a sense of the type of question
that will be asked. It is followed by an "A" final essay that a student
wrote for the course in a previous semester.
--Question: Concepts of the "self" or a
sense of "selfhood"--in respect to ethics, metaphysics, society, psychology, and
artistic production--are partially or largely dependent on historical/cultural
context. This course is called "History of Ideas..." but it could also be
called "A History of Selfhood..." or "The Rise of Individualism...."
Discuss, using at least four of
our main authors/texts. Thoughtful interweaving of several of the authors
excerpted in the Humanistic Tradition volume will be considered an asset
to your essay, grade-wise.
--Sample Synthesis Essay response to
above Question. Please note: this student essay does not reference the Humanistic Tradition
volume because a different history-of-culture textbook was then being used.
It also refers to a specific essay on Marx which you did not read for this
class. The essay is not flawless, but it successfully:
--1. covers four major authors/texts with sufficient specificity
and insight that there is no doubt that the student has a sophisticated
understanding of each (i.e. isn't just paraphrasing lectures).
--2. has an overall point
and coherence. It is more than a sum of its parts (i.e. isn't just four
mini-essays).
--3. the style falters here and there, but overall the essay is very lucid and
well-written (i.e., the student composed the essay, and then revised it before
submitting it).
--4. overall: the essay
reflects a non-passive, active and curious engagement with the themes and
issues/readings of the course.
Throughout this course, the class has seen a chronological ascent of the history
of ideas that emphasize ‘individualism’, which provide explanations for the
point that society is at today. Originating in Italy, it is argued that the
Renaissance period through its experimentation of the arts and sciences,
unleashed a mode of inquisitive and rational thinking, which eventually lead to
its pinnacle in the Enlightenment period.
The Age of Enlightenment, which took place in Western Europe, was a radical
period in history that rejected the old order of superstition and blind
socialization. Society was becoming increasingly curious and questioned all
things that had no readily available explanations and validation; and thus, they
wanted to break free of their mental fetters that were a result of unquestioned,
social indoctrination.
Consequently, society looked to objective rationality and science to provide
logical validations of the world, and went so far as to extend those modes of
thinking to analyze the nature of humankind. Society used the Enlightenment
ideas of rationality and science to achieve the ‘perfectibility of man.’ But
consequent and paradoxical of the “Age of Reason” was the development of the
bureaucratic, oppressive system that plagues Western society today. This paper
will illustrate – using the works of John Locke’s
The Second Treatise on
Civil Government,
Olaudah
Equiano’s
The Life of Equiano, or Gustavus
Vassa, the African, Mary Shelley’s
Frankenstein, and Karl Marx’s
Communist Manifesto – how,
from the 18th to 20th centuries, increasing individualism paradoxically led to
increasing constriction.
The Age of Enlightenment lasted from about the 1700’s to the 1800’s, and
embraced a specific set of ideals: the perfectibility of man; the importance of
reason; human progress; rejection of monarchical and religious authority in
favor of secularism; the discovery of the laws of nature, man and society; and
the ability to uncover causality. However, the quest to achieve these ideals –
to set man ‘free’ of oppression and ‘free’ of psychological confinement – placed
man on an infinite quest for the ‘truth,’ and to uncover that ‘truth’ was
through science and rational thinking. But as a result of the emphasis put on
science and rationality, the world became increasingly impersonal, mechanic in
its social discourse, and bureaucratized, which were materialized through the
expanding capitalist system.
All these factors contributed to an ever-increasing aggressive socio-political
and economic system, which both inspired and tormented people, and culminated in
the Romantic Period. The Romantic Period was characterized by the melancholy
search for interiority – the pursuit of intrinsic happiness in its most ideal
nature. The combination of the features of the Enlightenment – science and
rationality – along with the features of the Romantic Period – interiority and
euphoria – culminated in today’s antagonistic world – the battle to find oneself
and one’s happiness in a world dominated by systemic bureaucracy and
hyper-capitalism. And the sentiments of each period are illustrated by the
writings of their theorists and authors.
