Miscellania PLus Group Activity

You'll probably have noticed that the platform was down over the weekend. I had intended to leave the discussion on Cuba and Berlin going over the weekend because I wasn't too happy with the frequency of posting. There's more to be explored on this issue. But as things were not working over the weekend I shall leave it going for another day or two.

Meanwhile I expect that you are all starting on Unit 5 'The Cold War and the Third World'. Our presenters thsi time are Jim and Chris.

We will be assigning tutor groups to play Cabinets today or tomorrow. If you've a preference as to whether our group plays the US, Soviets or Cubans say so now.

Short Essays: The Devil's Infernal Creation?

I have now received and marked enough of your Short Essays to make some general comparative observations which I hope will be of help to you next time.

The first point I'd like to make is well illustrated by this extract of an email from one of you where it was remarked of the Short Essay that...

...(there should be a law against this particular instrument of torture by the way). I have at least a 1500 words already (some of them are actually joined together in sentences!) but I need to seriously edit the whole thing before I can say that I have even come close to breaking the back of the task.

The point being that it is, in fact, more difficult to write short, concise, pointed and penetrating arguments then it is to write longer ones. The parameters of the exercise are such that your argument must be very parsimonious and focussed--which calls for the exercise of stringent editorial judgement.

And what you should take from this point is that you need to treat the Short Essay quite seriously in terms of the time you leave yourself to consider your argument. It may not take a long time to write but it should take you a good deal of thought before you put pen to paper (finger to keyboard).

This brings me to my second point, which is that the whole exercise of discussing the questions as a group is integral to writing a really good essay. The great thing (at least I think it's great) is that your colleagues are helping you refine your ideas, feed you information and develop an appreciation for the range of opinion on the assigned question. Take advantage of the fact that others are helping you with the intellectual effort of engaging with your assigned presentations.

There's an important corollary to this last point and that is that there is an element of quid pro quo embedded in this process. The better the unit discussion, the better your essay is likely to be and, therefore, the better your mark will be. Further, it follows that if you'd like your colleagues to help you with the intellectual heavy-lifting then it would be sensible for you to contribute when they are in the 'hot-spot'. Translation, should you need one: the more you participate in units in which you have not specialized the more likely it is that you will benefit from the participation of others when it comes your turn.

There is a third point which follows so closely to the second that I'm not sure it is actually a separate point at all; no matter, it's worth pointing out wherever it might fit in the schema of this train-of-thuoght post: For each unit discussion I have a list of points which I think ought to be covered to give something like a logical answer to the question posed (note that I do not say 'complete' or 'right' answer because neither is possible). As we go along I tick off points that have been covered and if there are any left at the end I point them out. As it happens, thus far, I've really had nothing major which I felt was missed in the discussions. So, hint (as above): the discussions matter a lot--they help you to shape your ideas and they act as a resource. You've heard the expression 'two heads are better than one'; in this case, we've got 12 heads.

Finally, an afterthuoght, we've been having a discussion in the comments section of this blog and others about matters including the nature and desirability of American hegemony in the context of which I gave a link to this collection of articles in the journal Commentary which even if you've no particular interest in the topic of the Bush Doctrine strikes me, in hindsight, as a very good illustration of the Short Essay genre. All of these are short, punchy and focussed essays. What they're lacking is footnotes to sources which you are expected to use in your Short Essay, but otherwise they are exemplary of the form. Have a look.

Essays

I'd hope that most of you are thinking about your 3,000 word essays now if not actually writing them. My 'door' is open should you have any questions. Contact me by any means you like. Email for privacy but if you started a thread in the 'Housekeeping' Forum then everyone could benefit from it.

Debates in the Comments section

If you're not in the habit of visiting each other's blogs and looking at the comments sections therein you are missing out on on-going debates which may be of interest. None of this is specifically course-related but it is interesting nonetheless and as you may not be aware of it I thuoght I'd bring it to your attention. Over on Pip's Blog we've been having a debate on, among other things, US hegemony, the utility of military force and whether or not democracy can be imposed, which began with his post 'review of module 2.2'. Have a look.

