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

Joshua Spiezle

ENGL 298

Paige Morgan

1 December 2011

Threshold Concepts

The reasoning for appointment of governing power in Hobbes’ “Leviathan” and Locke’s “Second Treatise of the Government” provide backing to their respective legitimacy.  However, through the bias in American culture, the understanding of the legitimacy in Hobbes’ sovereign appears to be unreasonable.  In the recognition of the argument’s credibility, a new criticism for Locke’s argument and the American government is formed. As a result, the legitimacy in the investment of power to a sovereign is a threshold concept; the acceptance of a lone individual’s rule is a transformation from what we naturally accept.  Thereafter it is troublesome knowledge, or counter-intuitive, to accept these ideas which directly contradict the governmental structure we accept and support.

Originally, we are biased because exposure to American media can create jaded views of foreign governments.  Our news programs constantly show governments, oppressing citizenry at the hands of a ruler holding an extreme amount of power.  Through the undesirable living situation in this government, we associate the absolute power of the ruler and his misuse as one issue.  Thus, when the citizenry lacks power to control its own government and faces a separation from power, we view the government as a tyrannical government – as an illegitimate government.  Through man’s continual inability to accept the decision of one man we instead come to rationalize that a group of men are less capable of undesirable action. 

  Because Hobbes’ sovereign’s power and rule separate the populace from power, is the structure then too classified as a tyrannical dictatorship?  Through our preconceived notions, yes, we reject Hobbes’ government through an inability to accept our separation from power; Hobbes’ Leviathan structure epitomizes the American conception of a government destined for corruption through its disproportionate allotment of hierarchal power.  However, Hobbes’ concept is that power is simply not gifted to the sovereign; each citizen is the author of his own actions by virtue of personally authoring the sovereign’s rule through consent.  It is through this authorship to the sovereign’s rule that he/she is trusted to protect the commonwealth provided the structure is kept and followed.  Thus, to realize that the Leviathan structure is more than a ruler, that it is a ruler selected to make decisions in the interest of the commonwealth, it is realized that the enormous amount of power invested in the sovereign creates an unparalleled ability for the sovereign to impose his will, which is consequently the will of the commonwealth. 

It is therefore a threshold concept to understand the legitimacy of the Leviathan structure through the authorship of him – the Leviathan is thereafter understood as a powerful, cohesive government, able to work effectively without the need for dissenting opinions and therefore internal conflict.  Upon understanding this threshold concept it can be understood that power is not arbitrarily given to Hobbes’ leviathan.  Rather the power is entrusted in him and, as a result, the rule of the sovereign carries weight, and thus legitimacy.  Furthermore, it becomes clear that making the sovereign the sole trustee of power has purpose.  In creating one absolute ruler, there is no longer a discrepancy in rule or personal vendetta clouding the enforcement of justice.  Rather ability exists to allow discussion, but not arbitrary and counter-productive argumentation.

Conflicting to Hobbes’ argument, Locke’s government is further legitimized by the similarity to the American government’s legislative body.  The understanding of the American government’s structure and accordingly the positive results it brings, (i.e. public schooling, public transportation, roads, jobs, protection, etc.) the reasoning behind Locke’s governmental structure is of no particular difficulty to endorse – it would not be considered a threshold concept through its tacit acceptance.  Thus, Locke’s government is viewed as “American”, or correct.    However, through the recognition of Hobbes’s sovereign’s validation and thus its singularity, consistency, and effectiveness in rule, large discrepancy in the allotment of power and the debating of the correct decision can be inherently questioned.  The debate of politics is completely subjective; therefore in the formation of factions representatives are always paradoxically both correct and incorrect to the public eye.  Thus conflict naturally arises without a lone, powerful, accepted ruler as is present in Hobbes’ government. Thus the legislative representative mindset is questioned – along with it the American government and Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. 

The debate of politics is made to seem unnecessary and counter-productive by Hobbes.  Rather the singular approach to politics is accepted; through the fear of conflict it is now acceptable to separate oneself from power and allow an entrusted figure to make the most important decisions. The American structure is clouded with a myriad of interests and, in contrast, is overly complicated.  Instead, the presentation of Hobbes’ sole sovereign is rather appealing.  One appointee, working in the best interest of the government, is able to act freely to determine what he views as best.  His discretion is trusted and consented to, he aims to protect the commonwealth, he creates equality for all, his rule is unquestioned, and stability and consistency of government is not threatened by personal interest or vendetta.  Conflictingly the American government is thought to be rather corrupt; lobbyists run rampant, groups work to elect officials for personal interest, rightists and leftists debate and fight over every small issue – the problems are most definitely apparent.  The alleviation of these symptoms through Hobbes’ government brings light to these long-standing issues and is a preferable alternative. 

