36 – Reflection: asking questions and proposing answers
is to have it snap under you. The path to learning is littered with the
bruised bodies of crestfallen scholars. Nobody but the scholar with
the bruises and fallen crest takes much notice of that; but you owe it to
yourself to make as many as you can of the mistakes from which you
learn before you present your final draft for assessment. An ‘essay’, in
one of its early meanings, is a trial.
With one kind of question, for example ‘Did the White Australia policy become whiter between 1901 and 1921?’, one has no
option but to choose either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The answer can be hedged
about with all sorts of qualifications, and that is expected. But to
respond ‘Maybe it did and maybe it didn’t’ is not to answer at all. The
best thing to do is to try out an answer and see whether it holds up.
The same principle applies to any question, irrespective of
whether it is framed in yes/no terms. The fact that many essay topics
do not enforce such a clearcut decision should not delude you:
Human nature may be the foundation of politics, but the
state is the key unit of political organisation. Discuss the role
of the state.
Here you are challenged to agree or disagree with the proposition
contained in the first sentence. You might agree that it is necessary to
separate ‘foundation of politics’ and ‘unit of political organisation’ and
that the latter is more important. Or you might not: you might argue
that the state can never be much more than the sum of the individual
human natures that make it up. Such a decision has to be made.
Even the most innocent of questions that appear to ask for
no more than a straightforward description can contain the seeds of a
controversy on which you will have to make up your mind:
How did General Douglas MacArthur honour his promise to
return to the Philippines during the Second World War?
With a little bit of reflection you can propose a workmanlike
description of the likely processes: MacArthur’s strategic and tactical
decisions; battles won and lost with politicians, other generals and
the enemy; his method of working; his character; his effectiveness as
a field commander; and so on. But the very fact that this list can grow
is to have it snap under you. The path to learning is littered with the
bruised bodies of crestfallen scholars. Nobody but the scholar with
the bruises and fallen crest takes much notice of that; but you owe it to
yourself to make as many as you can of the mistakes from which you
learn before you present your final draft for assessment. An ‘essay’, in
one of its early meanings, is a trial.
With one kind of question, for example ‘Did the White Australia policy become whiter between 1901 and 1921?’, one has no
option but to choose either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The answer can be hedged
about with all sorts of qualifications, and that is expected. But to
respond ‘Maybe it did and maybe it didn’t’ is not to answer at all. The
best thing to do is to try out an answer and see whether it holds up.
The same principle applies to any question, irrespective of
whether it is framed in yes/no terms. The fact that many essay topics
do not enforce such a clearcut decision should not delude you:
Human nature may be the foundation of politics, but the
state is the key unit of political organisation. Discuss the role
of the state.
Here you are challenged to agree or disagree with the proposition
contained in the first sentence. You might agree that it is necessary to
separate ‘foundation of politics’ and ‘unit of political organisation’ and
that the latter is more important. Or you might not: you might argue
that the state can never be much more than the sum of the individual
human natures that make it up. Such a decision has to be made.
Even the most innocent of questions that appear to ask for
no more than a straightforward description can contain the seeds of a
controversy on which you will have to make up your mind:
How did General Douglas MacArthur honour his promise to
return to the Philippines during the Second World War?
With a little bit of reflection you can propose a workmanlike
description of the likely processes: MacArthur’s strategic and tactical
decisions; battles won and lost with politicians, other generals and
the enemy; his method of working; his character; his effectiveness as
a field commander; and so on. But the very fact that this list can grow