My last comment there had a lot of links embedded in it which don't come through properly in comments so I'll repost it here.

Sean, Pip, we've raised a number of big issues here--each of which we could discuss for ages. Let me try and address them in turn.

ANTI-AMERICANISM
Sean you express the concern of Americans for how they are seen in the world. All that I can say is that from my perspective there are few things more off-putting then the 'why do they hate us?' debate. Yes, the US is widely reviled; equally it is widely envied--usually by those bleating the loudest. Over my summer holiday I read a book called Hating America: A History by Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin which I took out from my local library. It's worth having a look at. Anti-Americanism is nothing new. I don't even think it is particularly more prevalent now than it was in the past. Times have changed: the Soviet Union no longer exists to unite Europe and America in quite the same way as it did before (and even during the Cold War tensions were often very close to the surface--France pulled out of NATO in the aerly '60s!). The protests in London have all streamed past my office so I've had a lot of opportunity to observe them. There was nothing coherently anti--American about them; in fact there was nothing coherent about them at all! Never have I seen a more motley collection in my life. Anti-Israel, Anti-fur, Anti-globalization, Anti-everything. As for Middle Eastern Anti-Americanism I think most of what is worth saying about it was said by Bernard Lewis 15 years ago in his famous Atlantic Monthly article 'The Roots of Muslim Rage' http://www.cis.org.au/policy/summer01-02/PolicySummer01_3.html

DECLINE OF US POWER This is a tricky one. This article is worth reading. http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj05-2/hendrickson.html

For my part I am far from convinced that US power is declining relative to any of its competitors. Europe is beset with deep structural economic problems, not to mention social (look at France right now) far worse than those of the US; militarily it's no competition at all--actually the question of US-Europe military competition strikes me as more than faintly ridiculous. Russia--don't get me started on Russia. It will take a hundred years for Russia to repair the damage done to it by almost a century of Soviet 'communism'. A lot of attention is focused on China as the next rival. That seems the most plausible to me, but it is worth keeping in mind the huge problems which China faces: its economy rests upon a foundation which is decidely shaky in some important respects. The Chinese banking system is riddled with bad loans. Chinese industry is burgeoning at a point in history in which critical resources, notably oil and gas, are becoming scarcer. The distribution of wealth is so skewed in China that the wealthy coast and impoverished interior seem like different countries. The environmental cost to China of industrialization is mounting alarmingly. Even still I am optimistic about China in the long term. The thing is, thuogh, I still don't think they'll be a threat. In order to keep its economy growing China will have to liberalize its political system. In which case, there's not terribly much to argue about--nothing on the order of the Cold War anyway. The Muslim world is in terminal decline with no way out. The UNDP's Arab Human Development Report makes sobering reading. You can download it on-line but it costs 10$. This article in The Economist summarizes the main findings well. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1213392

India is a place which fascinates me. I confess to knowing no more about the place than the average well-read citizen (I spent a month in Goa but I shant claim that lounging on the beach in the sun reading Tom Clancy novels did much for my understanding of the place). Even so the combination of a relatively high-skilled, literate, low-cost, English-speaking and youthful work force combined with a democratic system and rule of law seems to me a winning combination. I don't think that the US can be sanguine about its place in the world. India and China could put up some fierce competition but if any country in the West is able to meet that challenge it will be America.

UTILITY OF MILITARY POWER
I'm not sure I agree that the source of American might is its military power. Clearly, it expends vastly more than any other country on its armed forces and, accordingly, it has an abundance of strategic assets which no one else does. The UK has one working aircraft carrier as I recall--and that's about to be retired (when its replacement will arrive, and what aircraft will fly from it who knows?); France has one too, as does Spain; the US has 12 (or 13?). The question is how much use is all that power? The way I see it: not much--certainly not at the current moment and arguably not much in the future either--thuogh admittedly there's scope for debate here. By my rough count the US has about 90 infantry battalions plus SF and a few other ground forces amounting to, say, 100,000 'boots'. That's an extremely thin line relative both to the American population and the jobs they are given to do. Effectively the world's preeminent military and economic power is almost completely (maybe more than completely, if such a state can exist), with operations in Afghanistan (pop. 29 million) whose international ranking in GDP per capita is 209th of 223, Iraq (pop. 26 million) whose GDP per capita is 160th of 223, and a deployment in South Korea against an attack from the North, a country of 23 million people whose GDP per capita is 175th of 223. (Statistics generated at this incredibly useful site: http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php)