This threshold concept is alien knowledge because of the subtle distinctions between the tyrannical dictatorships and Hobbes’ sovereign are originally too minute to accept one while denying the other.  It is hard to believe that while a ruler holds so much power he is forever incorruptible because of our inherent association of power with corruption and the reinforcement of this ideal by our media.  Furthermore, the conflict of Hobbes’ perspective from our own is what denies our recognition of this model – it is this denial of the concept of separation of power and legitimacy that causes this notion to be troublesome, and alien.  However, Hobbes’ government is more efficient in its ability to rule the commonwealth through its lack of taxing argumentation and conflict. As a result, the understanding of Hobbes government creates a critical interpretation of our current living condition and thus our accepting of it.  In the broader sense, the concept of the Leviathan structure increases acceptance towards hierarchal structure enforced by legitimacy.  In conclusion, the Leviathan structure reinforces trust in power and brings doubt to debate.  It places trust in those around you and their ability to make decisions for others.

This paper is quite a bit different than the others we have been asked write this quarter. When you are reading my paper I would like you thoughts on the following and anything else that you see that I need to change for my final draft. 

After reading my paper do you think that my threshold concept exists?

Do I describe the way I understood Rousseau before and after my threshold concept well? Is it clear to what I am describing?

What do you think about the way I use the blog posts to support of the inert knowledge that exists in the political science course?

Does my intro set up my essay well?

Emmett Egger

Paige Morgan

ENGL 298

30 November 2011

MP3 Rough Draft

A threshold concept is when one is able to wrap their mind around an idea that leads to a new understanding. This new awareness was not attainable before the new found apprehension of the threshold concept. According to Meyer and Land, threshold concepts are represented by what Perkins calls troublesome knowledge. Perkins describes this type of knowledge as information that is tough to process or difficult to understand. A form of troublesome knowledge is inert knowledge, which can be described as a difficulty in making connections between trying topics. During this quarter I struggled to make such connections. My threshold concept was when I was able to make the link between the difficult topics. Once I interlinked the problematic information, I saw how they were related to each other. This threshold concept that I came upon positively transformed my understanding of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s political theory.

It is difficult for one to take troublesome knowledge and reach a threshold concept. When learning we often come across problematic material, which is tough to understand and the first time through it may seem incoherent. Many students being taught within a subject discipline never come to a new awareness and are plagued with the same troublesome knowledge. Meyer and Land describe multiple forms of troublesome knowledge. Inert knowledge is one of the models that they explain. According to Perkins , “Students learn techniques…but fail to connect them to everyday applications…”(Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and Practising with the Disciplines, 6). In this passage we see that Perkins considers inert knowledge to be when students are unable to make connections with the information they acquire. They view each theory separately and do not see the relationship between the theories. Students fail to make this connection in various subject disciplines. The political science class this quarter introduced a variety of theorists. For the quizzes and the exams in this class we were asked to produce definitions of the major ideas found in their theories. Throughout the quarter I related these prevalent concepts and separate definitions and failed to relate them. Due to this inert knowledge, I failed to have an exceptional understanding of what message the political theorist were trying to convey. My apprehension of the material taught in this class can be related to memorizing vocabulary words. Perkins conveys inert knowledge as follows, “…sits in the mind’s attic, unpacked only when specifically called for by a quiz or direct prompt but otherwise gathering dust”(Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and Practising with the Disciplines, 6). When I made the connection between  the ideas, I was able to view the political theory taught in class through a different lens. After reaching this threshold concept I understood the material to a greater degree. I no longer had to memorize the definitions, because I saw the theories as a whole. This new awareness allowed me to infer the multitude of proper definitions required to learn in each of the theorists text.

