ENGL 298 B: Intermediate Writing Social Sciences   Autumn 2011, University of Washington

I started writing my dialogue knowing that Goldman would comment on Socrates’ assertion that citizens are obligated to die for the government. I knew Emma Goldman would have strong criticisms for Socrates and his beliefs, but would she be outraged, or is that too strong? “Offended” came to mind shortly after “outraged” was cast aside, but I couldn’t picture Emma Goldman taking Socrates’ views personally enough to be actually offended by them. Not being able to ascertain the exact nature of Emma’s discontent, but knowing she’d still vehemently disagree, I decided to throw Emma and Socrates in a room and let them figure out how they felt about the situation.

Once the conversation entered its own flow, I realized two things. One, Emma’s criticisms of Socrates’ belief was two-fold. I thought that Emma would criticize Socrates’ supposed obligation because she didn’t recognize a legitimate obligation to a murdering, thieving state. As the dialogue developed, however, it became clear that Socrates would toss aside the murdering (through execution) and thievery (through taxation and property laws) and claim that the residential, tacit consent forced Socrates to submit, whether the government was murdering and thieving or not. Emma’s second criticism, then, lied in her belief that residence cannot express consent since many do not consciously chooses their current residence, and obviously no man chooses his birthplace. Second, I felt that the dialogue lacked something. Once the dialogue was complete, the creative writer inside me needed to add some semblance of a stylistic addition to the piece. The arguments were, I felt, pretty solid and I liked both the setting and the friendly attitude between the two ‘great thinkers’, and yet I couldn’t deny that the paper needed something on top. The sprinkles, if you will, on the ice cream paper.

And so they played chess. Substance is good, whether in a political address or in an academic paper, yet substantive argument followed by an even more substantive response can become dull, like eating the same food over and over again. After thirty bags of skittles, we need a sip of coke, a bite of an apple, something to get that taste of substance and facts piled on facts out of our mouths. Chess provided that bite of apple. I hoped it would offer a slight, entertaining diversion without actually distracting from the points. I hope it did.