Emails with Bezio
FYS Essay Part One
Sep 26
Richmond, Elana elana.richmond@richmond.edu
to Kristin
Hi Professor Bezio,
After meeting with the writing consultant this afternoon I have a question pertaining to my Part
One essay on the one-child policy in China. What do you mean in the directions when you ask us
to "Introduce philosophies, paradigms, and necessary theories for understanding the issue"? I
wrote a paragraph explaining the problem of population control in a global context and then
focusing in specifically on China, followed by a paragraph discussing the history of the one-child
policy: Kylie told me that the paragraph explaining population control on a global scale is
unnecessary to my argument and that I should focus on the one-child policy all throughout the
essay. However, I was interpreting the general idea of population control as a "theory" that
needed to be explained, as stated in the instructions for the paper.
What did you have in mind in terms of this part of the directions? Do you agree that it would be
better to focus my paper more and nix that paragraph?
Thank you,
Elana Richmond
Sep 26
Bezio, Kristin
to me
A theory in the sense of the instructions is a theory that is necessary to understanding your
argument. If your argument is specifically on population in China, then global theories aren’t
relevant, just the policies and theories that China uses and/or any arguments based on theories
against the policy (like basic humanitarian or civil rights theories).
A different example, since I can’t speak specifically to your paper: if someone were discussing
communism in Russia, they would want to introduce Marx’s theory of Communism because that
is what the Bolshevik revolution used as the basis of its move toward communism. You would
not need to articulate the theory of capitalism, even though that’s what Marx was arguing
against.
Another one: if the argument is about how popular media is sexist, you would not need to
articulate the history of feminism or the history of television, even though both pertain remotely
to the topic. You would want to talk about a specific theory of media sexism, however (Mulvey’s
theory of television and the male gaze).
In other words, you don’t need to include every possibly relevant theory, just those that are
immediately pertinent to your paper. If you feel that overall population theory is necessary, then
that’s what you feel is necessary. If you think that just the policy of China is necessary to your
argument, then only include that.
Does that make sense?
Cheers.
K. Bezio
Sep 26
Richmond, Elana elana.richmond@richmond.edu
to Kristin
Yes that makes perfect sense. Thank you so much! I will revise accordingly.
FYS Essay Part 2
Oct 8
Richmond, Elana elana.richmond@richmond.edu
to Kristin
Hi Professor Bezio,
If we are deciding to write a paper for Part 2 that disagrees with our ideas from Part One, does
this mean that we are essentially arguing against ourselves? I have decided to write about Brave
New World and the way in which, although Huxley presents this society as "nightmarish," it is
fully effective in terms of controlling the population and establishing a stable society. I guess that
means that, in a sense, one could argue that China's One-Child Policy has not gone far enough in
population control.
Also, I don't believe that Brave New World is directly arguing pro-extreme population control--in
fact, I would say that it is arguing against it on the basis of protection of personal freedom--but I
would like to argue that the society in the novel supports the idea that population control creates
a stable society. After all, population control seems to keep the majority of people in Brave New
World happy. Is it possible to take either side on this issue or should we really try to stick to the
author's intention?
Thank you and sorry for all the questions!
Elana
Oct 8
Bezio, Kristin
to me
Not necessarily. You’re arguing what Huxley thinks – and you can, if you wish, argue that
Huxley is discounting something in his own argument. For instance, you might argue that
Huxley is making the same mistake being made in China when he depicts a stable society. It’s a
more complex argument to make, but you’re at the level where you are capable of handling a
more complex argument (and the more of a challenge one takes on, the better overall paper one
tends to produce at the end of it).
I would also suggest that you find a copy of the book that has “Brave New World Revisited” in it
– in which Huxley writes several essays saying what he actually thinks. I don’t recall whether he
has one on population control off the top of my head (although I have a copy in my office you
can peruse if you can catch me IN my office sometime).
Cheers.
K. Bezio