Over the past five weeks, we have considered moral choices as shaped by (1) individual factors, such as personality, psychology, and relationships; and (2) structural factors, such as economics, politics, culture, race/ethnicity, and social structure. Specific questions raised by our readings have included: How is being a proper man or woman connected to cultural context (female genital cutting, Gutmann)? How might violent, destructive, or neglectful behavior be seen as a response to structural marginalization (Bourgois, Scheper-Hughes)? What are the positive and negative effects of active versus passive responses to injustice, and how might each be interpreted morally (Hamlet, Scheper-Hughes)? Is morality universal, or does it vary according to particular contexts (female genital cutting, Scheper-Hughes, Bourgois)?

This assignment asks you to address the relationship between structure and agency in moral decision-making in an essay of 4-6 pages by critically examining the findings and arguments of TWO authors whom we have read. You may choose your authors from the following: female genital operations (Walley, Ahmadu), Hamlet (Shakespeare, Bohannan), Bourgois, Gutmann, and Scheper-Hughes. (Please note that the authors listed in parentheses count as just one example. If you discuss one or both of those authors, you will need to discuss one additional author.)

You are encouraged to focus your discussion on a particular theme. You might, for example, concentrate on one of the questions posed above. Your central argument should focus on the insights that we gain by examining these two authors together: what are their relative strengths and weaknesses (in method, in analytical framework)? How does comparing them allow you to address the central question of how moral actions and choices are shaped by structure and/or agency? What do these terms mean, and how do they relate to each other? While your essay should focus primarily on two authors,feel free to refer to other relevant readings.

ACADEMIC HONESTY
In coming to Holy Cross, students and faculty have joined an intellectual community dedicated to learning together through the open exchange of ideas. For us to feel comfortable sharing our perspectives, we need to be confident that our ideas will be respected as our own. All of us share responsibility for creating an environment conducive to open exchange by holding to principles of trust, integrity, and honesty. Academic dishonesty, including plagiarism, fabrication, cheating, and collusion, violates these fundamental principles. As a student, you are responsible for reading and knowing the College Policy on Academic Honesty, as stated in the College Catalog (pages 12-14). As your professor, I am available to help you understand this policy and to guide you in following appropriate methods of research and citation.

This class adheres to a zero tolerance policy for academic dishonesty. While you are encouraged to discuss your ideas with others -- indeed, that is a powerful way for us to learn from each other -- you are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the ideas, arguments, and substance of this essay is your own work. Any essay that, upon investigation, is found to violate the college policy will receive a grade of zero and a report will be submitted to the college administration. Further information about these procedures is contained in the College Catalog.

TEXT REFERENCES
These (including references to personal communications) are placed in the body of the text, not as notes. For each quotation or statement specific enough to need a reference, place the citation in parentheses (author's name, year of publication of work quoted or referred to, page(s) cited), thus: (Doe 1968) or (Rowe 1893:115-119).

NOTES
All notes follow the text as endnotes, beginning on a new page, and are restricted to material that cannot be included in the text. Notes are numbered consecutively throughout the text by superscript numerals.

REFERENCES CITED
Do not include any publication not cited in the text. References Cited must begin on a new page, and all entries must be double-spaced, listed alphabetically by last name of senior author, and chronologically for two or more titles by the same author(s). The typed layout should conform to the printed layout as follows:

Driver, Harold E.

1956 An Integration of Functional, Evolutionary, and Historical Theory by Means of Correlations. Bloomington: Indiana University Publication in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 12.

1966 Geographical-Historical versus Psycho-Functional Explanations of Kin Avoidances. Current Anthropology 7:131-182.

Miller, George A.

1954 Psycholinguistics. In Handbook of Social Psychology II. Gardner Lindey, ed. Pp. 693-708. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Thibault, John W., and Harold H. Kelley

1959 The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley.

 

FYP 102Homepage | syllabus| study guidequestions/journal and essay topics | LeshkowichHomepage

 

For more information, contact: aleshkow@holycross.edu