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

I think the hardest concept I’ve encountered is writing directly in all my writing pieces. I think I have gotten more used to it with all the practice I have had over the quarter, but I still have to remind myself to be blunt, and just tell it like it is. In high school I worked really hard on trying to sound intelligent and finding the most creative way possible to describe things in essays. But I have found that’s really not what professors are looking for here, and that has definitely been an adjustment. Sign posting really helps to be direct and blunt in my writing, but I’ve had almost just as hard of a time with the sign posting technique. I always felt like using sign posts seemed really elementary and not creative, but at the end of the day it is effective. The reader will not be confused when they go through your paper about what your topic is and what you are going to cover.

On the other hand, the easiest concept for me to grasp so far is the idea of tacit consent. While I had never had this concept explained to me so explicitly like I did in my classes this year, it was definitely a concept I had encountered throughout my years of school and it was nice to finally put a name to something I had experienced all along. In high school, we covered this idea when talking about Nazi Germany and the segregated south. I think because this concept doesn’t just apply to political theory, but can be broadened to other aspects of history and government, it was easier for me to understand.

yo the most difficult part of political theory in this class is most definitely trying to write in the correct format.  In the past, I was accustomed to writing in my own style, free from any definitive structure.  This writing class was hard for me to communicate my ideas in a method that wasn’t my own.  Most of the political theory that I read, I had relatively no problem with, it was all really easy to understand.  But, the structure of how I was supposed to mold that information was the problem, it was a problem to communicate in a not so much convoluted and wordy way.  It’s really hard for my readers to understand what I’m saying, because I use terminology and concepts that are far too complex to understand that can be explained in a couple sentences.  the first thesis paper i had to write was a problem for me, because when I conveyed my thoughts on paper with words like “statuses” and “power relations,” those were terms that needed to be defined on their own.  Those words required more explanation than if I were to use wording in the question and prompt to convey the meaning, because the reader or grader to wrote the prompt can’t argue that they don’t know what I mean, because I’m using the words in their own words.  This is a problem for me because I’m used to combining and applying all concepts i read and understand, so when I do so, I mix up terminology where it may or may not make sense.

on the other hand, the easiest part of the class was reading, and understanding the material.  There are a few places where there was a little unclear understanding, but overall these concepts aren’t that complex, and I understood that.  The content of writing and quoting in essays of the thesis paper for this english class as well as the political science class essay were heavily grounded in quotes that helped convey and generate a well warranted answer.  This is because I read a lot, take notes, and am genuinely interested in the material presented, allowing me to generate better responses when writing.  and dat’s all folks.

I would say that the past quarter has been eye opening for me. I didn’t really have that many expectations other than it was definitely a transition from high school. Over the quarter I learned about the value of paying attention in class and really trying to engage myself in the courses. It was hard for me mostly with the readings, because they would tend to be long, drawn out, and kind of boring in all honesty. I think I would say that the most difficult aspect of political theory was each philosophers theory and how they viewed the natural law and human nature. I thought it was interesting learning about the different types of governments that could exist and how human beings could interact in those states. When I would write about political theory, I learned that being direct was important because political theory is what could be, making it even more difficult to form a valuable opinion when writing about each author and the different views of political science and theory. Overall, this quarter was a good start, and I look forward to taking more courses on Political Science to see what different subjects it has to offer to the people.

The one aspect that I found very difficult to understand is
tacit consent. We first encounter the concept of tacit consent while reading
Plato. Unlike explicit consent, tacit consent incorporates a great area. A
person can give tacit consent by residing in the same area over a certain period
of time. Tacit consent is also given by following and obeying by traditions and
cultures of that a particular place. Tacit consent is very hard to identify due
to its complexity. Does not rebelling or speaking up equates to giving consent?
In lecture, Professor Di Stephano gave an example regarding WWII. Did the
German citizens, who did not agree with the killings of Jews, give consent to
the Nazi by not revolting? Tacit Consent is inferred and is not clear under
most cases. I think this concept is hard for me to understand because it is abstract.
I tend to have trouble with abstract concept.

The one aspect I found easy to understand is property right.
The concept of property right was identified in Locke’s Second Treatise. To Locke,
the concept of property right is pre-society. He used the labor theory of value
to justify unequal property right. This is an easier concept to understand
because I can see it and identify it in real life. A man owns his body and
therefore the labor he does with his body belongs to him. This concept is
concrete and makes perfect sense to me. If a person is to work more, he is then
to achieve more. The idea of property is essential to our society. Through
property, a person can accumulate wealth and improve his life. The idea of
property is far morning interesting and I have to say it is therefore, easier
to understand.