As a product of Enlightenment thinking, John Locke became one of the most famous
thinkers to espouse the concepts of ‘individualism’ and the logical
justifications for the ‘state’, i.e. government. And again, these ideas helped
initiate the movement of people towards freedom of thought with all its rational
faculties; but this freedom, simultaneously, gave rise to an era of anxiety as
the world became overly obsessed with reason and rationality, and lost in the
process the balance for self-awareness and illogical sensation. In his book,
The Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke begins with the idea that men
naturally live in a state of nature, with “perfect freedom to order their
actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within
the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will
of any other man [,]” and that the state of nature is “[a] state also of
equality” (8).
He continues in explaining how men acquire property: through the individualistic
action of extending oneself – and thus one’s property – into nature, and the
product of that labor becomes one’s private property. Labor for Locke, is the
source of all value and all that is valuable; and as such, labor is the key
distinction between property that is held in private, and property that is held
in common. But the very extension of one’s labor into the state of nature in
order to “own” property is limited. Locke asserts that one can only own as much
as he can utilize; spoilage is disallowed, and is actually an infringement onto
a neighbor’s share. But Locke makes an important distinction between that which
can be hoarded and that which can’t, which leads him to justify capitalism, an
ideology that is seemingly contradictory to his initial arguments.
Locke adds that perishable goods can be hoarded, but not wasted; in that, one
can labor over the cultivation of perishable goods as much as he is able to, as
long as he or someone else uses those cultivated goods before they spoil. Man
can choose to trade those surplus goods before their spoilage with some other
commodity he would prefer to have, give them away, or trade his surplus
perishable items with something imperishable and durable, like gold.
Through Locke’s reasoning there is an assumption that there lies an abundance of
goods to nourish each man, and it is each man’s right to do so; thus no man is
allowed to let goods waste, and should he do so, he is infringing upon another
man’s share, which is punishable. However, with the invention of money, many of
Locke’s initial assertions are compromised. Today, the very invention of money
– a product that is able to be hoarded – has caused vast discrepancies in the
wealth and power of people, and in fact, the driving force behind the machine of
today’s society, is money; which is both hoarded and squandered, and used as a
tool of oppression to control the behavior and workings of society, and also
deprives men’s fellow neighbors of their
Lockean right to “life, health, liberty
or possessions” (9).
Enlightenment ideas emerged as an avenue to free people’s minds and in effect
their bodies, from the tyranny Church and King, through rational thinking.
However, this mode of thought – in all its
Lockean fashion – has developed into
a society that in theory believes that labor is valuable, and the result of
labor is the acquisition of money and worldly possessions, which make men
respectable. But in reality, labor is undervalued – as a result of powerful
men maneuvering through the inefficiencies and biases of the bureaucratic system
– and does not promise the acquisition of wealth and possessions; but this
social indoctrination that tells society labor will bring about wealth and
happiness helps to validate the system, and continues to torment individuals in
their battle to find oneself and one’s happiness in a world dominated by
systemic bureaucracy and hyper-capitalism. This movement from the Age of
Enlightenment to the Age of Anxiety is captured by the writings of
Equiano,
Shelley, and Marx.
Olaudah
Equiano’s
The Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African
was published in 1789; just as the Enlightenment period was giving way to the
Romantic Era, which took place from about 1790 to 1830.
Equiano’s narrative
recounts the atrocities of slavery that he witnessed, but it also subtly
illustrates Equiano’s inner battle: to belong to a nation, to belong to a
people, and to define himself accordingly. Besides depicting the barbarism of
slavery, this theme of belonging and identity permeates the heart of the book.
Both these sentiments are products of Enlightenment ideas, but also of Romantic
thinking. On the one hand, Equiano champions the premise that all men are
endowed with certain inalienable rights like liberty (ideals of
Lockean
philosophy), which slavery impedes in its very essence.
Equiano support the
Lockean premise that “[t]he natural liberty of a man is to be free from any
superior power on earth, and not to be under the will of legislative authority
of man” (17).