Clearly, then, 'military might' is not all it's cracked up to be. Which is why it's a good thing that US power is not really based on it at all. I think if anything unites anti-Americans from London to Kabul it's not the American army but what they see as the insidious onslaught of American culture.

CAN DEMOCRACY BE IMPOSED?
There's a stock answer to this: yes, of course it can be, as was demonstrated in postwar Germany and Japan. A better question is whether it can be done in the same manner again. On that count, I'm not sure. Germany, for all its faults, shared a common Western cultural inheritance of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, and it had had a democracy which was perverted by the Nazis in the interwar period. Moreover, after two world wars it was presented with a stark choice by its conquerors between mending its ways or being forcibly dismembered and deindustrialized. Basically, a metaphorical gun to the nation's metaphorical head. Japan, one could argue along similar along similar lines while adding that Japanese 'democracy' even today is not really all that democratic having had one-party rule for almost the entirety of its postwar history. These are good questions but I think, Pip, its incumbent on those who would say 'Democracy has to come from within. It cannot be imposed and certainly not with the big "stick" of the military too much in evidence. When a state/nation is ready for it they will surely embrace it.' to explain how this spontaneous embrace could take place somewhere like, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

UPDATE: On rereading this I'd like to strengthen my suggestion that if you are interested in the question of an American empire, if it exists and if it does ho wlong wil it last, then I strongly urge you to read the worldpolicy.org article which I linked to. It's long, but very good.

On Marking

I've been marking your short essays as we go along and have already sent back to several of you your papers. Bearing in mind that almost none of you are taking this course having just completed a first degree, most of you are in full-time employment, and some of you have never studied in the British system (let alone at King's) I thuoght I'd say a word or two about marking.

First, I should say that all, or most, of this is explained in your Student Handbook. I do find, however, that students either don't read it or, more likely, when they look at the marking scheme which is laid out there they have difficulty working what exactly it means in practical terms. So, for what it's worth, this is the what I look for when I am marking a paper in order of importance.

1. Does it engage with the question? This is not the same thing as answering the question which is actually less important. There's almost never a single right answer in social sciences or history; and you probably already know my answer because I've stated it in the discussion forum. Moreover, most questions need to be further broken down and interrogated themselves before you start answering them. This is what I mean by 'engaging' with a question. When I get the sense that you are really grappling with the complexity of something then I look very favourably upon the paper.
2. In the same vein as above, is it internally coherent and critically analytical? By which I mean does it systematically and in detail examine all the logically necessary elements for a convincing critique?
3. Is it empirically sound? This is not simply getting your facts right, althuogh that is a part of it. It means providing enough evidence to support the argument being made. (And exercising some judgement about the quality of some evidence).
4. Does it suggest a fluency with the main debates in the secondary literature?
5. Is it well organized and well-presented?

Now some practical points which may interest you.

1. All your essays are marked twice and potentially three times. First, I mark it. Then I pass it on to a colleague who marks it again, at which point we resolve any disagreement between ourselves. Then it is forwarded to an external examiner who will read a selection of essays to ensure that the process is fair and that procedures are being followed adequately and uniformly as possible.
2. What you get back from me is a provisional mark or 'first mark'; it may change depending on the 2nd and external marker. This is why your essay cover sheet comes back to you with an indication of grade 'fail' >50, 'pass' 50-60, 'merit' 60-70 or 'distinction' 70+ but not a percentage mark.
3. In the British system marks are typically much lower as a percentage than in the US or Canada. In Britain 70 is a very good mark; in North America it's not very good at all. If you are American add, say, 20 per cent to translate. There are formulas for doing this but for me that's a rule of thumb that works more or less.