40 – Reflection: asking questions and proposing answers
Here it is necessary to recognise the force of the word ‘but’ in assessing what the topic is driving at. The author of the proposition in
the topic is suggesting that the problems of human nature, though
fundamental to politics, can safely be set aside if we are to find out
what ‘political organisation’ really is. Hence you have to work out
for yourself whether the proposed contrast (signalled by the ‘but’)
between ‘politics’ and ‘political organisation’ is one that you are prepared to defend. This leads, as we saw, to deciding whether politics
is the sum of the individual human natures that make up the state,
or whether there is an organisational or structural dimension to the
state which transcends the demands of human nature. Reduced to
its bare bones, you might interpret the question as asking whether
you are a traditional liberal/conservative exponent of individualist
views or whether you think the needs of the state must override those
of the individuals in it. All this rather deep philosophising hinges
on your understanding the force of ‘but’ and the contrast it marks
between politics and political organisation. So it is just as important
to underline the ‘but’ as it is to underline the more substantive terms.
You need also to look for the ambiguities in essay topics.
Sometimes these are accidental (do not assume that every essay topic
you see is well worded). But often they test your ability to pick up the
ambiguity and to find the real issue beneath it. Here is an example:
Why was President George W. Bush accused of attempting
to undermine the United States constitution during his ‘war
on terror’?
The ambiguity here hinges on the question word ‘Why’. There are
two questions here, neither of which – it is important to realise –
is ‘Why did President Bush attempt to undermine the constitution?’
It would be possible to choose one or the other or, perhaps more
interestingly, to tackle both. On the one hand, the question could read
‘What were his accusers’ reasons for saying he had tried to undermine
the constitution?’ On the other, it could be ‘What (if anything) did
President Bush actually do to try to undermine the constitution?’ The
first looks the more fruitful interpretation; but by combining both we
shall be able to examine the gap that opens between any attempt he
Here it is necessary to recognise the force of the word ‘but’ in assessing what the topic is driving at. The author of the proposition in
the topic is suggesting that the problems of human nature, though
fundamental to politics, can safely be set aside if we are to find out
what ‘political organisation’ really is. Hence you have to work out
for yourself whether the proposed contrast (signalled by the ‘but’)
between ‘politics’ and ‘political organisation’ is one that you are prepared to defend. This leads, as we saw, to deciding whether politics
is the sum of the individual human natures that make up the state,
or whether there is an organisational or structural dimension to the
state which transcends the demands of human nature. Reduced to
its bare bones, you might interpret the question as asking whether
you are a traditional liberal/conservative exponent of individualist
views or whether you think the needs of the state must override those
of the individuals in it. All this rather deep philosophising hinges
on your understanding the force of ‘but’ and the contrast it marks
between politics and political organisation. So it is just as important
to underline the ‘but’ as it is to underline the more substantive terms.
You need also to look for the ambiguities in essay topics.
Sometimes these are accidental (do not assume that every essay topic
you see is well worded). But often they test your ability to pick up the
ambiguity and to find the real issue beneath it. Here is an example:
Why was President George W. Bush accused of attempting
to undermine the United States constitution during his ‘war
on terror’?
The ambiguity here hinges on the question word ‘Why’. There are
two questions here, neither of which – it is important to realise –
is ‘Why did President Bush attempt to undermine the constitution?’
It would be possible to choose one or the other or, perhaps more
interestingly, to tackle both. On the one hand, the question could read
‘What were his accusers’ reasons for saying he had tried to undermine
the constitution?’ On the other, it could be ‘What (if anything) did
President Bush actually do to try to undermine the constitution?’ The
first looks the more fruitful interpretation; but by combining both we
shall be able to examine the gap that opens between any attempt he