What I'm Not Looking For (But Is Well Worth Doing Elsewhere)
The discussions of general guidelines and organization should give you a sense of what I am looking for in the response papers. To understand it better, here are some things I am not looking for, but are well worth doing elsewhere. Some of your other teachers of political theory, ethics, legal theory, or philosophy would probably be very pleased to receive response papers that do these things.
Papers that Critique an Argument in the Reading
I'm not looking for papers that present and then critique an argument made in the reading. Students sometimes submit papers that say, for example, "The 19th-century socialists argued that the only genuinely productive form of labor was the production of physical commodities, and therefore that nobody should be rewarded more highly than those who produced such commodities. I shall try to show that this argument is a non sequitur: even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow. For people should be economically rewarded in proportion to what the free market will pay for their efforts, and the free market is frequently willing to reward other forms of labor more highly than the production of physical commodities. So even if socialists are right about what counts as genuinely productive labor, their theory of reward does not follow." This critique of the socialists' argument is well worth making. It is interesting to see how well a free-market theory of reward refutes the socialists' argument for tying reward to physical commodities. But while the ability to critique an argument is an important skill, it is not the skill I am asking students to hone in their response papers.
Or that Uncover and Challenge the Hidden or Implicit Presuppositions of the Theory in the Reading
Nor am I looking for papers that bring to light hidden presuppositions of the theory and then challenge the theory in light of them. Students sometimes submit papers that say, for example, "The 19th-century socialists, in their critique of capitalism, presuppose that economic activities founded on competition and the pursuit of self-interest are morally tainted--they presuppose that only economic activities founded on cooperation are morally acceptable. I shall show how their critique presupposes these things, and then challenge the presupposition. I shall claim, in other words, that economic activities founded on competition and self-interest can, under certain conditions, satisfy all plausible moral criteria. For free economic activities that are founded on competition but do not use force or fraud do two things. They satisfy the Golden Rule, and they lead to better results than economic activities that are unfree, or do use force, or do use fraud. So such competitive free-market economic activities satisfy all plausible moral criteria, and hence suffer no moral taint." That is an argument well worth making. It is interesting to see whether the socialists do tacitly presuppose that competition morally taints any economic activity. And it is interesting to see why that presupposition is true or false. Such an inquiry ventures into the critique of ideology, which is an important enterprise for political philosophy. But uncovering and challenging such hidden presuppositions is not the task set in my response papers. It is undoubtedly important, but it is not the same as arguing for or against a definite thesis stated in the reading.
Papers that Interpret the Theory or Ideas in the Reading
Nor again am I looking for papers that tell me the meaning of a theory or doctrine or concept you find in the reading. Students sometimes submit papers that say, for example, "I shall argue that when the 19th-century socialists claim that all genuinely productive labor is the production of physical commodities, they mean that it is the production of physical commodities that, of all forms of labor, is the one that produces what is most truly and genuinely needed." Other students submit papers that say, for example, "I shall argue that by "productive labor," the socialists mean "the type of labor that most directly achieves the main goal of economic activity." Those two theses are well worth arguing, especially against a rival interpretation. But they are not the kind of theses I want to see argued in response papers submitted for my courses.
Or Papers that Reconstruct the Theory in the Reading
Nor yet am I looking for papers that tell me what must be the presuppositions that justify and unify in one coherent theory some explicit theses stated in the reading, though the reading doesn't explicitly say that these presuppositions are fundamental premises. Neither am I looking for papers that boil the theory presented in the reading down to such presuppositions. Students sometimes submit papers that say, for example, "I shall argue that all the 19th-century socialists' criticisms of capitalism, as presented in Mill's Chapters on Socialism, all derive from two theses, though the socialists as presented by Mill don't say that they do: that capitalism is unwarrantedly founded on the pursuit of self-interest and competition, and is also unwarrantedly founded on private property." Such a reconstruction is well worth doing. It is interesting to see whether all the socialists' criticisms of capitalism really do flow from those two theses, and not others. But that is not the assignment I'm setting in response papers for my courses.
Or that Summarize the Theory in the Reading
Neither am I looking for papers that tell me the main conclusions and the main premises of the theory presented in the reading. Students sometimes submit papers that say, for example, "The 19th-century socialists as presented by Mill in Chapters on Socialism offered elaborate criticisms of the capitalism of their day. I shall argue that in Mill's presentation, they make six main criticisms: the capitalism of their day: needlessly breeds great poverty, does not sufficiently connect that poverty to desert, needlessly breeds great crime and vice, founds the economic system on competition and selfish individualism, wrongly rewards unproductive labor more than productive labor, and needlessly breeds economic chaos." Summarizing is an important skill, but a claim like this isn't worth arguing in a response paper. Anyone who reads the Chapters can see immediately whether your thesis is right. So save such summaries for subordinate parts of papers: don't make them your paper's main claim.
Or Papers that Compare and Contrast the Theories Found in Several Readings
Finally, I'm not looking for papers that specify the similarities and differences among the theories presented in several different readings. For example, students sometimes submit papers that say, "The 19th century socialists had a theory of productive labor according to which the only truly productive labor is the creation of physical commodities. Neo-classical economics has a theory of productive labor according to which labor is productive if it creates something that satisfies somebody's preferences. In this paper, I will compare and contrast the two theories and the arguments they use to justify those claims, specifying where they agree and where they disagree." Being able to accurately and completely specify all the important points of similarity and difference between two like theories is an important skill, which my courses devote time to honing. But it's not a skill that the response papers aim to improve.