After my threshold concept, my understanding of Rousseau’s political theory was much different. Before I acquired this new awareness of knowledge his political theory to me was like a puzzle, but I did not know how to put the pieces together. I knew that once I put the pieces together, I would have an understanding of what he considered to be the origin of inequality. I saw his ideas broken up into three pieces. The three piece were the state of nature part one, the state of nature part two and leaving the state of nature. I began to study these three parts, but it was difficult to understand. Each of the pieces seemed foreign to each other and I could not identify the flow of his ideas. In the state of nature part one man lived a simple and solitary life with only two passions which are compassion and self preservation. The second part of his state of nature consists of man starting to group together. Out of those small dwellings the idea of property arises and essentially property made the state of nature evolve into a state of war. Thirdly, he theorizes that man leaves government is man’s way out of the second part of his state of nature and government is created by the strong to benefit the strong and put new fetters on the weak. In short this is how I viewed the three parts of his theory before my threshold concept. After my threshold concept I saw able to put together the three pieces of his theory. Once I put the puzzle together I understood the property was the origin of inequality and government legitimized and protected property. The inert knowledge that was so troublesome to me seemed to have vanished and I could not believe that I did not see the connection before. The information was tough to connect at first, because I was looking for definitions. Due to that I viewed his theory only as type of dictionary, but when I took a step back and tried to discover what he considered the origin of inequality I reached my threshold concept. After comprehending this I was able to see the reason why he described the two parts of the state of nature and why people leave the state of nature and form government. Meyer and Land state, “Integration is troublesome because you need to acquire the bits before you can integrate, but once you you’ve got the bits you need to be persuaded to see them in a different way” (Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and Practising with the Disciplines, 6). This quote is an explanation of the process I went through to reach my threshold concept.

Throughout the quarter the students in the English class have been posting blog posts. In these posts we can see examples of other students struggling with the inert knowledge. I had trouble connecting the bits of information together and seeing the big picture and in the following passage from a blog post we can see a student focusing on the a part of the John Locke’s political theory. The blog states, “He[Locke] believes that by using your own body, and contributing your own labor, that would be justification enough to obligate yourself to that which you worked for” (Hobble, Nicole, “Paraphrasing Locke”. week6blog. November 2, 2011. December 5, 2011). This blog post shows us that the author is working with a Locke’s theory of property, which is a very specific part of his theory. Although, the author of the blog continues to describe this aspect of Locke’s theory in more detail and provides quotes to back up the claims made. There is no connection made to why Locke describes private property in his political theory. By just reading the blog one can interpret that the author had an understanding of the parts of Locke’s political theory, but did not know how they connected with each other. In this blog the author failed to interlink Locke’s thoughts on property and how that is related to what he considers to be a legitimate political authority. Making this connection is not an easy one to make. It takes hours of studying and class before one starts to see how property is related to the big picture of Locke’s theory.

This paper was written with the hope that other students can have insight on troublesome knowledge and threshold concepts in political theory. If students have a better understanding of what a threshold concept is they may be to reach that threshold in a quicker and easier fashion than without. In the intro to political theory class it is very easy for students to focus on defining parts of theorists ideas. It is important that as a student in this class that you take time to try and put the pieces together and solve the puzzle that the theorist pose in there work. Before my threshold concept the task of memorizing definitions was daunting especially as the more theories were introduced as the quarter went on. After my threshold concept the task was no longer daunting, because I viewed each theory as one interlinked chain rather than a multitude of individual links. The threshold concept that I reached this quarter in the political science can be found out of inert knowledge which is troublesome.

I feel much better about the draft than I felt about my outline, because I feel like I have better grasp on the prompt now. My only concern is that for all three examples, I feel like I am phrasing the analysis the same way.MP3

So I know that I don’t use many quotes, and that’s because I really wanted to get my own ideas out so that you guys really have a good chance to critique and help me move forward with this essay. Not to worry, I plan on adding a lot more quotes to back up my assertions once I have a more concrete idea for my threshold concept. I also know that at times it might be repetitive, which I will fix before the final draft is in.