But on the other hand, Equiano has an intrinsic battle to define himself –
whether he is African or British – and find ‘his’ peace and ‘his’ happiness in
the process; all sentiments of Romanticism. In one section of the book,
Equiano
illustrates his desire to identify himself with the English: “From the various
scenes I had beheld on ship-board, I soon grew a stranger to terror of every
kind, and was, in that respect at least, almost an Englishman. . . I not only
felt myself quite easy with these new countrymen, but relished their society and
manners. I no longer looked upon them as spirits, but as men superior to us;
and therefore I had the stronger desire to resemble them, to imbibe their
spirit, and imitate their manners. I therefore embraced every occasion of
improvement; and every new thing that I observed I treasured up in my memory”
(50-51). Thus, Equiano experiences the outer battle against slavery, as well as
the inner battle to find himself, and this situation is parallel to the
circumstances of many people today, in which they are struggling to survive in
society’s tightly knit system, while simultaneously searching within themselves
for their happiness.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein further depicts the battle between
Enlightenment thinking and Romantic ideals. Blinded by his passion for natural
philosophy and science, Victor Frankenstein’s idealism impels him to bring to
life a pieced together and inanimate body. But once the creature comes to life,
Victor “[u]nable to endure the aspect of . . . the wretch, the filthy daemon to
whom [he] had given life [,]” continues throughout the remainder of the story
seeking understanding of his actions, of himself, of the monster, and of the
world, and accordingly turns inward to achieve that end (56, 80).
Frankenstein ingeniously fuses the ideals of Enlightenment with ideals of
Romanticism in one story. Victor begins the novel with his thirst for
scientific knowledge and progress of humanity. He exemplifies the belief in the
unlimited potential of man, so much so as to become ‘God’ and wield the ability
to create life. But after doing so, Victor instinctively realizes the havoc his
creation would cause, and roams the rest of the novel in misery and remorse.
Like the Enlightenment ideas, Victor’s creation, has spun out of control, giving
birth to new and unforeseen tragic forces. The scientist has concocted a world
he can no longer control. Or, as Marx eloquently puts it, “a society that has
conjured up such gigantic means of production, is like the sorcerer, who is no
longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by
his spells” (Marx qtd in
Macionis and
Benokraitis, 53).
What distinguishes Marx from perhaps all other theorists is his ability to
meticulously, and artfully capture the angst and dialectical forces of the
modern world dominated by industrial capitalism. The Age of Anxiety is seen most
vividly in the writings of Karl Marx. Of his writings, it is clear, that the
Communist Manifesto poetically surveys the very nature of an age replete
with angst. For Marx, the modern capitalist system which engulfs all social
relations is characterized by incessant “revolutionizing of production,
uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and
agitation …” (Marx qtd in
Macionis and
Benokraitis, 52). It is a world in which
ideas, cultural forms, commodities and technology “become antiquated before they
can ossify”; and consequently, “all that is solid melts into air” (Marx
qtd in
Macionis and
Benokraitis, 53).
Witnessing not only the horrors of the Industrial Age, but also an ensemble of
social relations characterized by contradiction and perpetual motion, Marx is
able to illuminate the very essence of the paradox of progress. For Marx,
rationality, science, politics and entrepreneurial manipulation all coalesce to
create the most productive economic system known to man; and yet, it surrenders
human beings to relations of “naked self interest” and “egotistical calculation”
(Marx qtd in
Macionis and
Benokraitis, 51). Human beings are now measured by
“exchange value” and systems of exploitation in previous ages are now replaced
by what Marx calls, “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx
qtd in
Macionis and
Benokraitis, 51). The instability of the times has frequently made
human beings seem as though they have been once again tossed in a world
subservient on nature. It seems as though we have entered famine and starvation
once again; why answers Marx: “Because there is too much civilization, too much
means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce” (Marx
qtd in
Macionis and
Benokraitis, 53).
From the Renaissance to the Age of Anxiety, the authors in this course carefully
elucidate through their writings the relationship between ideas and social
relations. They have illustrated that ideas themselves are weapons for change
and that our modern world is infused with the various strands of thought
intricately woven in the fleeting concept we call time.