So far this quarter the easiest aspect of political theory for me has been Hobbes points on sovereign power.  His argument is logistic.  Easy to follow, comprehend, and relate to his earlier points on his states of nature. Unlike Locke who at times can be extremely vague and contradictory.  His argument for legitimacy based on the consent of a commonwealth is easy to get and doesn’t require too much critical thinking.  The most difficult part about political theory for me though has been Rousseau.  It’s hard for me even to hone in on an a specific aspect that I find difficult because his theory is so much different than Locke or Hobbes.  I’m sure I’ll get a handle on him eventually, but at least for these couple of weeks, it’s been tough for me to understand what he has to say about political legitimacy.  Our TA Joel says that French writers tend to be a challenge.  The fact that he almost seems sarcastic in his writing doesn’t help me out either.

In terms of the writing what’s been hard for me is writing with such clarity.  I’ve never expressed my argument with phrases like “In this paper I argue that”.  I just think my writing has to mature.  I instinctually go to a 5-paragraph high school style paper, and if my writings going to improve I have to break that habit.  What’s been easy about college writing is pulling quotes from the text.  IN my papers I feel like my quotes flow coherently and help support my argument.  I might need a little help with developing my own commentary after I put a quote in however.

The hardest aspect for me was definitely dealing with Hobbes in general. The way I’ve always processed dense readings is to thoroughly read them once, think on it for a bit, skim the reading a second time, and think about it some more. After I’ve done all of that I read it again thoroughly and I’m able to perfectly comprehend and apply whatever the reading is talking about on this third read-through. Throughout high school whenever I did this whole process with history and english assignments I aced every one of them. It made it abundantly clear to my teachers the difference between a BS’d assignment and a fully completed one from me. The problem with this technique is that it’s really painful if I don’t enjoy the reading, and it’s also really time consuming, especially if the reading is long. As you can probably guess, I hated Hobbes and Leviathan is long enough that going through my whole usual process is completely impractical and time consuming. I was stuck struggling to stay awake through Hobbes’ old fashioned language and inability to explain anything quickly. I only managed to read about a third of it thoroughly and skimmed through the rest. That’s not at all how I’m used to reading. Shakespeare is the only other author who writes in antiquated English that I’ve read extensively, and the way I process plays is completely different from how I process books. Reading Hobbes was a miserable experience for me and I hope I don’t have to do anything like it any time soon. 

The aspect of college writing/ political theory that I found to be the easiest was the concept of “legitimate authority”. Although there are many different views and ideas on what makes authority legitimate, I am always able to grasp what each theorist is explaining regarding political legitimacy. I think that it is the easiest part of this strain of philosophy because it is generally very straight forward. The theorist will present “this is legitimate authority….and this is why” and I find the straightforwardness to be really helpful when going through the readings. The most difficult concept that I have yet to grasp is signposting. It was something that I was told never to do in high school, and it’s hard to make a 180 degree turn and signpost everything that I write. However, as the papers continue, I have found that I am becoming more adept at signposting. We’ll see how this last paper goes!

During this quarter we have covered a lot of material. The political theory of Rousseau has been the most challenging for me to get a grasp of. It has been the most difficult for me, because he does not lay out his theory as systematically as Locke and Hobbes. In his work he jumped around a fair amount in his work. This forced me to really engage the text. I had to really think about the message he was trying to convey and put it together in my mind like a puzzle. After I put together this puzzle, his theory became much clearer to me. The political theory of Thomas Hobbes was the easiest for me to grasp. It was the easiest, because his theory is laid out very neatly and organized. His work was very concise and to the point, which enabled me to understand his theory in a faster fashion than Rousseau’s. Writing papers this quarter has also posed as a challenge for me. It was challenging for me because, I was asked to compare and contrast political theorists and make a case for why one of their theories was more compelling without saying one was wrong or right. This was difficult for me to grasp, because in order to do it well I had to walk a very thin line. In my first paper I flopped back and forth with comparing and contrasting without making a case for which one had the more compelling theory and writing that one was wrong and the other was right. These are a few of the aspects this quarter that after reflecting on them, I understood better.