MP3RD

Thresholdconceptrough

I feel bad, but my rough draft isn’t really what I want to write my paper on. I spent a large portion in the law library to finish my paper and while I was writing my conclusion I realized that I wanted to change my paper to make my threshold concept more specific and more complete. I decided to change my topic to how the people are the authors of government and how they are behind government. I still want to hit on the fact that I think that the people should be able to rebel, and how I’m still a tad confused on that whole thing with Hobbes. I think I pretty much understand his reasoning, but I disagree with it. Not only do I want to talk about Hobbes, but also I want to also discuss Locke and how the people are behind his view of government. Locke and Hobbes both believe that people are behind government but they look at it in completely different ways. This is the threshold concept that I realized I wanted to write about as soon as I was finished writing about something else. So I don’t want to tell you to discard everything you just read because then I would feel really terrible, but in a sense that’s kind of what you have to do. If your reading this before you start the essay then skip to the bottom and maybe give me some ideas on how further go into detail about what I actually want to talk about now. Thanks so much. Sorry for the confusion.

ENGL 298 MP 3 Rough Draft

I feel like I have a pretty grasp of my threshold concept. The things
that I worry about are my organization and clarity. I am not sure if I make
sense to my readers so I would like to have some sort of feedback on that. I am
not sure if I have enough detail either. Since my threshold concept is kind of
abstract, it is hard to find too many concrete details. But other than that, I
feel like my paper is ok.

For my third paper, I’m looking to tie my three ideas into one. Paige suggested that examining inequality was the most compelling of the three and I was wondering which one you thought was, and why.

(Also, sorry I botched the attachment, I’m just copy and pasting it at this point)

Andrew Sweeney

Monday, December 5^th, 2011

English 298

Threshold Concepts in Rousseau

I understood Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” to be a roadmap to establishing a political society from a state of nature. And while his theory may be somewhat arbitrary and without base, it becomes a threshold concept by the time you are finished reading. The idea that humans are inherently self-perfecting and that humans will inherently form a political society is something that I never would have thought about until taking a course on political theory and reading Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.” This threshold concept altered the way I understood all political theory.

Now I understand Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” and all political theory to be more of a solution to the newly established problem that we have established a state of war. Hobbes and Locke are only providing alternative emergency plans, and although they both had different views on a state of nature and emerging from the state of nature, they both know that if you allow man to grit it out in a state of war, it would leave a mess.

Another part of this threshold concept from Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” describes the aforementioned process out of a state of nature as the way that inequality is established. This is compelling because it points out that inequality needs to be examined. This inequality comes form what Rousseau says is a “Trick the rich play on the poor,” in Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.” This describes the need to examine inequality thoroughly. Before I understood this concept, I had a rough conceptualization of where inequality came from, but after understanding the process described in Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” I now understand that it is from the same process that pulls humans out of a state of nature.

This threshold concept extracted from Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” not only just changes ones perspective, on political theory and the way in which inequality can be looked at, it also makes for a pretty decent roadmap to the political cynicism of Rousseau. And although he may have been a bit of an eccentric, his ideas have been validated by the fact that he is still read across the world. The political cynic that Rousseau is would look at all of the work by Hobbes and Locke and see it as menial to some extent, but would also bring a perspective that could not be replicated.

A political cynic, who had uncovered the threshold concept in Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” would view any normative political theory as important, but also through a very unique lens. This would point out the flaw of authoritarian nature to Hobbes and the flaw of the whim and caprice of the majority to Locke. And to Plato, the Cynic would argue that the laws that Socrates abided by where nothing but a manifestation of the trick that was played in the past by the strong on the weak.

MP3

I wrote my paper about the threshold concept of normativity. I used Hobbes as a reference that helped me comprehend the idea of normativity and showed that the troublesome knowledge accompanying normativity are alien and tacit knowledge. I feel that once I understood normativity, I was able to understand political theory on a much higher level. However, this paper was a pretty difficult one for me to write. I thought that normativity might be too broad of a subject and therefore my paper would not be sufficient. I am wondering what everyone else thinks. Is it too broad or is it appopriate for a threshold concept? I do feel like normativity is a key component too political theory but I am just wondering if I should pin it down more. If so, how could I do that?

cmc16_mp3

For this paper, I’m having a hard time finding where I could insert information from the blog posts. I know Paige recommended that we use the blogs as evidence, but I’m not sure where I could put them in and still make them fit. And for that matter, I’m not sure which blog post to look at to find information that could be useful for my argument.

Also, please let me know if my first body paragraph, why political legitimacy is a threshold concept, is clear. I’m not really sure if I’m getting my message across. Specifically, how does political legitimacy change the way you see political theory. I don’t know that I have fully answered that question yet, so please look it over and tell me what you think.

Thank you!